|
||||||||
Official Formula 1 Thread (Part 8) |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#4051 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,591
|
Quote:
Johnson: Thanks very much .... well done son.
![]() ![]() He'll round it off with a rendition of 'Whole lotta Rosie'!!
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#4052 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,591
|
Quote:
Interesting race.
No two ways about it; that was a kick up the arse for Rosberg to be beaten by Hamilton on the slower tyre. Maldonado proving, once again, that he's a complete numpty and, somehow, only getting a five place grid penalty for his muppetry while Ricciardo got a ten place penalty for a dodgy pitstop. Not sure that's sending quite the correct message. As much as I agreed with the FIA's decision regarding Red Bull's breaking of the rules, I do think that the punishment he got for his release in Malyaisa to be rather harsh. There was no "unsafe" release, as I saw it; the pit lane was empty. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4053 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,591
|
Quote:
Fantastic last 10 laps by Lewis. On hard tyres I don't know how he held off Rosberg who should have been much quicker. Seemed pretty fair aswell, no weaving on the straight. Rosberg thought Lewis cut him up at one point but it seemed OK to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4054 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Solihull
Posts: 7,274
|
Quote:
He has also got three points on his licence.
As much as I agreed with the FIA's decision regarding Red Bull's breaking of the rules, I do think that the punishment he got for his release in Malyaisa to be rather harsh. There was no "unsafe" release, as I saw it; the pit lane was empty. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4055 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,591
|
Quote:
Did you not see last season when a wheel came off a car (Webber's IIRC) in the pits and knocked over a photographer? Ricciardo's wheel was not attached so it was most definitely an unsafe release. The fact it was a RB again may also explain why it was a relatively severe punishment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4056 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 69,157
|
What do the more knowledgeable here think of this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/for...ight-loss.html Is it right that they are putting their health on the line to such a degree? No water at all in that heat, surely cannot be right, they are after all just human like the rest of us, and so consequently need water to survive! |
|
|
|
|
|
#4057 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,625
|
Quote:
The softer tyres may be faster, but they do go off a lot quicker, so it is possile that he didn't have the grip to match the speed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4058 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dumfries
Posts: 38,495
|
Quote:
Did you not see last season when a wheel came off a car (Webber's IIRC) in the pits and knocked over a photographer? Ricciardo's wheel was not attached so it was most definitely an unsafe release. The fact it was a RB again may also explain why it was a relatively severe punishment.
Kinda like whether everybody who gets nicked for speeding should get the same punishment as a person who's speeding causes multiple deaths or, conversely, whether the driver who causes multiple deaths should only get the same three points and fine as anybody else who's caught speeding. I suppose the common-sense opinion is that there has to be some consideration of the specific event as well as the offence, itself, and that's where the penalties seem a little awry here. I mean, sure, DR's incident wasn't acceptable but it was accidental and there were no hazardous consequences. Conversely, Lurch's latest mishap was completely deliberate and avoidable and it had serious consequences for another driver. Surely that should warrant a greater punishment than an accidental incident where there were no consequences? |
|
|
|
|
|
#4059 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dumfries
Posts: 38,495
|
Quote:
Over 10 laps there would have been minimal drop off in performance. Earlier in the race the Mercs had been doing around 20 laps on the soft tyre, and in the last 10 laps with very little fuel wear would have been less.
