The Official Japanese GP 2019 **Spoilers**

The Official Japanese GP 2019 **Spoilers**

Author
Discussion

paua

1,391 posts

91 months

Monday 14th October
quotequote all
Byker28i said:
The Moose said:
And McLaren seemingly making good progress!
I have to admit I'd like to see McLaren back up thee
I'm not sure you really mean what you've written, there. biggrin

TheDeuce

3,714 posts

14 months

Monday 14th October
quotequote all
paua said:
Byker28i said:
The Moose said:
And McLaren seemingly making good progress!
I have to admit I'd like to see McLaren back up thee
I'm not sure you really mean what you've written, there. biggrin
biggrin

freddytin

1,141 posts

175 months

Monday 14th October
quotequote all
Blue62 said:
E34-3.2 said:
The one overtake I am still puzzled with is Albon stockcar racing move. The guy ruined one of McLaren's cars by doing one of the worst manoeuvre of the year and still get away with it. Japan, Honda car? Surely not a remake of Ferrari and Monza biased stewards decisions...
Agreed, troubling that it wasn't't picked up on at all. I sense that the stewards have been asked to take a more lenient view lately and my rather one eyed take is that Ferrari are getting the benefit more than most.
I was surprised too, until the after race interviews in the pen, Norris and Albon had a joke about the whole situation.
They both seem reasonable guys with cheery dispositions, unlike many others.
This explains a little more. https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/146576/forced-of...

TheDeuce

3,714 posts

14 months

Monday 14th October
quotequote all
swisstoni said:
Hamilton was very lucky. If any part of him was hit by that end plate it would have been very bad.

Something not quite right about stewarding at the moment.

I wonder if Charlie’s sad departure has allowed things to be loosened up too much.
The stewards are facing the ultimate conundrum. Act in favour of the sport (and perhaps liberty..) or do their job to enforce the rules as best as possible.

The idea of 'let them race' is great but it's too fuzzy. How do you decide if a minor transgression should be let go because the racing is more important? How do you make such decisions consistent with one another?

I am in no way suggesting I have any ideas on how to fix this problem...

vaud

33,974 posts

103 months

Monday 14th October
quotequote all
TheDeuce said:
swisstoni said:
Hamilton was very lucky. If any part of him was hit by that end plate it would have been very bad.

Something not quite right about stewarding at the moment.

I wonder if Charlie’s sad departure has allowed things to be loosened up too much.
The stewards are facing the ultimate conundrum. Act in favour of the sport (and perhaps liberty..) or do their job to enforce the rules as best as possible.

The idea of 'let them race' is great but it's too fuzzy. How do you decide if a minor transgression should be let go because the racing is more important? How do you make such decisions consistent with one another?

I am in no way suggesting I have any ideas on how to fix this problem...
IIRC Charlie had been pushing for some years towards "let them race" - hence the lenience in the first 2 laps, etc. I'm pretty comfortable with the new balance.

It's always tough to compare to 80's and 90's rules as we now have so many more camera angles, data, etc.

jsf

14,551 posts

184 months

Monday 14th October
quotequote all
vaud said:
IIRC Charlie had been pushing for some years towards "let them race" - hence the lenience in the first 2 laps, etc. I'm pretty comfortable with the new balance.

It's always tough to compare to 80's and 90's rules as we now have so many more camera angles, data, etc.
The previous generation drivers didn't need rules about driving standards because if you overstepped the mark you were either dead or injured, or if causing the issues had a rather stiff talking to by the other drivers.


angrymoby

1,027 posts

126 months

Monday 14th October
quotequote all
Leclerc's post race penalty seems very contrived, fair enough his/ Ferrari's 10s penalty for driving around with bits flying off & him/ Ferrari ignoring race control ...but an extra 5s for the incident with Max? first corner, full tanks & understeer?

seems like they've manufactured that, to drop him an actual place/ points & make it an actual punishment

can't say i've been impressed with Masi so far ...& echo some of the above, that they're missing Charlie

kambites

57,555 posts

169 months

Monday 14th October
quotequote all
Hungrymc said:
We did hear Leclerc refusing to come in on the radio. And after several attempts to convince him the team agreed (which I think is where they have made themselves guilty, as they had told the officials they were bringing him in).
Ah I missed that. When told to come in I heard him say "OK but the car feels pretty good" or words to that effect but I didn't realise he actually refused a direct order to come in. Even if he did, it's the teams responsibility to make ti clear to him that he's being called in for safety reasons rather than to improve his own race chances.

