planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:24 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6074
Location: Michigan, USA
Laz_T800 wrote:
Not though it really matters but Hamilton did have a shocking outlap and Ricciardo didn't lose 16 seconds because of the pitstop.
Toby. wrote:
Just watched the stop and timed it myself. From the time that all four of Ricciardo's tyres are off the car, it's about 11 seconds until the next set are on and the car is dropped. So let's say 10 seconds. In the eight laps leading up to his stop, Hamilton was about .5s a lap quicker.

Okay, fair enough. I watched it myself and I count about a 14-second stationary period, so 10-11 seconds over what an ordinary pit stop would have cost. Call it 10, indeed.

Hamilton didn't lose 10 seconds on his out lap, and Ricciardo emerged less than a second behind him. That means Ricciardo would have come out ahead with a normal stop even if Hamilton had set an out lap just as good as Ricciardo's.

Which, in turn, means the assertion that Hamilton would have won even without Ricciardo's poor stop if he had set a competitive out lap is false. He needed the bad stop to win.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
MB-BOB wrote:
pokerman wrote:
When it's wet does anyone start to think it's Vettel time?

Um... No. Anyone can go off in the rain, but Vettel's lack of attention off at Hockemheim was a sophomoric mistake.

(How any of this Vettel discussion has anything to do with a Hamilton thread is hard to understand.)

Not sure now, I think it was something to do with Hamilton being lucky to win because it rained.

Sometimes I despair at the almost willful ignorance and misinterpretation displayed by some. The original claims were centered around it being fortunate for Hamilton that it rained in qualifying at the very time that his car was looking hopelessly outclassed in the dry. It’s a very specific set of circumstances - and a view incidentally endorsed by both Hamilton and Wolff, among others - and not some blanket statement of him being lucky to win because it rained


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 2:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 7:11 pm
Posts: 694
Lucky old Lewis yet again hey!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 3:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2282
Laz_T800 wrote:
Lucky old Lewis yet again hey!

He wasn't lucky in Germany or Hungary, but today he was lucky.

Lewis was running a high downforce setup while Ferrari was on a low downforce setup. In Q1 and Q2 where Lewis was fastest in sector 2 but losing a load of time on the straights. Mercedes were clearly gambling on rain.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 3:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5547
KingVoid wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
Lucky old Lewis yet again hey!

He wasn't lucky in Germany or Hungary, but today he was lucky.

Lewis was running a high downforce setup while Ferrari was on a low downforce setup. In Q1 and Q2 where Lewis was fastest in sector 2 but losing a load of time on the straights. Mercedes were clearly gambling on rain.

Ah, the wet setup excuse...A rare one these days but you had to dust that one off here I suppose.

The real difference isn't downforce, it's power. That's what gives Ferrari the edge in Sectors 1 and 3.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 3:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2282
sandman1347 wrote:
Ah, the wet setup excuse...A rare one these days but you had to dust that one off here I suppose.

The real difference isn't downforce, it's power. That's what gives Ferrari the edge in Sectors 1 and 3.

Mercedes was not only slower than Ferrari but also slower than Force India in sector 1, so it can't just be engine power. They were clearly running a lot of downforce. It's blatantly obvious if you actually watched qualifying, Hamilton was constantly 2-3 tenths faster in the middle sector too.

A wet setup is not an excuse, in fact, pokerman used it as an explanation why Vettel overtook Hamilton and nearly cost him the title at Brazil 2008.

pokerman wrote:
Brazil 2008 Hamilton was put on a low down force set up in case he needed to pass cars on the straight, not great for wet conditions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 3:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5547
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Ah, the wet setup excuse...A rare one these days but you had to dust that one off here I suppose.

The real difference isn't downforce, it's power. That's what gives Ferrari the edge in Sectors 1 and 3.

Mercedes was not only slower than Ferrari but also slower than Force India in sector 1, so it can't just be engine power. They were clearly running a lot of downforce. It's blatantly obvious if you actually watched qualifying, Hamilton was constantly 2-3 tenths faster in the middle sector too.

A wet setup is not an excuse, in fact, pokerman used it as an explanation why Vettel overtook Hamilton and nearly cost him the title at Brazil 2008.

pokerman wrote:
Brazil 2008 Hamilton was put on a low down force set up in case he needed to pass cars on the straight, not great for wet conditions.

In 2008 Ron Dennis actually explained that they had done that in an interview. It wasn't speculation, it was something that factually happened. The idea that Mercedes "gambled on rain" at Spa today is pure speculation on your part. Their setup is almost certainly based on what they think would be best in dry conditions, not on wet conditions. It will be dry for the race tomorrow after all.