Wondered if that might be the case and would be Hamilton's best hope of retaining the lead. Kinda interesting that the tyres seem durable enough that Hamilton could run fast enough on the soft tyre, and for long enough, to create a 10 second gap to Rosberg without really burning them up and yet half a dozen properly furious laps, from Rosberg, on the soft tyre was enough to kill them. Seems like Pirelli might've finally got the durability of the tyres somewhere near correct. In other news, you gotta love Montezuma's comments about how F1 is now like watching taxi-cabs. Must say, I agree with him completely. The taxi's in Rome are utterly f**king mental. ![]() I wonder if he'd feel the same if Alonso and Kimi were finishing first and second in every race? |
|
|
|
|
|
#4060 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: The Netherlands (Z-H)
Posts: 241
|
Quote:
What do the more knowledgeable here think of this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/for...ight-loss.html Is it right that they are putting their health on the line to such a degree? No water at all in that heat, surely cannot be right, they are after all just human like the rest of us, and so consequently need water to survive! The only way I can think to equalise the weight problem would be to weigh the drivers and take the heaviest as the nul value then make the others carry extra weight to make them all equal. This would be totally unacceptable to all the others and would necessitate the same rule being applied to the cars. Simply raising the overall weight of the driver/car combination would penalise the more efficient constructors, cue objections! If we consider a parallel situation with weights in the horse racing world, the lighter riders, given equal skills, always gets the ride. This conundrum is better addressed by those who have more knowledge than I, but also vested interests which will surely skew the outcome. Given those thoughts, I somehow think that nothing will be done and "natural selection" will govern the outcome. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4061 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,916
|
Quote:
I think that was because all the resources were given to Vettel, leaving Webber to pick up the scraps. Mercedes seem to be treating Hamilton and Rosberg as equal competitors. Just look at how they were allowed to properly race at the weekend. Webber was never allowed to be that close, to be able to race Vettel; neither by the team nor by Vettel.
Quote:
Are we seeing at last that without team orders to protect him Vettel is vulnerable to his team-mate?
Not sure why people are complaining about the coverage They showed the fight between Hamilton/Rosberg, up until Hamilton managed to pull out a gap that was around 0.75secs. Then they cut to the FI/RBR battle, which we saw some overtaking. They got it right, why show Hamilton and Rosberg (over 0.75secs) behind, when there was four cars, all within a second of each other fighting for places? Hats of to Hamilton and Rosberg, for some exciting highly skilled racing. Both fighting for the position, yet both respecting each other and avoiding a collision. Further on down the line, these two will come together, especially if they are both in the title hunt come the end of the season. For me the race was pretty dull, until the safety car came out. The safety car made the race, if it hadnt come out, in would have been a dull race. For those that have sky, they had an interview with a journo who has somehow found out, how why the Merc engines are so good. Martin explained it with graphics etc. All to do with the the turbo, cold air etc. Seems like quite a clever system. One of the sky reporters asked Hamilton about the system, he smiled and gave an answer to a question that wasnt asked. Natalie Pinkham, not sure how she got a job on the sky F1 team. When she interviewed, Rosberg, she started of saying, "You were beaten by your team mate hamilton, ....." Shes not the smartest person in the sky F1 team ![]() I cant see anyone catching the Mercs, barring reliability, I can see them winning every race. Other teams may well close the gap, but they have a huge gap to close. Another point to consider, when Mclaren move to Honda engines next year. There could be an almighty scrap to take the Merc engine next year between the non-Merc powered teams. Will be interesting to see how that pans out. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4062 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,916
|
Quote:
What do the more knowledgeable here think of this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/for...ight-loss.html Is it right that they are putting their health on the line to such a degree? No water at all in that heat, surely cannot be right, they are after all just human like the rest of us, and so consequently need water to survive! I dont have a point of view on this to be honest, I can see both sides. If the current weight limits remain, then the drivers wont be able to have a piece of cake with their lunch. Some will have to be more careful than others. Then again I can see the taller drivers are being penalised through no fault of their own. Then, thats sports for you. Small players are no doubt penalised in basket ball. If drivers are being taken to hospital, then the matter does need to be looked into. It shouldnt come to this. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4063 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dumfries
Posts: 38,495
|
Quote:
This can not be healthy, having spent a few years as a young man in the tropics, I know the dangers of dehydration.
