planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Sep 23, 2017 2:45 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic

Driver of the weekend: Spanish GP
Poll ended at Fri May 19, 2017 2:05 pm
Hamilton 52%  52%  [ 30 ]
Bottas 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Vettel 16%  16%  [ 9 ]
Raikkonen 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Ricciardo 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Verstappen 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
Massa 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Stroll 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Perez 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Ocon 3%  3%  [ 2 ]
Sainz 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Kvyat 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Hulkenberg 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Palmer 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
Alonso 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
Vandoorne 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Magnussen 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Grosjean 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Ericsson 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Wehrlein 24%  24%  [ 14 ]
Total votes : 58
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 5:42 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20199
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Split hairs all you want but Hamilton would not have won without it

I'm not sure 8 seconds would have been enough, Hamilton only won by around 4 IIRC but I think he could have won by more had he wanted to. The softs were by far the better tyre, he pulled a 2 second gap very quickly and then turned everything down IMO.

People are assuming everything would have panned out exactly the same without the VSC, but Hamilton would not have come in when he did and he would have had to chase for longer while having fewer lap left to do it in. Overtaking would have been much more difficult without the benefit of completely fresh tyres


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 5:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3878
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
No, Hamilton gained roughly 4 seconds by pitting under the VSC. He gained another 3 seconds on his outlap. Without the VSC, Hamilton would still have easily been able to catch Vettel on the quicker tires within 3-4 laps. There was nothing that would have prevented Vettel from being on the slower tire with Hamilton on his tail during the final stint.

Hamilton was 8.267s behind Vettel when he pitted under the VSC. Vettel pitted the following lap when there was no more VSC and when he came out they were neck and neck. So Vettel lost 8s seconds because of the VSC. And you're saying the VSC was inconsequential? How much time has to be lost to be of consequence? Vettel also lost a further 3s stuck behind Bottas. So all in all Vettel lost more than 11s to Hamilton because of the VSC and Bottas. He couldn't have anticipated Bottas being so slow or the VSC playing into Hamilton's hands and cutting short his Medium stint, so he had everything under control until outside events conspired against him and took his victory away. Hamilton/Mercedes would not have won without the VSC, therefore it was anything but inconsequential.

That's actually not the way to look at it because of the VSC delta rules. When the VSC period began, Hamilton was 7.5 seconds behind Vettel. Hamilton then lost time under the VSC (something which shouldn't happen). It seems as though Mercedes actually got their wires crossed under the VSC as they could easily have had Lewis do a quicker lap and then make up for the reduced gap when he came into the pits. Anyway, as I said, the fact that Lewis was on the faster tire was always going to mean he would catch Vettel. The safety car only reduced the amount of time it took for that to happen. Much of the time Vettel lost was on the lap he did on old tires while Hamilton was on new tires. The VSC just trimmed about 3-4 laps from the time-frame in which they ended up nose to tail.

It's exactly the way to look at it. The VSC reduced the gap from 8s to nothing, while allowing Hamilton to get rid of the slower Medium compound early and forcing Vettel to compromise his own strategy to cover him off. Without it, it's highly likely that Lewis would have stayed out loner on the Mediums, thereby reducing the number of laps that he had available to catch Vettel anyway. And even if Lewis had caught Seb at the end, he would not have had the gift of completely fresh tyres that he did have in this race. The VSC was a race changer and anything but inconsequential

No it did not. Again, a big part of what wiped out Vettel's lead was simply the fact that he pitted AFTER Hamilton. The opportunity was there for both of them and Hamilton actually did not maximize the opportunity. Hamilton's outlap/Vettel's inlap account for a chunk of the time Vettel lost. Even had there been no virtual safety car period in this race, Hamilton was in a good position as he was going to be quicker than Vettel during the final stint and was easily close enough to catch him. We can't know whether or not he would have pulled off the win under different circumstances but writing off the win to the VSC is a lopsided way of looking at it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 5:45 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20199
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
kleefton wrote:
I think he could have waited for Ham to pit. Ham couldn't get closer than 2.5 seconds for most of the first stint, but as soon as he reduced the gap to 1.9 Vettel rushed into the pits. That gave Mercedes the opportunity to create a tire advantage towards the end of the race. Yes, very similar to what happened in Australia. Also it was always obvious that the medium tire was not going to be the tire of choice today. The goal should have been to get that medium tire stint over with as soon as possible. Saving the medium for the end put Vettel in a very vulnerable situation. I know some think Hamilton wouldn't have been able to overtake if he had to chase down Vettel at the end, but to me that is debatable. The difference between mediums and softs was huge today.