I honestly don't think that there will ever be a race or a qualifying session in which Hamilton finishes P1 where you don't chime in with an excuse of some sort to try to chalk it up to the car or anything other than his driving. One race it's that the car is just better in the wet, then it's that the team used a wet setup, then it's the track suited him better, then it's that the stewards favored him...You always have some kind of excuse man. Doesn't that get tiring?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 4:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2932
Location: UK
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Ah, the wet setup excuse...A rare one these days but you had to dust that one off here I suppose.

The real difference isn't downforce, it's power. That's what gives Ferrari the edge in Sectors 1 and 3.

Mercedes was not only slower than Ferrari but also slower than Force India in sector 1, so it can't just be engine power. They were clearly running a lot of downforce. It's blatantly obvious if you actually watched qualifying, Hamilton was constantly 2-3 tenths faster in the middle sector too.

A wet setup is not an excuse, in fact, pokerman used it as an explanation why Vettel overtook Hamilton and nearly cost him the title at Brazil 2008.

pokerman wrote:
Brazil 2008 Hamilton was put on a low down force set up in case he needed to pass cars on the straight, not great for wet conditions.

I wouldn't call it car setup, it's just the inherent characteristics of the two cars. Mercedes' biggest strength is in the fast corners, which we saw at Barcelona and Silverstone, while Ferrari have the edge on the straights and slow corners. Force India have always had good straight line speed.

Now you could say with some justification that the Mercedes suits the wet conditions more than the Ferrari because of this aero advantage, but I don't think it is 8 tenths better. Hamilton has shown countless times over the years that he is excellent in the wet conditions, so I don't see why there should be other mitigating circumstances that explain his pole position today.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2282
sandman1347 wrote:
In 2008 Ron Dennis actually explained that they had done that in an interview. It wasn't speculation, it was something that factually happened. The idea that Mercedes "gambled on rain" at Spa today is pure speculation on your part. Their setup is almost certainly based on what they think would be best in dry conditions, not on wet conditions. It will be dry for the race tomorrow after all.

Mercedes might not have gambled on the rain, but their setup clearly suited the rain better. They ran more downforce, which is why they were constantly slower in the first and last sector, and consistently faster in the middle sector. Are you seriously going to deny that running more downforce helps in the rain, some thing that is commonly accepted.

Vettel also said that he rain out of battery on the last lap, but I guess that’s also an excuse?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5547
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
In 2008 Ron Dennis actually explained that they had done that in an interview. It wasn't speculation, it was something that factually happened. The idea that Mercedes "gambled on rain" at Spa today is pure speculation on your part. Their setup is almost certainly based on what they think would be best in dry conditions, not on wet conditions. It will be dry for the race tomorrow after all.

Mercedes might not have gambled on the rain, but their setup clearly suited the rain better. They ran more downforce, which is why they were constantly slower in the first and last sector, and consistently faster in the middle sector. Are you seriously going to deny that running more downforce helps in the rain, some thing that is commonly accepted.

Vettel also said that he rain out of battery on the last lap, but I guess that’s also an excuse?

No that's actually Vettel explaining part of how he feels he lost time on his lap. What YOU are doing is making excuses as you do pretty much every time Hamilton comes out on top. You say Mercedes ran "more downforce" but the bottom line is that the Mercedes and Ferrari cars have different characteristics. The Ferraris have consistently been quicker in a straight line and in slow corners while Mercedes have thrived in the high speed corners. This would be consistent with Ferrari being faster in sectors 1 and 3 while Mercedes are quicker in sector 2.

Ferrari were the quickest all through practice and qualifying up until the final run in Q3 and yet you hasten to try to ensure that no one thinks the drivers had anything to do with it. It's just becoming a broken record at this point KingVoid.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 7:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2282
sandman1347 wrote:
Ferrari were the quickest all through practice and qualifying up until the final run in Q3 and yet you hasten to try to ensure that no one thinks the drivers had anything to do with it. It's just becoming a broken record at this point KingVoid.

The entire weekend was dry until Q3. It’s completely pointless to use free practice, Q1 or Q2 as some kind of barometer for the cars because the conditions were completely different in Q3.

I remember Hockenheim 2012, when McLaren was the fastest car in Q2 (on inters) and in the race (on slicks). But Q3 was on full wets, and both Hamilton and Button were 3.5 seconds slower than pole. At the time, the universal consensus was that McLaren is not a good car on extreme wets (for whatever reason).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28382
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Ferrari were the quickest all through practice and qualifying up until the final run in Q3 and yet you hasten to try to ensure that no one thinks the drivers had anything to do with it. It's just becoming a broken record at this point KingVoid.

The entire weekend was dry until Q3. It’s completely pointless to use free practice, Q1 or Q2 as some kind of barometer for the cars because the conditions were completely different in Q3.

I remember Hockenheim 2012, when McLaren was the fastest car in Q2 (on inters) and in the race (on slicks). But Q3 was on full wets, and both Hamilton and Button were 3.5 seconds slower than pole. At the time, the universal consensus was that McLaren is not a good car on extreme wets (for whatever reason).

I have no recollection of Hockenheim 2012 qualifying so I found out for myself what happened, in Q3 Hamilton was the fastest in the first part on full wets but then drivers pitted for fresh full wets but Hamilton didn't and he ended up 8th, I'm not sure what you mean by the consensus was that the McLaren was not good on full wets, did you kind of fill in the blanks?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5547
KingVoid wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Ferrari were the quickest all through practice and qualifying up until the final run in Q3 and yet you hasten to try to ensure that no one thinks the drivers had anything to do with it. It's just becoming a broken record at this point KingVoid.

The entire weekend was dry until Q3. It’s completely pointless to use free practice, Q1 or Q2 as some kind of barometer for the cars because the conditions were completely different in Q3.

I remember Hockenheim 2012, when McLaren was the fastest car in Q2 (on inters) and in the race (on slicks). But Q3 was on full wets, and both Hamilton and Button were 3.5 seconds slower than pole. At the time, the universal consensus was that McLaren is not a good car on extreme wets (for whatever reason).

But Q3 itself was wet, was it not? In Q3, Raikkonen and Vettel both had better times than Hamilton up to his final lap; where Kimi was no longer even on the track due to the team failing to adequately fuel the car and where Vettel (according to his own words) didn't maximize his battery deployment. You always try to chalk it up to the car when Hamilton comes out on top.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2282
Vettel and Raikkonen were both ahead of Hamilton until the final moments of Q3 because Hamilton only put in a single decent lap until that point. He messed up his second lap by spinning at Fagnes. Then cooled down his car and had full battery deployment for his final run.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2018 8:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5547
KingVoid wrote:
Vettel and Raikkonen were both ahead of Hamilton until the final moments of Q3 because Hamilton only put in a single decent lap until that point. He messed up his second lap by spinning at Fagnes. Then cooled down his car and had full battery deployment for his final run.

And as he came across the line for that lap, he was behind them. He also didn't "spin" at any point during the session. He had a slight off track moment and then gathered the car for his final run.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2018 12:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28382
sandman1347 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
Vettel and Raikkonen were both ahead of Hamilton until the final moments of Q3 because Hamilton only put in a single decent lap until that point. He messed up his second lap by spinning at Fagnes. Then cooled down his car and had full battery deployment for his final run.

And as he came across the line for that lap, he was behind them. He also didn't "spin" at any point during the session. He had a slight off track moment and then gathered the car for his final run.

Indeed so Hamilton spun now to try and illustrate how badly he was driving before he lucked into his final lap with his full battery deployment, no mention of Vettel running behind Hamilton on the fast drying track, just lay it on thick all the advantages that Hamilton had.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2018 7:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 7:11 pm
Posts: 694
The mental gymnastics that go on in the brains of the Hamilton detractors, when he once again proves he's peerless in the rain, are worthy of Olympic gold.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2018 12:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 542
Location: Kansas
Laz_T800 wrote:
The mental gymnastics that go on in the brains of the Hamilton detractors, when he once again proves he's peerless in the rain, are worthy of Olympic gold.


Am convinced that it was KingVoid that spun and not Lewis Hamilton. In Q3 Lewis had one small bobble and ran wide at the exit of one turn.

_________________
Mission WinLater


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2018 12:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 729
Exediron wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
Not though it really matters but Hamilton did have a shocking outlap and Ricciardo didn't lose 16 seconds because of the pitstop.
Toby. wrote:
Just watched the stop and timed it myself. From the time that all four of Ricciardo's tyres are off the car, it's about 11 seconds until the next set are on and the car is dropped. So let's say 10 seconds. In the eight laps leading up to his stop, Hamilton was about .5s a lap quicker.

Okay, fair enough. I watched it myself and I count about a 14-second stationary period, so 10-11 seconds over what an ordinary pit stop would have cost. Call it 10, indeed.

Hamilton didn't lose 10 seconds on his out lap, and Ricciardo emerged less than a second behind him. That means Ricciardo would have come out ahead with a normal stop even if Hamilton had set an out lap just as good as Ricciardo's.

Which, in turn, means the assertion that Hamilton would have won even without Ricciardo's poor stop if he had set a competitive out lap is false. He needed the bad stop to win.


Hamilton did lose 8 seconds on his out lap.

Think about it logically, Hamilton was ahead and both pitted within 1 lap on another. If they both had the same pit stop time then Hamilton would still lead by 0.5. Hamiltons out lap was about 8-9 seconds slower than Ricciardo’s in lap. Getting the heat into the slicks was a big problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2018 11:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:14 pm
Posts: 1720
Hamilton is amazing in the wet, but unfortunately in the dry race the ferrari was stronger

_________________
Pathfinder


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2018 12:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28382
f1madman wrote:
Hamilton is amazing in the wet, but unfortunately in the dry race the ferrari was stronger

Yep it's only really the rain that's kept Hamilton in the game these past 3 races, he needs more rain in the coming races.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 3652
Reported that Hamilton will not be at the circuit for any of the pre-weekend PR commitments due to an unavoidable personal commitment!

Hope it's nothing too serious!

_________________
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. [Lord Acton]
My own Google Earth Motor Sport file. http://www.mediafire.com/?jzm1ieatytv
Follow me @asphalt_world


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 10:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:27 pm
Posts: 167
What a steal from Hamilton and Mercedes to extend both championship leads in Monza, and this time didn’t even need rain. But there are no tracks left on the calendar that scream Mercedes. Perhaps Suzuka and COTA. Either way it’s gonna be difficult to win the championships against the faster Ferrari which has no weak track at all. Still gonna be thrilling to watch Hamilton attempt to pull it off.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 11:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:14 am
Posts: 459
Location: Stratford
bonecrasher wrote:
What a steal from Hamilton and Mercedes to extend both championship leads in Monza, and this time didn’t even need rain. But there are no tracks left on the calendar that scream Mercedes. Perhaps Suzuka and COTA. Either way it’s gonna be difficult to win the championships against the faster Ferrari which has no weak track at all. Still gonna be thrilling to watch Hamilton attempt to pull it off.


Hamilton was superb all weekend, where does his drive on Sunday rank amongst his best?

Interesting to see what happens at Singapore, on the face of it after recent years it will be another 'damage limitation' but Merc and Hamilton are doing a good job of winning those recently.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 12:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28382
JN23 wrote:
bonecrasher wrote:
What a steal from Hamilton and Mercedes to extend both championship leads in Monza, and this time didn’t even need rain. But there are no tracks left on the calendar that scream Mercedes. Perhaps Suzuka and COTA. Either way it’s gonna be difficult to win the championships against the faster Ferrari which has no weak track at all. Still gonna be thrilling to watch Hamilton attempt to pull it off.


Hamilton was superb all weekend, where does his drive on Sunday rank amongst his best?

Interesting to see what happens at Singapore, on the face of it after recent years it will be another 'damage limitation' but Merc and Hamilton are doing a good job of winning those recently.

We might have to hope that Red Bull can challenge Ferrari at Singapore?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 12:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5547
Hamilton has matured and evolved quite a lot over the years. I notice now that even when he's fighting aggressively, he avoids putting his fate in another driver's hands. A big part of what happened during his worst season (2011) was that he put himself in positions where another driver (usually Massa) could take him out of a race if he were so inclined. Lewis simply doesn't do that any more.

I noticed this starting in Austria 2016 where he went for that pass on Rosberg at the end and Nico basically deliberately ran into him. Hamilton positioned his car so that the collision would not take him out, rather it would be Rosberg damaging his front wing while only hitting the side of Hamilton's car. The same thing happened in the collision in Monza with Vettel. It's important to note that in both cases, Hamilton placed his car perfectly and fairly. He just didn't leave himself vulnerable to a car pushing him off. Vettel also damaged his front wing hitting the side of Lewis's car. The pass Hamilton made on Raikkonen was another one where he went to the outside but made sure to have that half car length lead so that if Kimi wanted to punt him, the damage would have been on Kimi's side. Raikkonen, fortunately, was completely fair but this change in Hamilton's tactics is an evolved behavior designed to deal with the modern drivers' mentality of treating every wheel-to-wheel battle as though your life depends on the outcome. He's gotten a lot better at preventing others from ruining his race.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 12:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:58 pm
Posts: 1356
Location: London
pokerman wrote:
We might have to hope that Red Bull can challenge Ferrari at Singapore?


Even if they do, only one of them is likely to finish.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 12:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:14 am
Posts: 459
Location: Stratford
Lojik wrote:
pokerman wrote:
We might have to hope that Red Bull can challenge Ferrari at Singapore?


Even if they do, only one of them is likely to finish.


And possibility that Ricciardo will start from the back?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 12:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
pokerman wrote:
JN23 wrote:
bonecrasher wrote:
What a steal from Hamilton and Mercedes to extend both championship leads in Monza, and this time didn’t even need rain. But there are no tracks left on the calendar that scream Mercedes. Perhaps Suzuka and COTA. Either way it’s gonna be difficult to win the championships against the faster Ferrari which has no weak track at all. Still gonna be thrilling to watch Hamilton attempt to pull it off.


Hamilton was superb all weekend, where does his drive on Sunday rank amongst his best?

Interesting to see what happens at Singapore, on the face of it after recent years it will be another 'damage limitation' but Merc and Hamilton are doing a good job of winning those recently.

We might have to hope that Red Bull can challenge Ferrari at Singapore?

Given that Monza was supposed to have been a damage limitation exercise for Mercedes, I'm not at all convinced that they will be trailing in Singapore


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 12:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5547
JN23 wrote:
Lojik wrote:
pokerman wrote:
We might have to hope that Red Bull can challenge Ferrari at Singapore?


Even if they do, only one of them is likely to finish.


And possibility that Ricciardo will start from the back?

Yeah, I think that if Hamilton can stay out of trouble, he will have a shot at the podium. Ricciardo will either start from the back or have to use an old spec engine so he might be out of it. Red Bull's reliability is so bad that it's likely only one car will finish the race anyway. Both Ferraris will probably be quicker but sometimes Kimi can be vulnerable at starts and restarts so I think Hamilton will have a chance at really limiting damage here. He just needs to stay out of trouble really. The pressure has firmly shifted to Vettel now and Seb needs the win and nothing less.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 12:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
JN23 wrote:
bonecrasher wrote:
What a steal from Hamilton and Mercedes to extend both championship leads in Monza, and this time didn’t even need rain. But there are no tracks left on the calendar that scream Mercedes. Perhaps Suzuka and COTA. Either way it’s gonna be difficult to win the championships against the faster Ferrari which has no weak track at all. Still gonna be thrilling to watch Hamilton attempt to pull it off.


Hamilton was superb all weekend, where does his drive on Sunday rank amongst his best?

Interesting to see what happens at Singapore, on the face of it after recent years it will be another 'damage limitation' but Merc and Hamilton are doing a good job of winning those recently.

The more I think about it, the more I think this was a really good performance by Hamilton. He constantly harassed Kimi and never gave him room to breathe in the first stint, all the while managing to keep his tyres in good condition despite running so close to Kimi. I think that was quite impressive and he looked dangerous all race long.

The only negative I can think of is that he/Mercedes left him out too long in the first stint and they ended up giving Kimi room to stretch his legs without pressure from behind. If Kimi hadn't done his tyres in - which they couldn't predict - that could have effectively ended their challenge and if Kimi had gotten past Bottas that would have been it. But I'd put that down as a Mercedes strategy mistake (or perhaps risky strategy might be the better terminology), rather than a driver one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 1:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5547
Zoue wrote:
JN23 wrote:
bonecrasher wrote:
What a steal from Hamilton and Mercedes to extend both championship leads in Monza, and this time didn’t even need rain. But there are no tracks left on the calendar that scream Mercedes. Perhaps Suzuka and COTA. Either way it’s gonna be difficult to win the championships against the faster Ferrari which has no weak track at all. Still gonna be thrilling to watch Hamilton attempt to pull it off.


Hamilton was superb all weekend, where does his drive on Sunday rank amongst his best?

Interesting to see what happens at Singapore, on the face of it after recent years it will be another 'damage limitation' but Merc and Hamilton are doing a good job of winning those recently.

The more I think about it, the more I think this was a really good performance by Hamilton. He constantly harassed Kimi and never gave him room to breathe in the first stint, all the while managing to keep his tyres in good condition despite running so close to Kimi. I think that was quite impressive and he looked dangerous all race long.

The only negative I can think of is that he/Mercedes left him out too long in the first stint and they ended up giving Kimi room to stretch his legs without pressure from behind. If Kimi hadn't done his tyres in - which they couldn't predict - that could have effectively ended their challenge and if Kimi had gotten past Bottas that would have been it. But I'd put that down as a Mercedes strategy mistake (or perhaps risky strategy might be the better terminology), rather than a driver one.

Actually by staying out the way that he did, Hamilton basically baited Kimi into pushing his tires too hard too soon. Having had no practice with the softs, Kimi basically came out of the pits pushing like crazy to avoid the overcut. Hamilton stretched out this period of time where he was pushing on the SS tires and Kimi basically fried his new soft tires by driving hot laps for about 5-6 laps fresh out of the pits.

I think the part of the race where Kimi was behind Bottas was relatively inconsequential with regards to the tires. It did make it a lot easier for Hamilton to close out Kimi's lead but from what I saw, Kimi was never going to win the race after running so hard on those new tires. They were completely dead for like the last 15 laps of the race and his pace vanished at the end completely. I don't think he was going to be able to keep Hamilton behind. I think Ferrari should have brought at least one more set of those soft tires and tried running them before the race.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 1:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
JN23 wrote:
bonecrasher wrote:
What a steal from Hamilton and Mercedes to extend both championship leads in Monza, and this time didn’t even need rain. But there are no tracks left on the calendar that scream Mercedes. Perhaps Suzuka and COTA. Either way it’s gonna be difficult to win the championships against the faster Ferrari which has no weak track at all. Still gonna be thrilling to watch Hamilton attempt to pull it off.


Hamilton was superb all weekend, where does his drive on Sunday rank amongst his best?

Interesting to see what happens at Singapore, on the face of it after recent years it will be another 'damage limitation' but Merc and Hamilton are doing a good job of winning those recently.

The more I think about it, the more I think this was a really good performance by Hamilton. He constantly harassed Kimi and never gave him room to breathe in the first stint, all the while managing to keep his tyres in good condition despite running so close to Kimi. I think that was quite impressive and he looked dangerous all race long.

The only negative I can think of is that he/Mercedes left him out too long in the first stint and they ended up giving Kimi room to stretch his legs without pressure from behind. If Kimi hadn't done his tyres in - which they couldn't predict - that could have effectively ended their challenge and if Kimi had gotten past Bottas that would have been it. But I'd put that down as a Mercedes strategy mistake (or perhaps risky strategy might be the better terminology), rather than a driver one.

Actually by staying out the way that he did, Hamilton basically baited Kimi into pushing his tires too hard too soon. Having had no practice with the softs, Kimi basically came out of the pits pushing like crazy to avoid the overcut. Hamilton stretched out this period of time where he was pushing on the SS tires and Kimi basically fried his new soft tires by driving hot laps for about 5-6 laps fresh out of the pits.

I think the part of the race where Kimi was behind Bottas was relatively inconsequential with regards to the tires. It did make it a lot easier for Hamilton to close out Kimi's lead but from what I saw, Kimi was never going to win the race after running so hard on those new tires. They were completely dead for like the last 15 laps of the race and his pace vanished at the end completely. I don't think he was going to be able to keep Hamilton behind. I think Ferrari should have brought at least one more set of those soft tires and tried running them before the race.

we've seen drivers pushing like crazy on new tyres before without damaging them, to be fair. I don't think Mercedes specifically chose that strategy in order to fry Kimi's tyres.
Even if Kimi had stopped pushing earlier than he did, and assuming that it was his fault that the tyres went, he was taking a second a lap out of Hamilton's lead and if the tyres hadn't given way that would have left Lewis with a mountain to climb. I'd heard it said that Mercedes were holding out against the possibility of a SC, but effectively it almost undid all of Hamilton's work in putting the pressure on Kimi earlier. Once it was apparent that Hamilton wasn't going any faster than Kimi after the stops, they probably should have brought Hamilton in.

This is all academic, of course. At the end of the day it all worked to perfection and Lewis pulled off an impressive win. I just can't help but feel that his strategists almost let him down by letting Kimi build up too much of a lead and giving him space to breathe that until then he'd been denied. Lewis was 5 seconds down the road when he rejoined and he had to put in some even faster times than Kimi had just to catch up


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 1:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:14 am
Posts: 459
Location: Stratford
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
JN23 wrote:
bonecrasher wrote:
What a steal from Hamilton and Mercedes to extend both championship leads in Monza, and this time didn’t even need rain. But there are no tracks left on the calendar that scream Mercedes. Perhaps Suzuka and COTA. Either way it’s gonna be difficult to win the championships against the faster Ferrari which has no weak track at all. Still gonna be thrilling to watch Hamilton attempt to pull it off.


Hamilton was superb all weekend, where does his drive on Sunday rank amongst his best?

Interesting to see what happens at Singapore, on the face of it after recent years it will be another 'damage limitation' but Merc and Hamilton are doing a good job of winning those recently.

We might have to hope that Red Bull can challenge Ferrari at Singapore?

Given that Monza was supposed to have been a damage limitation exercise for Mercedes, I'm not at all convinced that they will be trailing in Singapore


Time will tell, but before you'd think that Merc would be closer to Ferrari at Monza than Singapore I think.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 2:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 729
Zoue wrote:
JN23 wrote:
bonecrasher wrote:
What a steal from Hamilton and Mercedes to extend both championship leads in Monza, and this time didn’t even need rain. But there are no tracks left on the calendar that scream Mercedes. Perhaps Suzuka and COTA. Either way it’s gonna be difficult to win the championships against the faster Ferrari which has no weak track at all. Still gonna be thrilling to watch Hamilton attempt to pull it off.


Hamilton was superb all weekend, where does his drive on Sunday rank amongst his best?

Interesting to see what happens at Singapore, on the face of it after recent years it will be another 'damage limitation' but Merc and Hamilton are doing a good job of winning those recently.

The more I think about it, the more I think this was a really good performance by Hamilton. He constantly harassed Kimi and never gave him room to breathe in the first stint, all the while managing to keep his tyres in good condition despite running so close to Kimi. I think that was quite impressive and he looked dangerous all race long.

The only negative I can think of is that he/Mercedes left him out too long in the first stint and they ended up giving Kimi room to stretch his legs without pressure from behind. If Kimi hadn't done his tyres in - which they couldn't predict - that could have effectively ended their challenge and if Kimi had gotten past Bottas that would have been it. But I'd put that down as a Mercedes strategy mistake (or perhaps risky strategy might be the better terminology), rather than a driver one.


I think Mercedes were monitoring that lap by lap and realised Kimi was not going to get him. That's why they kept saying to Lewis "1 more lap" or "we are staying out, keep going".

They also probably concluded that Hamilton was not going to be able to pass for the lead if they had equal aged tyres, given that he couldn't in stint 1. So even if Kimi passed Bottas, Lewis exiting the pits with 8 lap fresher tyres and being say 8 seconds behind still gave him a decent shot to win the race. His tyre advantage alone would have been worth 0.3-0.4 on top of him appearing to be 0.2-0.4 a lap quicker. So he would have caught him and been right behind with 8 lap fresher tyres. Hamilton never dropped more than 1.2 behind Kimi in stint 1, he was quite a bit quicker. It reminded me of how Vettel followed Hamilton in Australia 2017. When you follow that close, you are quite a bit quicker.

This is similar to what Ferrari did in Russia 2017. Vettel was never going to pass on equal aged tyres, so they gave him 10 lap fresher tyres (although tyre deg was really low) to attack Bottas with at the end. He fell about 5 seconds behind but easily closed it and then was able to attack more than he would have and nearly got him at the end.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 2:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Johnson wrote:
Zoue wrote:
JN23 wrote:
bonecrasher wrote:
What a steal from Hamilton and Mercedes to extend both championship leads in Monza, and this time didn’t even need rain. But there are no tracks left on the calendar that scream Mercedes. Perhaps Suzuka and COTA. Either way it’s gonna be difficult to win the championships against the faster Ferrari which has no weak track at all. Still gonna be thrilling to watch Hamilton attempt to pull it off.


Hamilton was superb all weekend, where does his drive on Sunday rank amongst his best?

Interesting to see what happens at Singapore, on the face of it after recent years it will be another 'damage limitation' but Merc and Hamilton are doing a good job of winning those recently.

The more I think about it, the more I think this was a really good performance by Hamilton. He constantly harassed Kimi and never gave him room to breathe in the first stint, all the while managing to keep his tyres in good condition despite running so close to Kimi. I think that was quite impressive and he looked dangerous all race long.

The only negative I can think of is that he/Mercedes left him out too long in the first stint and they ended up giving Kimi room to stretch his legs without pressure from behind. If Kimi hadn't done his tyres in - which they couldn't predict - that could have effectively ended their challenge and if Kimi had gotten past Bottas that would have been it. But I'd put that down as a Mercedes strategy mistake (or perhaps risky strategy might be the better terminology), rather than a driver one.


I think Mercedes were monitoring that lap by lap and realised Kimi was not going to get him. That's why they kept saying to Lewis "1 more lap" or "we are staying out, keep going".

They also probably concluded that Hamilton was not going to be able to pass for the lead if they had equal aged tyres, given that he couldn't in stint 1. So even if Kimi passed Bottas, Lewis exiting the pits with 8 lap fresher tyres and being say 8 seconds behind still gave him a decent shot to win the race. His tyre advantage alone would have been worth 0.3-0.4 on top of him appearing to be 0.2-0.4 a lap quicker. So he would have caught him and been right behind with 8 lap fresher tyres. Hamilton never dropped more than 1.2 behind Kimi in stint 1, he was quite a bit quicker. It reminded me of how Vettel followed Hamilton in Australia 2017. When you follow that close, you are quite a bit quicker.

This is similar to what Ferrari did in Russia 2017. Vettel was never going to pass on equal aged tyres, so they gave him 10 lap fresher tyres (although tyre deg was really low) to attack Bottas with at the end. He fell about 5 seconds behind but easily closed it and then was able to attack more than he would have and nearly got him at the end.

There is that, I suppose. Although without having to worry too much about defending Kimi may also have gone a bit quicker. I'm probably wrong on this but just had the feeling that Mercedes almost let Kimi get away


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 3:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 729
Zoue wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Zoue wrote:
JN23 wrote:
bonecrasher wrote:
What a steal from Hamilton and Mercedes to extend both championship leads in Monza, and this time didn’t even need rain. But there are no tracks left on the calendar that scream Mercedes. Perhaps Suzuka and COTA. Either way it’s gonna be difficult to win the championships against the faster Ferrari which has no weak track at all. Still gonna be thrilling to watch Hamilton attempt to pull it off.