The only way I can think to equalise the weight problem would be to weigh the drivers and take the heaviest as the nul value then make the others carry extra weight to make them all equal. This would be totally unacceptable to all the others and would necessitate the same rule being applied to the cars. Trouble is, the teams would still probably encourage their drivers to be as light as possible so that they could add any ballast in more beneficial positions. Kind of reminds me of the last time they twiddled the weight limits in order to discourage the use of "exotic" materials in F1 and assist the teams with smaller budgets. All that happened was that the successful teams carried right on building cf gearboxes and other fancy bits and then just added ballast in the most beneficial places. Perhaps it'd work if there was some kind of mandatory empty "box" under the seat and, after weighing all the drivers, any extra ballast had be be placed in the box so the teams couldn't take advantage of having a munchkin driving in order to optimise the additional ballast? |
|
|
|
|
|
#4064 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dumfries
Posts: 38,495
|
Quote:
What utter rubbish! There were no team order at RBR, that was pretty obvious to most people. To suggest otherwise, is totally bonkers.
Let's face it, if we're supposed to believe that a driver of Webber's stature was expected to agree to formal #2 status, you'd have to wonder how DR ( a driver who's come through the RBR young driver programme, got his break in F1 via a RBR sister-team and then got his seat in the RBR as a result of that career path) managed to avoid similar conditions. Oddly enough, I just had this same conversation in the pub last night. I know it's not much to go on but we should remember that Webber did beat Vettel on the Top Gear track so he's obviously not hopelessly worse than Vettel. Even so, for the last 4 years we haven't just seen Vettel winning championships with Webber 2nd and then everybody else behind both of them, which'd indicate that a monkey could've won a WDC in the RBR. Instead, it's always been a case of Vettel romping ahead, Alonso, Hamilton and a couple of others trying to keep up and Webber being somewhere amongst the also-rans. Seems, to me, that it was simply that a particular skillset was required to get the best out of the old cars and tyres and Vettel obviously had those skills whereas, perhaps, the new cars are very different and they're not quite so suited to Vettel's skills. I can't help wondering what might've happened if Webber had hung on for another couple of years. Perhaps, this year would have given Webber a chance to outshine Vettel due to their differing driving styles? |
|
|
|
|
|
#4065 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,625
|
Quote:
Rosberg reported that his tyres were shagged with 3 or 4 laps to go.
Wondered if that might be the case and would be Hamilton's best hope of retaining the lead. Kinda interesting that the tyres seem durable enough that Hamilton could run fast enough on the soft tyre, and for long enough, to create a 10 second gap to Rosberg without really burning them up and yet half a dozen properly furious laps, from Rosberg, on the soft tyre was enough to kill them. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4066 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: The Netherlands (Z-H)
Posts: 241
|
Quote:
Perhaps it'd work if there was some kind of mandatory empty "box" under the seat and, after weighing all the drivers, any extra ballast had be be placed in the box so the teams couldn't take advantage of having a munchkin driving in order to optimise the additional ballast?
Were one to insert a munchkin, or indeed an homunculus, into an F1 car then the box would be necessary to allow him to see out of the car, ergo, win-win situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4067 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 2,457
|
In dirty air, tyres get shagged in no time, in clean air with a smooth style you can make them last, as Hamilton did. Not exactly complicated.
They also go through a graining phase, which is why you saw Rosberg hang back for a few laps then try again. Maybe if it wasnt his team mate he would have been a bit more aggressive and kept pushing, but decided to bring it home and take the points. The correct decision imo, still a long way to go. |
|
|
|
|
#4068 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 2,457
|
Quote:
Perhaps it'd work if there was some kind of mandatory empty "box" under the seat and, after weighing all the drivers, any extra ballast had be be placed in the box so the teams couldn't take advantage of having a munchkin driving in order to optimise the additional ballast? |
|
|
|
|
#4069 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,916
|
Quote:
One idea talked about is to weigh the driver and seat, with a minimum of around 80kg, ballast for lighter drivers added to the seat weight. Seems fair.
With teams wanting the weight as low as possible, all teams will put the weight in the seat, and not in the backrest. I suppose with driver weights shifting, you would have to weigh all drivers just before the race??? (with the team then somehow adding ballast to the seat. Not sure how practical that is. I would imagine you would only need to add a kilo or two. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4070 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,916
|
Quote:
Indeed.