It was big, but the VSC helped Hamilton immensely. First, he got a free pit stop and neutralised an 8s advantage Vettel had in one stroke. Second, he came in a lot earlier than he otherwise would have done and had an extremely short stint on the Mediums. Without the VSC, Hamilton would have had to have chased Vettel for much longer and, although he may have caught him by the end, he would not have had the fresh tyre advantage he did have today and so overtaking would have been anything but a done deal. All the signs pointed to Vettel being in control of the race. Before the VSC, he was pulling away from Hamilton, meaning that the hill the latter would have had to climb would have been even bigger. Everything points to Vettel holding on for the win


He didn't get a free pitstop at all. It saved him 8 seconds. A free pitstop would have got him around 22 seconds. I don't agree that the VSC was inconsequential but it certainly didn't give him a free pitstop either.

Split hairs all you want but Hamilton would not have won without it

That's just your own thoughts on the matter. There is no concrete reason to believe that as Hamilton was faster than Vettel on those tires and had nearly half of the race to catch and pass him.

No he didn't, because he pitted because of the VSC. He wouldn't have had half a race to catch and pass because his Medium stint would have been longer, as would Vettel's Soft stint, when he was pulling away from Lewis


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 5:46 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20199
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
No, Hamilton gained roughly 4 seconds by pitting under the VSC. He gained another 3 seconds on his outlap. Without the VSC, Hamilton would still have easily been able to catch Vettel on the quicker tires within 3-4 laps. There was nothing that would have prevented Vettel from being on the slower tire with Hamilton on his tail during the final stint.

Hamilton was 8.267s behind Vettel when he pitted under the VSC. Vettel pitted the following lap when there was no more VSC and when he came out they were neck and neck. So Vettel lost 8s seconds because of the VSC. And you're saying the VSC was inconsequential? How much time has to be lost to be of consequence? Vettel also lost a further 3s stuck behind Bottas. So all in all Vettel lost more than 11s to Hamilton because of the VSC and Bottas. He couldn't have anticipated Bottas being so slow or the VSC playing into Hamilton's hands and cutting short his Medium stint, so he had everything under control until outside events conspired against him and took his victory away. Hamilton/Mercedes would not have won without the VSC, therefore it was anything but inconsequential.

That's actually not the way to look at it because of the VSC delta rules. When the VSC period began, Hamilton was 7.5 seconds behind Vettel. Hamilton then lost time under the VSC (something which shouldn't happen). It seems as though Mercedes actually got their wires crossed under the VSC as they could easily have had Lewis do a quicker lap and then make up for the reduced gap when he came into the pits. Anyway, as I said, the fact that Lewis was on the faster tire was always going to mean he would catch Vettel. The safety car only reduced the amount of time it took for that to happen. Much of the time Vettel lost was on the lap he did on old tires while Hamilton was on new tires. The VSC just trimmed about 3-4 laps from the time-frame in which they ended up nose to tail.

It's exactly the way to look at it. The VSC reduced the gap from 8s to nothing, while allowing Hamilton to get rid of the slower Medium compound early and forcing Vettel to compromise his own strategy to cover him off. Without it, it's highly likely that Lewis would have stayed out loner on the Mediums, thereby reducing the number of laps that he had available to catch Vettel anyway. And even if Lewis had caught Seb at the end, he would not have had the gift of completely fresh tyres that he did have in this race. The VSC was a race changer and anything but inconsequential

No it did not. Again, a big part of what wiped out Vettel's lead was simply the fact that he pitted AFTER Hamilton. The opportunity was there for both of them and Hamilton actually did not maximize the opportunity. Hamilton's outlap/Vettel's inlap account for a chunk of the time Vettel lost. Even had there been no virtual safety car period in this race, Hamilton was in a good position as he was going to be quicker than Vettel during the final stint and was easily close enough to catch him. We can't know whether or not he would have pulled off the win under different circumstances but writing off the win to the VSC is a lopsided way of looking at it.
Yes, it did. Reasons already given, with facts supplied


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 5:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6533
Zoue wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Split hairs all you want but Hamilton would not have won without it

I'm not sure 8 seconds would have been enough, Hamilton only won by around 4 IIRC but I think he could have won by more had he wanted to. The softs were by far the better tyre, he pulled a 2 second gap very quickly and then turned everything down IMO.

People are assuming everything would have panned out exactly the same without the VSC, but Hamilton would not have come in when he did and he would have had to chase for longer while having fewer lap left to do it in. Overtaking would have been much more difficult without the benefit of completely fresh tyres

Oh okay I thought you were referring to just the 8 seconds lost by Hamilton pitting under VSC.

I agree Vettel's race would have been a lot better without the VSC timing, my gut feeling is that without the VSC Vettel would have won but with so much of the race left at that point it's impossible to say with any degree of certainty.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 5:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3878
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Hamilton was 8.267s behind Vettel when he pitted under the VSC. Vettel pitted the following lap when there was no more VSC and when he came out they were neck and neck. So Vettel lost 8s seconds because of the VSC. And you're saying the VSC was inconsequential? How much time has to be lost to be of consequence? Vettel also lost a further 3s stuck behind Bottas. So all in all Vettel lost more than 11s to Hamilton because of the VSC and Bottas. He couldn't have anticipated Bottas being so slow or the VSC playing into Hamilton's hands and cutting short his Medium stint, so he had everything under control until outside events conspired against him and took his victory away. Hamilton/Mercedes would not have won without the VSC, therefore it was anything but inconsequential.

That's actually not the way to look at it because of the VSC delta rules. When the VSC period began, Hamilton was 7.5 seconds behind Vettel. Hamilton then lost time under the VSC (something which shouldn't happen). It seems as though Mercedes actually got their wires crossed under the VSC as they could easily have had Lewis do a quicker lap and then make up for the reduced gap when he came into the pits. Anyway, as I said, the fact that Lewis was on the faster tire was always going to mean he would catch Vettel. The safety car only reduced the amount of time it took for that to happen. Much of the time Vettel lost was on the lap he did on old tires while Hamilton was on new tires. The VSC just trimmed about 3-4 laps from the time-frame in which they ended up nose to tail.

It's exactly the way to look at it. The VSC reduced the gap from 8s to nothing, while allowing Hamilton to get rid of the slower Medium compound early and forcing Vettel to compromise his own strategy to cover him off. Without it, it's highly likely that Lewis would have stayed out loner on the Mediums, thereby reducing the number of laps that he had available to catch Vettel anyway. And even if Lewis had caught Seb at the end, he would not have had the gift of completely fresh tyres that he did have in this race. The VSC was a race changer and anything but inconsequential

No it did not. Again, a big part of what wiped out Vettel's lead was simply the fact that he pitted AFTER Hamilton. The opportunity was there for both of them and Hamilton actually did not maximize the opportunity. Hamilton's outlap/Vettel's inlap account for a chunk of the time Vettel lost. Even had there been no virtual safety car period in this race, Hamilton was in a good position as he was going to be quicker than Vettel during the final stint and was easily close enough to catch him. We can't know whether or not he would have pulled off the win under different circumstances but writing off the win to the VSC is a lopsided way of looking at it.
Yes, it did. Reasons already given, with facts supplied

Now you're just throwing the toys out. Your so-called "facts" are nothing more than speculation. Vettel was slower in the final stint because he took the softs in the second stint and was somewhat hampered by traffic and unable to pull a gap. He was going to need to stop soon with or without the VSC as his pace was basically at the crossover point with Hamilton's at that point in the race. Ultimately, with or without the VSC, it was going to be Vettel with track position vs. Hamilton with better pace in the closing stint.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 5:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 1072
Zoue wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Split hairs all you want but Hamilton would not have won without it

I'm not sure 8 seconds would have been enough, Hamilton only won by around 4 IIRC but I think he could have won by more had he wanted to. The softs were by far the better tyre, he pulled a 2 second gap very quickly and then turned everything down IMO.

People are assuming everything would have panned out exactly the same without the VSC, but Hamilton would not have come in when he did and he would have had to chase for longer while having fewer lap left to do it in. Overtaking would have been much more difficult without the benefit of completely fresh tyres


Even accounting for that, there would have been a lot of the race to go so I see Hamilton catching Vettel as very likely indeed. I think the main point of consideration (as we've already touched on) is the likelihood of Hamilton really being able to make a move with less juice in the tyres. Because of the track layout and the nature of the final chicane, I do think Hamilton would have given himself at least a couple of good shots to make the move but overall it would have been a substantially trickier proposition for him. However, I do favour Vettel in the hypothetical.

In short: Ham would have less time to catch and would have used up more of his tyres to close the gap which would have made the pass harder, but the nature of sector 3 gives him chances on the main straight regardless at least for some sort of window. Would Vettel defend it? Probably yes, maybe no.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 5:56 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20199
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Split hairs all you want but Hamilton would not have won without it

I'm not sure 8 seconds would have been enough, Hamilton only won by around 4 IIRC but I think he could have won by more had he wanted to. The softs were by far the better tyre, he pulled a 2 second gap very quickly and then turned everything down IMO.

People are assuming everything would have panned out exactly the same without the VSC, but Hamilton would not have come in when he did and he would have had to chase for longer while having fewer lap left to do it in. Overtaking would have been much more difficult without the benefit of completely fresh tyres

Oh okay I thought you were referring to just the 8 seconds lost by Hamilton pitting under VSC.

I agree Vettel's race would have been a lot better without the VSC timing, my gut feeling is that without the VSC Vettel would have won but with so much of the race left at that point it's impossible to say with any degree of certainty.

Yeah, but Vettel had track position. Hamilton had ultra-fresh tyre and it still took him 5 laps to pass. If he'd have had to chase Vettel down for any significant length of time the tyre disparity would have been much less and Vettel would have been in a much stronger position. I think Hamilton would have needed a large dose of luck to win. Which he got, as it happens


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 6:04 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20199
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
That's actually not the way to look at it because of the VSC delta rules. When the VSC period began, Hamilton was 7.5 seconds behind Vettel. Hamilton then lost time under the VSC (something which shouldn't happen). It seems as though Mercedes actually got their wires crossed under the VSC as they could easily have had Lewis do a quicker lap and then make up for the reduced gap when he came into the pits. Anyway, as I said, the fact that Lewis was on the faster tire was always going to mean he would catch Vettel. The safety car only reduced the amount of time it took for that to happen. Much of the time Vettel lost was on the lap he did on old tires while Hamilton was on new tires. The VSC just trimmed about 3-4 laps from the time-frame in which they ended up nose to tail.

It's exactly the way to look at it. The VSC reduced the gap from 8s to nothing, while allowing Hamilton to get rid of the slower Medium compound early and forcing Vettel to compromise his own strategy to cover him off. Without it, it's highly likely that Lewis would have stayed out loner on the Mediums, thereby reducing the number of laps that he had available to catch Vettel anyway. And even if Lewis had caught Seb at the end, he would not have had the gift of completely fresh tyres that he did have in this race. The VSC was a race changer and anything but inconsequential

No it did not. Again, a big part of what wiped out Vettel's lead was simply the fact that he pitted AFTER Hamilton. The opportunity was there for both of them and Hamilton actually did not maximize the opportunity. Hamilton's outlap/Vettel's inlap account for a chunk of the time Vettel lost. Even had there been no virtual safety car period in this race, Hamilton was in a good position as he was going to be quicker than Vettel during the final stint and was easily close enough to catch him. We can't know whether or not he would have pulled off the win under different circumstances but writing off the win to the VSC is a lopsided way of looking at it.
Yes, it did. Reasons already given, with facts supplied

Now you're just throwing the toys out. Your so-called "facts" are nothing more than speculation. Vettel was slower in the final stint because he took the softs in the second stint and was somewhat hampered by traffic and unable to pull a gap. He was going to need to stop soon with or without the VSC as his pace was basically at the crossover point with Hamilton's at that point in the race. Ultimately, with or without the VSC, it was going to be Vettel with track position vs. Hamilton with better pace in the closing stint.

Well I don't know what race you were watching but Vettel was pulling a gap before the VSC came out and was comfortably lapping in the low 1:25s. A crucial fact you appear to be ignoring is that the stint lengths would have been longer without the VSC: it was the latter's appearance that prompted Mercedes to call Hamilton in, which set off the whole chain of events.

It's not lopsided to recognise the impact the VSC had, since it changed so much of the race. What is lopsided is pretending it was somehow insignificant and ignoring the crucial part it played in the race. Without it, there was nothing to indicate Hamilton had any kind of advantage over Vettel


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 6:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3878
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
No it did not. Again, a big part of what wiped out Vettel's lead was simply the fact that he pitted AFTER Hamilton. The opportunity was there for both of them and Hamilton actually did not maximize the opportunity. Hamilton's outlap/Vettel's inlap account for a chunk of the time Vettel lost. Even had there been no virtual safety car period in this race, Hamilton was in a good position as he was going to be quicker than Vettel during the final stint and was easily close enough to catch him. We can't know whether or not he would have pulled off the win under different circumstances but writing off the win to the VSC is a lopsided way of looking at it.
Yes, it did. Reasons already given, with facts supplied

Now you're just throwing the toys out. Your so-called "facts" are nothing more than speculation. Vettel was slower in the final stint because he took the softs in the second stint and was somewhat hampered by traffic and unable to pull a gap. He was going to need to stop soon with or without the VSC as his pace was basically at the crossover point with Hamilton's at that point in the race. Ultimately, with or without the VSC, it was going to be Vettel with track position vs. Hamilton with better pace in the closing stint.

Well I don't know what race you were watching but Vettel was pulling a gap before the VSC came out and was comfortably lapping in the low 1:25s. A crucial fact you appear to be ignoring is that the stint lengths would have been longer without the VSC: it was the latter's appearance that prompted Mercedes to call Hamilton in, which set off the whole chain of events.

It's not lopsided to recognise the impact the VSC had, since it changed so much of the race. What is lopsided is pretending it was somehow insignificant and ignoring the crucial part it played in the race. Without it, there was nothing to indicate Hamilton had any kind of advantage over Vettel

The reality is that the stint could have ended at any time. There is no reason to assume that either of them could not have stopped without the VSC. In terms of the gap; check again. The gap was going up and down by a second or two as they dealt with traffic but in clean air, they were already about even on pace when the VSC came out. Vettel was not going to have enough of a gap to keep Hamilton from catching him in the final stint of the race.

Speculation as to whether or not Hamilton would have been able to pass him is another thing altogether but Mercedes made the decision to do the inverse of Ferrari's strategy; which meant that they were always banking on things closing up at the end. To just assume that they would have lost and to profess such certainty about it is bizarre.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 6:40 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20199
Well, Wolff doesn't share your optimism or ideas on pit strategies and credits the VSC call as winning the race for them:

www.motorsport.com/f1/news/magic-call-c ... ff-906118/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 6:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3878
Zoue wrote:
Well, Wolff doesn't share your optimism or ideas on pit strategies and credits the VSC call as winning the race for them:

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/magic ... ff-906118/

Lol maybe you should actually read these articles before posting them. He doesn't say that at all. He does make a solid point though. by pitting right at the end of the VSC period, Vettel was unable to pit under VSC conditions in response.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 6:51 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20199
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Well, Wolff doesn't share your optimism or ideas on pit strategies and credits the VSC call as winning the race for them:

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/magic ... ff-906118/

Lol maybe you should actually read these articles before posting them. He doesn't say that at all. He does make a solid point though. by pitting right at the end of the VSC period, Vettel was unable to pit under VSC conditions in response.

