The Official 2017 Bahrain Grand Prix Thread **Spoilers**
Discussion
jsf said:
It's actually very easy to engineer a tyre pressure control system into a wheel, the FIA don't allow it though. All they have is what you or I can use.
I did think there'd be a way to do it, can think of a way myself but not being in the know I though it might be a bit pie in the sky. I'm now a bit confused by Toto's comment though, the way he was talking suggested they'd lost the ability to reduce Bottas' tyre pressure at the start of the race...?
bobbo89 said:
jsf said:
It's actually very easy to engineer a tyre pressure control system into a wheel, the FIA don't allow it though. All they have is what you or I can use.
I did think there'd be a way to do it, can think of a way myself but not being in the know I though it might be a bit pie in the sky. I'm now a bit confused by Toto's comment though, the way he was talking suggested they'd lost the ability to reduce Bottas' tyre pressure at the start of the race...?
Dr Z said:
jm doc said:
The rule is unambiguous (quoted in my previous post). Since when does "within their grid positions" mean "a bit out"?
I can understand differences of opinion from stewards in matters such as contact in corners, but when you try and claim a rule doesn't mean what's written then you really have got a problem.
Fact: Last week Vettel clearly and unequivocally broke a rule and gained an advantage. (That's why he put the car there). The stewards let him off.
Fact: This week Hamilton clearly and unequivocally broke a rule and did not gain an advantage. The stewards penalised him five seconds.
Still waiting for an explanation, or even a discussion, or even a mention? by any of the "experts in the media" or indeed anyone else.
You are making several assumptions within the two statements you claim are the facts. Facts are unambiguous, your statements are not. The first "fact":I can understand differences of opinion from stewards in matters such as contact in corners, but when you try and claim a rule doesn't mean what's written then you really have got a problem.
Fact: Last week Vettel clearly and unequivocally broke a rule and gained an advantage. (That's why he put the car there). The stewards let him off.
Fact: This week Hamilton clearly and unequivocally broke a rule and did not gain an advantage. The stewards penalised him five seconds.
Still waiting for an explanation, or even a discussion, or even a mention? by any of the "experts in the media" or indeed anyone else.
Fact: Last week Vettel clearly and unequivocally broke a rule and gained an advantage. (That's why he put the car there).
The bolded words are assumptions, which have not been demonstrated to be true, and indeed the stewards found them to be not true because the rule is ambiguous. The rule says "within the grid positions" which is ambiguous wording. A more specific wording that would have allowed the stewards to apply a penalty would be something like "within the white lines of their respective grid positions..." .
ETA: If you can show where in the regulations a "grid position" is defined as the white lines approximating a box, then he probably infringed up on it. Even then, if two wheels are out and two in, you get in to the same debate as how you define track limits...is track limits defined as all wheels in or is two wheels out is defined as being outside of track limits?
It is also arguable that Vettel gained an advantage by his actions. How did he gain? He was barely able to keep his position in the run to T1, while Kimi behind him lost one position to Ricciardo (who started alongside). It is arguable that Vettel had a significantly better start than Kimi, given the variability produced by the start rules. Neither of these establish sufficient grounds to warrant a penalty.
Second "fact":
Fact: This week Hamilton clearly and unequivocally broke a rule and did not gain an advantage. The stewards penalised him five seconds.
The stewards establish the facts of this matter in their report (thankfully their 'facts' are a lot more concrete than yours...), and they do not mention gaining or losing an advantage as grounds for the penalty. It can be established that Hamilton did not gain an advantage, but the point is moot given he wasn't penalised for that.
So, I fail to see the inconsistency you are claiming here.
A final ETA: I note that there's no stewards report on Vettel in China, I assumed there'd be one...so the stewards didn't think there was an investigation to be made there?
Edited by Dr Z on Monday 17th April 16:23
Are you serious?
Wow...
Quickmoose said:
jm doc said:
RGambo said:
the intension was to hold up the Redbull, not doubt, but he went in ahead, and exited behind, so no advantage gained.
This is another fact Dr Z. It doesn't make any difference. He did not gain an advantage
(And unless you can show me the evidence for your statement it also cannot be accepted as fact) Doh....
glazbagun said:
This debate is actually more tedious than the one over Lewis/Nico colliding in Spain.
Particularly as it's debating something that has already happened, been ruled on and is over and in the past.Move on!
Good race, promising championship battle and a resurgent scuderia. Good times.
jm doc said:
Quickmoose said:
jm doc said:
RGambo said:
the intension was to hold up the Redbull, not doubt, but he went in ahead, and exited behind, so no advantage gained.
This is another fact Dr Z. It doesn't make any difference. He did not gain an advantage
(And unless you can show me the evidence for your statement it also cannot be accepted as fact) Doh....
- Had he not slowed down Ric, then Ric would DEFINATELY have come out ahead in the pits as Ham would have arrived earlier at his box and would have needed to wait longer for Bot to clear.
- Holding up Ric minimised the delay and meant Ham MIGHT have come out still ahead of Ric.
Just because it didn't work doesn't mean he didn't try to gain an advantage. Plus coming to a dead slow then speeding up and slowing on the track or pit lane is not particularly safe.
I was more worried that once again the safety car was going to mess up the Ferrari race and Ham and Bot got a 'free' pit stop. Luckily Vettel was close enough to come out ahead as without the SC he was making massive gains. Shame Ves went out, just to see what he could have done as the race went on. Nice seeing him put the pressure on Ham for a few laps.