Let's face it, if we're supposed to believe that a driver of Webber's stature was expected to agree to formal #2 status, you'd have to wonder how DR ( a driver who's come through the RBR young driver programme, got his break in F1 via a RBR sister-team and then got his seat in the RBR as a result of that career path) managed to avoid similar conditions. Oddly enough, I just had this same conversation in the pub last night. I know it's not much to go on but we should remember that Webber did beat Vettel on the Top Gear track so he's obviously not hopelessly worse than Vettel. Even so, for the last 4 years we haven't just seen Vettel winning championships with Webber 2nd and then everybody else behind both of them, which'd indicate that a monkey could've won a WDC in the RBR. Instead, it's always been a case of Vettel romping ahead, Alonso, Hamilton and a couple of others trying to keep up and Webber being somewhere amongst the also-rans. Seems, to me, that it was simply that a particular skillset was required to get the best out of the old cars and tyres and Vettel obviously had those skills whereas, perhaps, the new cars are very different and they're not quite so suited to Vettel's skills. I can't help wondering what might've happened if Webber had hung on for another couple of years. Perhaps, this year would have given Webber a chance to outshine Vettel due to their differing driving styles? |
|
|
|
|
|
#4071 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: The Netherlands (Z-H)
Posts: 241
|
Quote:
One idea talked about is to weigh the driver and seat, with a minimum of around 80kg, ballast for lighter drivers added to the seat weight. Seems fair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4072 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Solihull
Posts: 7,274
|
Driver weight has always been an issue in F1. The average F1 driver has always had more in common with a jockey than a rugby player! It's more prevalent this year certainly but as the teams learn how to package the new power units better they'll bring the chassis weights down and it will go back to normal. Besides which Hulkenberg said over the weekend that it's not really an issue as far as he's concerned. The FI is a relatively light car anyway so he's under no pressure to keep his weight down any more than previous seasons. He even managed to grab an 'emergency' Big Mac in Malaysia last week before the weekend. I see no real reason why lighter drivers should be penalised for being lighter?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4073 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dumfries
Posts: 38,495
|
Quote:
With teams wanting the weight as low as possible, all teams will put the weight in the seat, and not in the backrest. I suppose with driver weights shifting, you would have to weigh all drivers just before the race??? (with the team then somehow adding ballast to the seat. Not sure how practical that is. I would imagine you would only need to add a kilo or two.
When you look at how Coulthard towers over some of the current drivers it seems like you'd be looking at a range of weighs between, say, 65kg and 80kg at least but, even so, a fairly thin slab of lead (or, given that this is F1, probably depleted uranium) under the seat could provide the correct ballast. Seems like we've currently got a bunch of drivers going to rather extreme measures to minimise their weights when a fairly straightforward rule change would prevent this from being necessary. Then again, I suppose it could be argued that, while the current system favours wiry little munchkins, if they introduced a ballast system it'd give bigger, more muscley, drivers an advantage over the oompa-lumpa's. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4074 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: The Netherlands (Z-H)
Posts: 241
|
Quote:
I see no real reason why lighter drivers should be penalised for being lighter?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4075 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Solihull
Posts: 7,274
|
Quote:
Conversely heavier drivers should not be disadvantaged for being heavier.
The issue here isn't the weight of the drivers, it's that some teams have struggled with the weight of their car so are putting pressure on their drivers to be lighter, or that in an effort to be lighter some drivers are not using drinks bottles. The latter is easy to fix by mandating that each car must carry a minimum (to be decided) of drinking water for the driver. The former issue is a team by team issue so a blanket rule would be entirely unfair. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:53.






They showed the fight between Hamilton/Rosberg, up until Hamilton managed to pull out a gap that was around 0.75secs. Then they cut to the FI/RBR battle, which we saw some overtaking. They got it right, why show Hamilton and Rosberg (over 0.75secs) behind, when there was four cars, all within a second of each other fighting for places? 
