Discussion:
Australian GP (spoiler)
Add Reply
Sir Tim
2018-03-25 21:39:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Good to see Haas going so well (even it is a Ferrari kit car). Shame about
the finger trouble.

Vettel must privately think himself very, *very* lucky to have won. It
could be argued that Ferrari inveigled Lewis into making an early stop by
bringing Kimi in on lap 18 but they had no way of knowing that Haas would
cause a VSC (unless you are the wildest of wild conspiracy theorists). In
many ways the guy I feel sorriest for is Kimi - he had been going really
well all weekend but seemed to run out of steam a bit after the safety car
incident.

It must be hard to lose a GP in these circumstances but Hamilton can
console himself with the knowledge that he definitely has a slight edge
over the opposition. Of course Seb still had to fend him off but that
wasn’t too difficult given the dirty air created by this generation of
cars. Strategy is king these days it seems, to the detriment of balls out
*racing*.

Nice to see Alonso back in the hunt, although he too benefited from the
safety car.
--
Sir Tim
~misfit~
2018-03-26 00:54:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Good to see Haas going so well (even it is a Ferrari kit car). Shame
about the finger trouble.
Vettel must privately think himself very, *very* lucky to have won. It
could be argued that Ferrari inveigled Lewis into making an early
stop by bringing Kimi in on lap 18 but they had no way of knowing
that Haas would cause a VSC (unless you are the wildest of wild
conspiracy theorists). In many ways the guy I feel sorriest for is
Kimi - he had been going really well all weekend but seemed to run
out of steam a bit after the safety car incident.
It must be hard to lose a GP in these circumstances but Hamilton can
console himself with the knowledge that he definitely has a slight
edge over the opposition. Of course Seb still had to fend him off but
that wasn't too difficult given the dirty air created by this
generation of cars. Strategy is king these days it seems, to the
detriment of balls out *racing*.
Nice to see Alonso back in the hunt, although he too benefited from
the safety car.
Good synopsis. I think Hass' issues were more automated traffic light
systems rather than 'finger trouble'. Both times the wheel men were trying
to stop the car from leaving.

I said earlier that I thought Max was going to start running out of talent
over the next season or two and while I know one race doesn't make a trend
he wasn't very impressive. Dan continues to impress (while Bottas doesn't so
much) so I'm thinking Ricciardo to Mercedes next year. ;-)

Unfortunatley for anyone like me supporting their local driver Honda seems
low on power (and perhaps reliability) still. I'm thinking Hartleys
experience in endurance racing is going to come in very handy for Toro Rosso
this year. A hard charger like Gasly isn't going to bring in much data
unless he learns to page himself.

Nice to see Stoffel making a good fist of it. I've always thought he'd do
well in machinery that has a bit of reliability. Force India have a lot of
work to do and not much money to spend on it. Both they and Williams need to
sort themselves out now they're running not only the same PUs as Merc but
also the same software on what is a 'power track' (Finally! I've been
talking about this for three years or more, mainly to myself as nobody else
seemed to think it was an issue - except the FIA who it seems allowed PU
constructors a few years advantage over customers as return on their R&D).

Albert Park isn't the greatest indicator of how the field will look though
(I think RBR will do better on other tracks than Ferrari...) so I'm looking
forward to tracks with a more flowing nature and less 'squirt and brake'.
That should let us know exactly how good the various chassis are. Albert
Park was more an indication of how good the various PUs are and that was
largely known already.

Remember what I said about 'body langauge' in practice being the
differentiator for me between Ferrari and RBR? Well it seems Vettel is
openly saying now that Ferrari have lots of work to do on their car, though
Kimi (who's body langauge rarely changes anyway) seems to be doing OK in it.

As we saw the year Vettel had Ricciardo as a team mate Vettel needs a car to
be of a certain standard before he commits himself to it whereas people like
Dan and Kimi will race to the best of their abilities with whatever they've
got. (This is one of the reasons I don't rate Vettel as highly as some
others do.)
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
t***@gmail.com
2018-03-26 02:21:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Good synopsis. I think Hass' issues were more automated traffic light
systems rather than 'finger trouble'. Both times the wheel men were trying
to stop the car from leaving.
I said earlier that I thought Max was going to start running out of talent
over the next season or two and while I know one race doesn't make a trend
he wasn't very impressive. Dan continues to impress (while Bottas doesn't so
much) so I'm thinking Ricciardo to Mercedes next year. ;-)
Unfortunatley for anyone like me supporting their local driver Honda seems
low on power (and perhaps reliability) still. I'm thinking Hartleys
experience in endurance racing is going to come in very handy for Toro Rosso
this year. A hard charger like Gasly isn't going to bring in much data
unless he learns to page himself.
Nice to see Stoffel making a good fist of it. I've always thought he'd do
well in machinery that has a bit of reliability. Force India have a lot of
work to do and not much money to spend on it. Both they and Williams need to
sort themselves out now they're running not only the same PUs as Merc but
also the same software on what is a 'power track' (Finally! I've been
talking about this for three years or more, mainly to myself as nobody else
seemed to think it was an issue - except the FIA who it seems allowed PU
constructors a few years advantage over customers as return on their R&D).
Albert Park isn't the greatest indicator of how the field will look though
(I think RBR will do better on other tracks than Ferrari...) so I'm looking
forward to tracks with a more flowing nature and less 'squirt and brake'.
That should let us know exactly how good the various chassis are. Albert
Park was more an indication of how good the various PUs are and that was
largely known already.
Remember what I said about 'body langauge' in practice being the
differentiator for me between Ferrari and RBR? Well it seems Vettel is
openly saying now that Ferrari have lots of work to do on their car, though
Kimi (who's body langauge rarely changes anyway) seems to be doing OK in it.
As we saw the year Vettel had Ricciardo as a team mate Vettel needs a car to
be of a certain standard before he commits himself to it whereas people like
Dan and Kimi will race to the best of their abilities with whatever they've
got. (This is one of the reasons I don't rate Vettel as highly as some
others do.)
fuck you
t***@gmail.com
2018-03-26 02:28:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
I said earlier
I've been talking about this for three years
Remember what I said about
lol
m***@gmail.com
2018-03-26 03:28:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Good synopsis. I think Hass' issues were more automated traffic light
systems rather than 'finger trouble'. Both times the wheel men were trying
to stop the car from leaving.
On the 2nd stop you can see the front left wheel man pull the gun away - which I presume is the trigger for the automated system - and then push it back towards the wheel

Haven't we seen this before with these automated systems? There's no point in having them unless the guns are triggering them. Waiting for the gun men to signal is what costs the fraction of a second that the system is trying to save.

Two fails in two stops suggests either a lack of practice or a bad batch of nuts.
Sir Tim
2018-03-26 07:52:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by ~misfit~
Good synopsis. I think Hass' issues were more automated traffic light
systems rather than 'finger trouble'. Both times the wheel men were trying
to stop the car from leaving.
On the 2nd stop you can see the front left wheel man pull the gun away -
which I presume is the trigger for the automated system - and then push
it back towards the wheel
Haven't we seen this before with these automated systems? There's no
point in having them unless the guns are triggering them. Waiting for the
gun men to signal is what costs the fraction of a second that the system is trying to save.
Two fails in two stops suggests either a lack of practice or a bad batch of nuts.
The BBC has this to say:

“But both were forced to retire when the mechanics sent them out after
their pit stops with loose wheels, caused by the wheels not being
positioned correctly before the nuts were tightened - for which they will
face a punishment from governing body the FIA.
Team boss Gunther Steiner blamed a lack of pit stop practice as a result of
time lost to fixing problems on the car during the weekend.”
--
Sir Tim
~misfit~
2018-03-26 09:03:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by ~misfit~
Good synopsis. I think Hass' issues were more automated traffic
light systems rather than 'finger trouble'. Both times the wheel
men were trying to stop the car from leaving.
On the 2nd stop you can see the front left wheel man pull the gun away -
which I presume is the trigger for the automated system - and then push
it back towards the wheel
Haven't we seen this before with these automated systems? There's no
point in having them unless the guns are triggering them. Waiting for the
gun men to signal is what costs the fraction of a second that the
system is trying to save.
Two fails in two stops suggests either a lack of practice or a bad batch of nuts.
"But both were forced to retire when the mechanics sent them out after
their pit stops with loose wheels, caused by the wheels not being
positioned correctly before the nuts were tightened - for which they
will face a punishment from governing body the FIA.
Team boss Gunther Steiner blamed a lack of pit stop practice as a
result of time lost to fixing problems on the car during the weekend."
Thanks for that. Yes it seems that the wheel nut men knew that there was an
issue both times but the act of removing the gun from the wheel nut (as must
be done to re-position the wheel) triggered the green light.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
m***@gmail.com
2018-03-26 03:21:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Good to see Haas going so well (even it is a Ferrari kit car). Shame about
the finger trouble.
Vettel must privately think himself very, *very* lucky to have won. It
could be argued that Ferrari inveigled Lewis into making an early stop by
bringing Kimi in on lap 18 but they had no way of knowing that Haas would
cause a VSC (unless you are the wildest of wild conspiracy theorists). In
many ways the guy I feel sorriest for is Kimi - he had been going really
well all weekend but seemed to run out of steam a bit after the safety car
incident.
It must be hard to lose a GP in these circumstances but Hamilton can
console himself with the knowledge that he definitely has a slight edge
over the opposition. Of course Seb still had to fend him off but that
wasn’t too difficult given the dirty air created by this generation of
cars. Strategy is king these days it seems, to the detriment of balls out
*racing*.
But this is sport, and this is why we watch. If it always went according to the form book, it wouldn't be half as good.

Ferrari rolled the dice. They split the strategy on their two cars. It worked out far better than they could have imagined. Vettel was in the right place at the right time, and he took full advantage of it.

Hamilton is saying he had "other weapons" but what exactly? He has to stick to a certain time under the VSC, so speeding up wasn't an option. He can't criticise his team for not looking into the crystal ball and seeing that Vettel would still be out in front when the VSC happened.

Was there a time window from the 2nd Haas stopping out on a track to the VSC being "launched" in which the team could have seen the danger and told Hamilton to bang in some quick corners because a VSC was likely and he could be vulnerable?

But that's not a weapon that Hamilton would have had.
larkim
2018-03-26 07:38:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Sir Tim
Good to see Haas going so well (even it is a Ferrari kit car). Shame about
the finger trouble.
Vettel must privately think himself very, *very* lucky to have won. It
could be argued that Ferrari inveigled Lewis into making an early stop by
bringing Kimi in on lap 18 but they had no way of knowing that Haas would
cause a VSC (unless you are the wildest of wild conspiracy theorists). In
many ways the guy I feel sorriest for is Kimi - he had been going really
well all weekend but seemed to run out of steam a bit after the safety car
incident.
It must be hard to lose a GP in these circumstances but Hamilton can
console himself with the knowledge that he definitely has a slight edge
over the opposition. Of course Seb still had to fend him off but that
wasn’t too difficult given the dirty air created by this generation of
cars. Strategy is king these days it seems, to the detriment of balls out
*racing*.
But this is sport, and this is why we watch. If it always went according to the form book, it wouldn't be half as good.
Ferrari rolled the dice. They split the strategy on their two cars. It worked out far better than they could have imagined. Vettel was in the right place at the right time, and he took full advantage of it.
Hamilton is saying he had "other weapons" but what exactly? He has to stick to a certain time under the VSC, so speeding up wasn't an option. He can't criticise his team for not looking into the crystal ball and seeing that Vettel would still be out in front when the VSC happened.
Was there a time window from the 2nd Haas stopping out on a track to the VSC being "launched" in which the team could have seen the danger and told Hamilton to bang in some quick corners because a VSC was likely and he could be vulnerable?
But that's not a weapon that Hamilton would have had.
I suspect it's as simple as "keep at least an x.y sec gap to vettel which protects against a VSC", he stuck to that gap and in fact the gap wasn't
enough. A straightforward miscalculation, so Hamilton was preserving the
gap he was told to preserve.

I doubt it is quite as much "risk based" in terms of when a VSC is likely,
more that it is the minimum ideal gap to keep "just in case" if you can,
especially if you're concerned that pulling out too much of a gap will
cause you tyre issues.

Sounds like Merc just had the wrong figure in mind, or played the margin
too fine.
m***@gmail.com
2018-03-26 07:50:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by larkim
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by Sir Tim
Good to see Haas going so well (even it is a Ferrari kit car). Shame about
the finger trouble.
Vettel must privately think himself very, *very* lucky to have won. It
could be argued that Ferrari inveigled Lewis into making an early stop by
bringing Kimi in on lap 18 but they had no way of knowing that Haas would
cause a VSC (unless you are the wildest of wild conspiracy theorists). In
many ways the guy I feel sorriest for is Kimi - he had been going really
well all weekend but seemed to run out of steam a bit after the safety car
incident.
It must be hard to lose a GP in these circumstances but Hamilton can
console himself with the knowledge that he definitely has a slight edge
over the opposition. Of course Seb still had to fend him off but that
wasn’t too difficult given the dirty air created by this generation of
cars. Strategy is king these days it seems, to the detriment of balls out
*racing*.
But this is sport, and this is why we watch. If it always went according to the form book, it wouldn't be half as good.
Ferrari rolled the dice. They split the strategy on their two cars. It worked out far better than they could have imagined. Vettel was in the right place at the right time, and he took full advantage of it.
Hamilton is saying he had "other weapons" but what exactly? He has to stick to a certain time under the VSC, so speeding up wasn't an option. He can't criticise his team for not looking into the crystal ball and seeing that Vettel would still be out in front when the VSC happened.
Was there a time window from the 2nd Haas stopping out on a track to the VSC being "launched" in which the team could have seen the danger and told Hamilton to bang in some quick corners because a VSC was likely and he could be vulnerable?
But that's not a weapon that Hamilton would have had.
I suspect it's as simple as "keep at least an x.y sec gap to vettel which protects against a VSC", he stuck to that gap and in fact the gap wasn't
enough. A straightforward miscalculation, so Hamilton was preserving the
gap he was told to preserve.
I doubt it is quite as much "risk based" in terms of when a VSC is likely,
more that it is the minimum ideal gap to keep "just in case" if you can,
especially if you're concerned that pulling out too much of a gap will
cause you tyre issues.
Sounds like Merc just had the wrong figure in mind, or played the margin
too fine.
Yes, that sounds right (and that simple). Merc said they did look at the numbers and had incorrectly concluded that there was no danger.
m***@gmail.com
2018-03-27 05:44:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Vettel must privately think himself very, *very* lucky to have won. It
could be argued that Ferrari inveigled Lewis into making an early stop by
bringing Kimi in on lap 18 but they had no way of knowing that Haas would
cause a VSC (unless you are the wildest of wild conspiracy theorists). In
many ways the guy I feel sorriest for is Kimi - he had been going really
well all weekend but seemed to run out of steam a bit after the safety car
incident.
The problem for Merc was that Bottas was a long way down the field. Strategy is a big factor in the races now, and with one Merc against two red cars, Ferrari could play it both ways, and Merc would not be able to cover off both strategies.

So they pitted Raikkonen at what seems to have been about the start of the one-stop window, and left Vettel out. Whatever happened, Vettel was going to end up with fresher tyres.

Now, they couldn't know what was going to happen with the Haas cars, but ISTR that in the race introduction the Sky team said that there's an 80% probability of a safety car or VSC at Melbourne, so Ferrari must have thought that there was a chance that their strategy would play out. Of course, if the safety car had come out on, say, lap 40, things would have played out differently. But you still end up with Vettel able to charge at the end of the race on the fresher rubber.

If Merc didn't react to the Kimi stop then they had to bet against the undercut - and Ferrari would have covered Hamilton's stop when it came, and with Vettel 2nd they might have had time to call him in on the same lap.

So Bottas being down the field was a real problem for Merc. Maybe they should have played him all the way, slowed him down, let a lapping Ferrari catch him and then hold the red car up until the blue flags came out. With the wake coming off those cars, he'd have slowed the Ferrari just by being there and before the pass was on.
Loading...