Gary C said:
Not seen the replay yet only had the tv screen at turn 1 so not always easy to keep up.
Why did Hamilton go for the softs on his last stint ? Where the supers too marginal to last 16 laps?
He didn't. The team did. He asked why they had opted for them so it seems he expected the SS tyres. Why did Hamilton go for the softs on his last stint ? Where the supers too marginal to last 16 laps?
Derek Smith said:
Gary C said:
Not seen the replay yet only had the tv screen at turn 1 so not always easy to keep up.
Why did Hamilton go for the softs on his last stint ? Where the supers too marginal to last 16 laps?
He didn't. The team did. He asked why they had opted for them so it seems he expected the SS tyres. Why did Hamilton go for the softs on his last stint ? Where the supers too marginal to last 16 laps?
jm doc said:
It doesn't make any difference. He did not gain an advantage
(And unless you can show me the evidence for your statement it also cannot be accepted as fact) Doh....
But you're claiming your statements as 'fact' when all available evidence indicates the opposite?
It seems undeniable that Ricciardo would have left the pits even further ahead of Hamilton than he was, had he not been impeded. Your angst over the matter won't change that nor will it alter the fact that Hamilton came second to Vettel.
London424 said:
ZX10R NIN said:
Am I right in thinking Seb has already used up a Turbo & 1 NGUH already?
I believe so...I think this will definitely come into play during the year. Engine Component Usage Chart:
http://formula1insider78.blogspot.co.uk/p/blog-pag...
& it's not just Ferrari burning up components, omninously Haas are too.
Hopefully Ferrari have also improved their ability to develop during the season ...otherwise it's only going to be the first half of this season that's going to be interesting
Derek Smith said:
He didn't. The team did. He asked why they had opted for them so it seems he expected the SS tyres.
There always seems to be a conspiracy against Mercedes anytime it involves Hamilton.Surely telling Bottas to move over for Hamilton must be enough evidence that they are not doing anything to destroy Hamilton's title challenge.
The super soft tyres were not the tyres to be on. Bottas was on these and he clearly was not making any headway in front of Hamilton.
There is no way Hamilton would have been able to drive flat out for the rest of the GP if he had been on SS.
ELUSIVEJIM said:
Derek Smith said:
He didn't. The team did. He asked why they had opted for them so it seems he expected the SS tyres.
There always seems to be a conspiracy against Mercedes anytime it involves Hamilton.Surely telling Bottas to move over for Hamilton must be enough evidence that they are not doing anything to destroy Hamilton's title challenge.
The super soft tyres were not the tyres to be on. Bottas was on these and he clearly was not making any headway in front of Hamilton.
There is no way Hamilton would have been able to drive flat out for the rest of the GP if he had been on SS.
1) Bottas was struggling to get away from Vettel and the chasing pack in the 1st stint. The gaps were so close to the extent that Verstappen would have had a good chance of undercutting Hamilton. Why weren't Merc proactive in pitting Bottas out of the way? Were Merc still undecided on a 2-stop or a 1-stop, so were dithering in no-mans land?
2) Why was Bottas put on a super soft tyre for his 2nd stint, given he struggled so much with that tyre in the 1st stint (and indeed he struggled to control that tyre in the friday eve long runs too--that often gives a better indication on race pace)? A longer middle stint on the Soft might have been a better option, so he could come back at the leading pack later on in the race with lower fuel loads on the super soft. Particularly as immediately after Ferrari pitted, it was clear that Merc would have lost the lead if they'd have chosen to react to Ferrari with Bottas or Hamilton.
3) Putting Bottas on the super soft for the middle stint compounded the problem they had with both drivers on different strategy, but the one on the better tyre stuck behind the compromised one. The strategy people might say, that they decided to split the strat, but really? If you still want to keep the lead car strat going, why put him on the tyre that he couldn't make it work? Put him on the Soft, see how he goes with that. Put Hamilton on SS to mirror Ferrari. Switch the pawns around so Hamilton is pressuring Vettel.
The team order came too late as Vettel had stretched his lead leaving Hamilton too much to do in his 2nd stint to cut that gap.
4) Soft for Hamilton in the final stint seemed to be the right choice, but I believe it was dictated by the fact that Hamilton had to make up a lot of time to Vettel and still need to have tyre left to fight him, if he were to pass on track. However, a super soft would have been a better option if Hamilton had managed to pressure Vettel in the 2nd stint, so he could have made up the time in less laps, and had a real go at passing Vettel (tyre advantage+bigger delta of supersoft vs softs).
Merc generally do a debrief with their strategy guy (James Vowles), explaining the thinking behind some of their calls later in the week. Hopefully it provides some answers.
The stranger thing for me is Bottas struggling to get a handle on these tyres. I've followed his progress at Williams with the previous gen Pirellis, it was never a problem. There were more occasions when Massa struggled to control the previous Pirellis, and really suffered because of it, than Bottas. Every other driver on the grid is able to put in a good long run on these tyres, no problem.
I don't know if he has yet to find a sweet spot with the car that can give him that feeling for the tyres or not, but it's weird. I'm not sure if his decent 1-lap pace despite this, is good or bad. Probably good in that, the potential to unlock better one-lap pace is there if he can control the beast on heavy fuel loads.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff