|
||||||||
Official Formula 1 Thread (Part 7) |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1276 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,951
|
Quote:
Yes what I have been saying all along. Or he could have left him room to come back on track and may be stayed ahead for half a lap more.
One point - all this has meant McLaren could very easily slip into 4th place in the constructors. I think Button's somewhat dismal performance has gone under the radar, despite the fact he scored points, but 8th isn't good enough. If McLaren don't iron out the mistakes, they'll be too far behind. For McLaren, it's reminding me more and more of 2005. They had a quick car but unreliability meant Raikkonen was denied what would have been a championship win. McLaren have failed to hammer home their early season advantage, and it's coming home to roost. |
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#1277 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,659
|
I'd say it was a racing incident on the grounds that Lewis is over defending when he has no ability to stay ahead. It was daft of him and he could have had a better result for him and the team but he is not prone to showing the good judgement required for that.
|
|
|
|
|
#1278 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,659
|
Quote:
I think Button's somewhat dismal performance has gone under the radar, despite the fact he scored points, but 8th isn't good enough.
|
|
|
|
|
#1279 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,659
|
Lewis said this >> "I don't think we did a bad job in terms of strategy, but I think a few people lucked into their strategies at the end there when they put new tyres on with 10 laps to go and nearly won the race."<<
But they did have a bad strategy because it saw him run out of tyres at the end. He was complaining of the rears having gone off for a long time so they had a window to pit him and driver feedback regarding the tyres. So a poor call from McLaren and if don’t realise it was a mistake then they can repeat that mistake. |
|
|
|
|
#1280 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Back after a much-needed break
Posts: 6,406
|
Quote:
Maybe or people resign themselves to poor decisions by the stewards. Nothing we can do........
The rules of F1 are complex and constantly changing with some of them open to interpretation. Often, things aren't quite as clear as they might appear at first sight, and the reason it takes a while to make a judgement when an incident is under investigation is because the stewards will study ever piece of data available. That data isn't available to the armchair experts! The stewards can determine if a driver braked a fraction later than on previous laps, or if there was more steering angle, or if the tyre temperatures might have affected the incident. Often, it's a case of apportioning blame. One driver might have turned in fractionally early, and the other may have braked late. That may result in one of the drivers being penalised, but not severely, as the stewards might judge it as 80/20 or 70/30. The stewards will also take into account the safety aspects. Vergne's hair-brained move this afternoon could have resulted in a horrendous crash if the cars had locked wheels, so it was a much more serious incident than the Maldonado/Hamilton one so it deserved a more serious penalty. Maldonando might have been an over-ambitious plonker, but he was unlikely to seriously injure anyone. F1 fans tend to be a fairly partisan bunch, so we do often look at who's involved in an incident before apportioning blame! The poor stewards can never win. If they penalise "our" driver, they're wrong! If they penalise the other driver, they're wrong for not penalising him enough!
|
|
|
|
|
#1281 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,951
|
Quote:
Yes a poor starting position for Jenson but he had a car to go forward. Despite this he was passed by a Sauber and other slower cars through the race. He put quite a lot of tyres on but was never very fast. Perhaps tyre warm up issue again.
|
|
|
|
|
#1282 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,695
|
Quote:
I'd say it was a racing incident on the grounds that Lewis is over defending when he has no ability to stay ahead. It was daft of him and he could have had a better result for him and the team but he is not prone to showing the good judgement required for that.
This isn't even taking into account that he tried to steer going fully over the kerb. I'm a Hamilton fan, no he isn't perfect but to put any blame on him for trying to fight to the finish line given there was two laps left is frankly idiotic, especually when someone drives into the side of him for no good reason at all. |
|
|
|
|
#1283 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Back after a much-needed break
Posts: 6,406
|
Quote:
Lewis said this >> "I don't think we did a bad job in terms of strategy, but I think a few people lucked into their strategies at the end there when they put new tyres on with 10 laps to go and nearly won the race."<<
It did strike me as a bit odd to say that others "got lucky" by putting on new tyres towards the end of the race (MS for example) as changing tactics to cope with a changing situation isn't luck! Button himself has won races on strategy calls, and I don't recall him saying it was "luck". |
|
|
|
|
#1284 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2,764
|
Quote:
I'm going to have to jump to the defence of the much-maligned stewards here.
The rules of F1 are complex and constantly changing with some of them open to interpretation. Often, things aren't quite as clear as they might appear at first sight, and the reason it takes a while to make a judgement when an incident is under investigation is because the stewards will study ever piece of data available. That data isn't available to the armchair experts! The stewards can determine if a driver braked a fraction later than on previous laps, or if there was more steering angle, or if the tyre temperatures might have affected the incident. Often, it's a case of apportioning blame. One driver might have turned in fractionally early, and the other may have braked late. That may result in one of the drivers being penalised, but not severely, as the stewards might judge it as 80/20 or 70/30. The stewards will also take into account the safety aspects. Vergne's hair-brained move this afternoon could have resulted in a horrendous crash if the cars had locked wheels, so it was a much more serious incident than the Maldonado/Hamilton one so it deserved a more serious penalty. Maldonando might have been an over-ambitious plonker, but he was unlikely to seriously injure anyone. F1 fans tend to be a fairly partisan bunch, so we do often look at who's involved in an incident before apportioning blame! The poor stewards can never win. If they penalise "our" driver, they're wrong! If they penalise the other driver, they're wrong for not penalising him enough! ![]() I also think most on DS can put aside their allegiances and see a good oor bad decision, of course some cannot as shown today. |
|
|
|
|
#1285 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,726
|
Quote:
I'd say it was a racing incident on the grounds that Lewis is over defending when he has no ability to stay ahead. It was daft of him and he could have had a better result for him and the team but he is not prone to showing the good judgement required for that.
No matter how old your tyres are, no matter how shoddy your car is, you are entitled to defend your position. You may decide that there is little point and let someone who is obviously faster than you pass, but with not long left in the race Lewis was well within his rights to stick to the racing line and leave little room for him to return. After all, Pastor had failed to overtake as Lewis stuck to the racing line and Pastor ended up off the circuit. So you're saying that because he failed at an overtake, and because he was off the circuit he should be granted an automatic free overtake via yielding? |
|
|
|
|
#1286 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Back after a much-needed break
Posts: 6,406
|
Quote:
Sorry I should have clarified, not all decisions are bad and there hands are really tied at times but they do make some poor decisions
![]() Quote:
I also think most on DS can put aside their allegiances and see a good oor bad decision, of course some cannot as shown today.
|
|
|
|
|
#1287 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Herts
Posts: 17,003
|
Quote:
Yes - he could have left a gap and left him pass - but he was NOT required to do so and as such Pastor is in the wrong and Lewis is in the clear.
You keep denying that Pastor caused the accident, but how else did Lewis end up in the wall? Why don't you take a drive to your nearest dual carriageway, attempt to join it and crash into a car on the inside lane as you join. Let me know whose fault the police think it is and who had right of way. |
|
|
|
|
#1288 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: On a horse atop an ivory tower
Posts: 1,707
|
Quote:
Racing takes place on the circuit. It was not a racing incident. Pastor was not on the circuit. It was a dangerous re-entry to the track.
No matter how old your tyres are, no matter how shoddy your car is, you are entitled to defend your position. You may decide that there is little point and let someone who is obviously faster than you pass, but with not long left in the race Lewis was well within his rights to stick to the racing line and leave little room for him to return. After all, Pastor had failed to overtake as Lewis stuck to the racing line and Pastor ended up off the circuit. So you're saying that because he failed at an overtake, and because he was off the circuit he should be granted an automatic free overtake via yielding? |
|
|
|
#1289 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,951
|
Quote:
If you read the rules Hamilton should of allowed a cars width because Pastor was along side him in the attempted overtaking manoeuvre as they went into the bend. Hamilton didn't and pushed Pastor off the track, however Pastor was penalised because the rules also state that if you go off the track you must rejoin in a safe manner.
|
|
|
|
|
#1290 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 12,792
|
Quote:
If you read the rules Hamilton should of allowed a cars width because Pastor was along side him in the attempted overtaking manoeuvre as they went into the bend. Hamilton didn't and pushed Pastor off the track, however Pastor was penalised because the rules also state that if you go off the track you must rejoin in a safe manner.
|
|
|
|
|
#1291 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dumfries
Posts: 38,495
|
Quote:
While I agree PM was at fault I am not convinced LH did everything he could or should to have avoided the situation happening and getting the best race result he could have hoped for from that position in the race and with his tyres the way they were. Bad racing from PM but poor race management from LH.
|
|
|
|
|
#1292 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,951
|
Do you all think Hamilton should have 3 stopped? His tyres were in such poor condition that he would have been mugged easily by Webber and Schumacher.
|
|
|
|
|
#1293 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dumfries
Posts: 38,495
|
Quote:
Do you all think Hamilton should have 3 stopped? His tyres were in such poor condition that he would have been mugged easily by Webber and Schumacher.