NoddyonNitrous

1,249 posts

180 months

Monday 14th October
quotequote all
TheInternet said:
Deesee said:
There's something a bit Thunderbirds about that.
Interesting that it seems to generate lift, not downforce.

Jasandjules

63,366 posts

177 months

Monday 14th October
quotequote all
Well I am a touch confused. I thought we had a more lenient stewarding and let them race philosophy, and of course this has always been more relaxed at the start and first few corners. Yet we have CLC being punished for a move that Max could have been guilty of (and can anyone remind me what happened in Austria and CLC's reaction about the new rules)...

And Albon's move seemed a lot worse me, a do or die effort when there wasn't a need. But it was funny to see him and Lando in the pen afterwards...

It seems clear to me that Mercedes let Bottas win - I did wonder if it was just because he was in the lead on lap 1..... Or just to give him another win.. But Lewis was plainly not impressed and frankly I can't see it is too fair to do that when Lewis seemed able to manage his tyres better, had Botta got new boots on and stormed up behind Lewis and got past, then fair enough. But calling Lewis in for a second stop meant he was never going to get past Vettel surely?!?

Think Lewis has the right to be pretty peeved at CLC too given the near miss.

And as usual some superb scrapping through the field....


HustleRussell

17,125 posts

108 months

Monday 14th October
quotequote all
My main problem with ‘let them race’ is that when modern F1 cars make any kind of contact, nine times out of ten there is damage to delicate and vulnerable bodywork components which then ruins that driver’s entire race. This could easily be addressed by the regs changes but it doesn’t look like it will.

TobyTR

724 posts

94 months

Monday 14th October
quotequote all
Two things stood out for me:

1. on lap 38, Lewis said over team radio "tell me what I need to do to win this race"

2. during Di Resta's post race interview, Paul - "you now have a fight on your hands with Valtieri"
Lewis: "we've been fighting all year on track anyway."........


TheDeuce

3,714 posts

14 months

Monday 14th October
quotequote all
TobyTR said:
Two things stood out for me:

1. on lap 38, Lewis said over team radio "tell me what I need to do to win this race"

2. during Di Resta's post race interview, Paul - "you now have a fight on your hands with Valtieri"
Lewis: "we've been fighting all year on track anyway."........
Like all seasoned drivers, he loves to shoot down the pundits and presenters desperate reach for a drama.

"You now have a fight on your hands"??? No... I came third in a race that a few hours ago you said was Ferrari's to lose. My team mate beat them.

It's a bit tiresome when every mildly unexpected race result gets translated as an upcoming change in the status quo. All such things are rightfully celebrated on the day, but mean nothing overall unless sustained.

oyster

9,426 posts

196 months

Monday 14th October
quotequote all
FourWheelDrift said:
oyster said:
Doink said:
No ones ever won from the second row here they said, looks like Mercedes didn't get that memo
That can’t be right.

Both 1989 and 1990 Senna and Prost occupied the front row, but neither of them won either race (famously).
That's because Nannini was on row 3 in 1989 as was Piquet when he won in 1990.
Haha
I’ll get my coat.

Daston

5,604 posts

151 months

Tuesday 15th October
quotequote all
I seriously think they should ban carbon wings. You would not have shards of carbon spreading down the track and nor would have endplates disintegrating, plus a bit of contact has less chance to cause major damage.

Another benifit is of course cost to the teams.


vaud

33,974 posts

103 months

Tuesday 15th October
quotequote all
Daston said:
I seriously think they should ban carbon wings. You would not have shards of carbon spreading down the track and nor would have endplates disintegrating, plus a bit of contact has less chance to cause major damage.