Hamilton was superb all weekend, where does his drive on Sunday rank amongst his best?

Interesting to see what happens at Singapore, on the face of it after recent years it will be another 'damage limitation' but Merc and Hamilton are doing a good job of winning those recently.

The more I think about it, the more I think this was a really good performance by Hamilton. He constantly harassed Kimi and never gave him room to breathe in the first stint, all the while managing to keep his tyres in good condition despite running so close to Kimi. I think that was quite impressive and he looked dangerous all race long.

The only negative I can think of is that he/Mercedes left him out too long in the first stint and they ended up giving Kimi room to stretch his legs without pressure from behind. If Kimi hadn't done his tyres in - which they couldn't predict - that could have effectively ended their challenge and if Kimi had gotten past Bottas that would have been it. But I'd put that down as a Mercedes strategy mistake (or perhaps risky strategy might be the better terminology), rather than a driver one.


I think Mercedes were monitoring that lap by lap and realised Kimi was not going to get him. That's why they kept saying to Lewis "1 more lap" or "we are staying out, keep going".

They also probably concluded that Hamilton was not going to be able to pass for the lead if they had equal aged tyres, given that he couldn't in stint 1. So even if Kimi passed Bottas, Lewis exiting the pits with 8 lap fresher tyres and being say 8 seconds behind still gave him a decent shot to win the race. His tyre advantage alone would have been worth 0.3-0.4 on top of him appearing to be 0.2-0.4 a lap quicker. So he would have caught him and been right behind with 8 lap fresher tyres. Hamilton never dropped more than 1.2 behind Kimi in stint 1, he was quite a bit quicker. It reminded me of how Vettel followed Hamilton in Australia 2017. When you follow that close, you are quite a bit quicker.

This is similar to what Ferrari did in Russia 2017. Vettel was never going to pass on equal aged tyres, so they gave him 10 lap fresher tyres (although tyre deg was really low) to attack Bottas with at the end. He fell about 5 seconds behind but easily closed it and then was able to attack more than he would have and nearly got him at the end.

There is that, I suppose. Although without having to worry too much about defending Kimi may also have gone a bit quicker. I'm probably wrong on this but just had the feeling that Mercedes almost let Kimi get away


As soon as Kimi pitted first it meant Hamilton had to overtake Kimi to win the race. The only way to do this was giving him a tyre advantage.

Its also worth noting that the 8 laps Hamilton stayed out, if a VSC or SC was pulled in this period - Hamilton won the race. Dan Ricciardo very nearly brought one out during this phase. In fact, if it wasn't Italy he may well have (maybe I am being cynical) in Hungary we had 2 VSC's to recover cars that were right next to gaps in the fence. Especially the Verstappen one. This is the first time I can recall Marshalls pushing a car inches from the track in the line of fire without a VSC in a couple of seasons.

Verstapen parked it directly in front of a gap and it was behind a barrier and mostly out of the line of fire. It also happened so early in the race that all the cars were on the other side of the track by the time he parked it, so they had a minute to wheel it back 10 metres.
https://youtu.be/swnvZggX0uo?t=2m13s

Ricciardo's car had to be pushed forward (right next to the track) and then pushed backwards into this gap.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@45.63108 ... 312!8i6656


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 3:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1912


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 3:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 729
I agree with everything in the video and its a good one, but one thing.

They could have easily got VB 3rd place by pitting him between laps 21-26. Kimi pitted on lap 21. Bottas was 1 second behind Max all of those laps and would have easily undercut him. Verstappen pitted on lap 27.

They left him out to hold up Kimi and by doing so knew they also gave VB a very good chance to get 3rd with a tyre offset. But its BS that they did everything to guarantee VB 3rd, if that was true he would have pitted laps 22-26. It was great team work, they should just tell it as it is instead of glossing over "we decided early to go long with Bottas" is BS.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5547
Johnson wrote:
I agree with everything in the video and its a good one, but one thing.

They could have easily got VB 3rd place by pitting him between laps 21-26. Kimi pitted on lap 21. Bottas was 1 second behind Max all of those laps and would have easily undercut him. Verstappen pitted on lap 27.

They left him out to hold up Kimi and by doing so knew they also gave VB a very good chance to get 3rd with a tyre offset. But its BS that they did everything to guarantee VB 3rd, if that was true he would have pitted laps 22-26. It was great team work, they should just tell it as it is instead of glossing over "we decided early to go long with Bottas" is BS.

You're missing the nuance of the situation. If they came out into the pit lane for Bottas during the window you're referring to, Red Bull would have sent Max's crew out into the pit lane immediately to react. They would not have given Bottas the undercut. It would have basically been exactly the same as the Hamilton/Raikkonen situation.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group