No, probably not. I know it's not really in Hamilton's nature but I think what he needs to do, at some point, is simply drive the car within it's limits,allow other cars to take positions off him and then use that performance to demonstrate to the team how things (whether it might be tyres, aero, mechanical grip etc) are compromising his race. I said earlier that I thought, maybe, McLaren were planning on one-stopping and by going slowly Hamilton was, effectively, forcing Vettel to try and pull out a 20 second lead so he could manage the "extra" pitstop without losing position. Obviously, as it turned out, this wasn't the case at all and, as usual, McLaren had no clever strategy and they were just relying on their drivers to magically go faster but also make their tyres last sufficiently. This is something the McLaren race team have a history of doing. They did it with Prost, Senna, Hakkinen and now they're doing it with Hamilton. They are, basically, at best incredibly conservative with race strategy and at worst they're downright incompetent... and then they just rely on having a superb driver to pull it all back into shape for them. And with these tyres you simply can't ask a driver to put in a whole series of "quali' laps" to recover after a screw-up cos all that'll happen is that they'll catch up but then fall away again before the next pitstop. As Horner is so fond of saying; "Plan the race then race the plan". With hindsight, Maybe if McLaren looked at all the times during that race where Hamilton was driving cautiously to preserve his tyres and make it to the next pitstop window, putting in 1:45s and 1:46s rather than 1:43s and 1:42s, they'd decide that they SHOULD have opted for a 3 stop strategy right from the start in order to let Lewis thrash the tits off the car for more of the race. Trouble with that, of course, is it means Hamilton having to put his trust in the chrome-hatted oompa-loompas more often each race. ![]() *EDIT* After reading that back you have to wonder why anybody would actually stay with McLaren if it's the case but the fact is that the factory DOES keep on making brilliant(ish) cars. It's just that the race team rarely seems to do anything which actually adds to the overall package. I imagine that if Ross Brawn ever found himself working for the McLaren race team he'd be absolutely stunned at the lack of initiative and inventiveness he found there. |
|
|
|
|
#1294 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Back after a much-needed break
Posts: 6,406
|
Quote:
Do you all think Hamilton should have 3 stopped? His tyres were in such poor condition that he would have been mugged easily by Webber and Schumacher.
![]() I can't help but think that McLaren set the car up for single-lap pace, and forgot that it would be fairly hot on race-day. Mind you, it's easy to be wise with the benefit of hindsight as history suggested that grid position was key to winning the race. Just going back to the Maldonado/Hamilton incident (which I think has been mentioned before! ), it's interesting to compare how Kimi dealt with Hamilton. He initially tried to outbrake him round the outside but quickly backed out of it, then set himself up to go round the inside. That was the smart thing to do. Maldonado could see that Hamilton was losing grip and running wide at every turn, so why he tried to go round the outside is beyond me.I must admit that as soon as I saw Maldonado and Hamilton together, I was fairly sure it would end in tears! I wouldn't be surprised if Ross had been on the radio to tell Michael that Maldonado was challenging Hamilton up ahead, "so watch out for debris on the track"! It was all but guaranteed! |
|
|
|
|
#1295 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Devon
Posts: 48,013
|
Well for once an eventful race in Valencia and I think Kwikfit may be getting a call from McLaren and Maldonado needs to go to Specsavers. A lucky win for Alonso but he drove very well.
|
|
|
|
|
#1296 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: I don't know, I need a map
Posts: 57,933
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1297 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 12,792
|
Quote:
Do you all think Hamilton should have 3 stopped? His tyres were in such poor condition that he would have been mugged easily by Webber and Schumacher.
|
|
|
|
|
#1298 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,659
|
What’s quite interesting is that McLaren appear to think Lewis got this wrong. Whitmarsh makes half an attempt to be tight lipped but in the end is more critical of Hamilton than we are used to hearing. Quote:
When asked if he thought Hamilton should have defended so hard, Whitmarsh said: "Clearly not, but you are dragging me into the conversation. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/100724"My own view is that it was Maldonado's fault, and it is deeply frustrating – but he is a racing driver and that is it. I am sure in hindsight you have to say that dealing with someone like that you have to take a different approach, but you cannot anticipate it." Whitmarsh makes quite a good point and it has been said before that the best racing drivers are always mind full about who they are racing when getting close to another car to anticipate what they are likely to do. Also found it quite interesting the way Lewis was talking about Ron Dennis. The man who ensured Hamilton’s career was being described by Lewis as nothing more than somebody to be negotiated with to ensure his next increase in life style. Even stating that Ron says stupid things. |
|
|
|
|
#1299 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,951
|
Quote:
No, definitely not that late in the race, he would have dropped back too far. There was only one DRS zone and only a lap and a bit left, so chances are that Webber and Schumacher would not both have got past Lewis if he positioned his car correctly through the lap. He might have avoided losing any other position except to Maldonado.
|
|
|
|
|
#1300 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,951
|
Quote:
Also found it quite interesting the way Lewis was talking about Ron Dennis. The man who ensured Hamilton’s career was being described by Lewis as nothing more than somebody to be negotiated with to ensure his next increase in life style. Even stating that Ron says stupid things.
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:48.






), it's interesting to compare how Kimi dealt with Hamilton. He initially tried to outbrake him round the outside but quickly backed out of it, then set himself up to go round the inside. That was the smart thing to do. Maldonado could see that Hamilton was losing grip and running wide at every turn, so why he tried to go round the outside is beyond me.