Another benifit is of course cost to the teams.
What would you replace it with?

The advantage of CF is it is very light and tends to shatter. Metal would be heavier and stay together. A mass with significantly more energy to dissipate in hitting another car or driver (see Rubens and the spring)?

Beware of unintended consequences.

TheDeuce

3,714 posts

14 months

Tuesday 15th October
quotequote all
vaud said:
Daston said:
I seriously think they should ban carbon wings. You would not have shards of carbon spreading down the track and nor would have endplates disintegrating, plus a bit of contact has less chance to cause major damage.

Another benifit is of course cost to the teams.
What would you replace it with?

The advantage of CF is it is very light and tends to shatter. Metal would be heavier and stay together. A mass with significantly more energy to dissipate in hitting another car or driver (see Rubens and the spring)?

Beware of unintended consequences.
Exactly this. Any other material would either be too weak, too heavy or an awful compromise and of both. As for cost, no team wants to save costs by adding several kg's more weight at the very front of the car.

thegreenhell

6,289 posts

167 months

Tuesday 15th October
quotequote all
TheDeuce said:
vaud said:
Daston said:
I seriously think they should ban carbon wings. You would not have shards of carbon spreading down the track and nor would have endplates disintegrating, plus a bit of contact has less chance to cause major damage.

Another benifit is of course cost to the teams.
What would you replace it with?

The advantage of CF is it is very light and tends to shatter. Metal would be heavier and stay together. A mass with significantly more energy to dissipate in hitting another car or driver (see Rubens and the spring)?

Beware of unintended consequences.
Exactly this. Any other material would either be too weak, too heavy or an awful compromise and of both. As for cost, no team wants to save costs by adding several kg's more weight at the very front of the car.
Are you sure? Before CF came along, all wings were made from aluminium. There are still plenty of older racing cars going around with aluminium wings, not to mention thousands of aircraft with the same. I don't think the weight or strength arguments hold up. An aluminium wing would not have exploded and taken Hamilton's mirror off as happened on Sunday. Also, it wouldn't leave loads of sharp debris all over the circuit to cause punctures for other cars.

The only reason the teams like CF wings is so they can continue to spunk obscene amounts of cash on developing wky little details that add 0.0005% aero gain, but to no benefit to the sport, the viewer, or the rest of mankind.

vaud

33,974 posts

103 months

Tuesday 15th October
quotequote all
thegreenhell said:
Are you sure? Before CF came along, all wings were made from aluminium. There are still plenty of older racing cars going around with aluminium wings, not to mention thousands of aircraft with the same. I don't think the weight or strength arguments hold up. An aluminium wing would not have exploded and taken Hamilton's mirror off as happened on Sunday. Also, it wouldn't leave loads of sharp debris all over the circuit to cause punctures for other cars.

The only reason the teams like CF wings is so they can continue to spunk obscene amounts of cash on developing wky little details that add 0.0005% aero gain, but to no benefit to the sport, the viewer, or the rest of mankind.
"Carbon fibre has a density of about 1800 kg/m^3, where as aluminium is roughly 2700 kg/m^3; so carbon fibre is also around 1.5 times lighter - per unit volume. Carbon fibre has a specific tensile strength of 11.719 times that of aluminium"

More on CF vs other materials:
https://www.f1technical.net/articles/3

It's weight and rigidity, it's loved not for cost but for it's rigidity vs mass, right down to the tub.

CustardOnChips

304 posts

10 months

Tuesday 15th October
quotequote all
thegreenhell said:
Are you sure? Before CF came along, all wings were made from aluminium. There are still plenty of older racing cars going around with aluminium wings, not to mention thousands of aircraft with the same. I don't think the weight or strength arguments hold up. An aluminium wing would not have exploded and taken Hamilton's mirror off as happened on Sunday. Also, it wouldn't leave loads of sharp debris all over the circuit to cause punctures for other cars.

The only reason the teams like CF wings is so they can continue to spunk obscene amounts of cash on developing wky little details that add 0.0005% aero gain, but to no benefit to the sport, the viewer, or the rest of mankind.
You ok hun?