I think you're blind. That's exactly what he says. He also says that without the VSC he wasn't hopeful that Hamilton could win and all they could do was hope the tyre advantage might work at the end. But the VSC changed that for them.

But you go ahead and continue to believe, against all the evidence, that the VSC was inconsequential


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 7:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3878
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Well, Wolff doesn't share your optimism or ideas on pit strategies and credits the VSC call as winning the race for them:

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/magic ... ff-906118/

Lol maybe you should actually read these articles before posting them. He doesn't say that at all. He does make a solid point though. by pitting right at the end of the VSC period, Vettel was unable to pit under VSC conditions in response.

I think you're blind. That's exactly what he says. He also says that without the VSC he wasn't hopeful that Hamilton could win and all they could do was hope the tyre advantage might work at the end. But the VSC changed that for them.

But you go ahead and continue to believe, against all the evidence, that the VSC was inconsequential

Yawn, your pattern of attempting an appeal to authority when all else fails is nearly 100% predictable. Regardless of your interpretation of his comments (he did not say that they weren't hopeful that he could win; in fact he said the opposite "We started to go on a remote strategy - that was to put the medium tyre on and keep the soft for the end to, hopefully, attack") the fact remains that the strategy was always going to lead to Hamilton being faster than Vettel during the closing stint and close enough to attempt to overtake.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 7:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 4145
Laz_T800 wrote:
Lewis.
Maybe without the error for the 5 sec penalty i'd have gone Wehrlein.

The error was not his, he got the call from team too late and choose to brake the rule knowing that 5 second penalty would harm him less than pitting under race conditions.

_________________
The end is near


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 8:06 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20199
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Well, Wolff doesn't share your optimism or ideas on pit strategies and credits the VSC call as winning the race for them:

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/magic ... ff-906118/

Lol maybe you should actually read these articles before posting them. He doesn't say that at all. He does make a solid point though. by pitting right at the end of the VSC period, Vettel was unable to pit under VSC conditions in response.

I think you're blind. That's exactly what he says. He also says that without the VSC he wasn't hopeful that Hamilton could win and all they could do was hope the tyre advantage might work at the end. But the VSC changed that for them.

But you go ahead and continue to believe, against all the evidence, that the VSC was inconsequential

Yawn, your pattern of attempting an appeal to authority when all else fails is nearly 100% predictable. Regardless of your interpretation of his comments (he did not say that they weren't hopeful that he could win; in fact he said the opposite "We started to go on a remote strategy - that was to put the medium tyre on and keep the soft for the end to, hopefully, attack") the fact remains that the strategy was always going to lead to Hamilton being faster than Vettel during the closing stint and close enough to attempt to overtake.
Yawn, your pattern of ignoring evidence that's staring you in the face in favour of your own whacked out theory is nearly 100% predictable. He said:

"And from then on we were on the back foot. And there wasn't really a lot to do so we tried to extend the stint and hopefully, towards the end of the race, have a better tyre."

It's difficult to interpret being on the back foot and relying on hope to win as being confident of your own chances, but to each their own.

No-one's disputing Lewis would have been faster at the end, so nice strawman there. But Vettel had track position and by Wolff's own admission their strategy call was brought on by the VSC, which changed the game. Without it, the tyre stints, gaps and ultimate tyre differences would have been different and Mercedes would have faced a much bigger uphill battle than they did. The VSC turned their race for them, like I've been saying all along,


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 9:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2168
Vettel.

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 9:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 3878
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lol maybe you should actually read these articles before posting them. He doesn't say that at all. He does make a solid point though. by pitting right at the end of the VSC period, Vettel was unable to pit under VSC conditions in response.

I think you're blind. That's exactly what he says. He also says that without the VSC he wasn't hopeful that Hamilton could win and all they could do was hope the tyre advantage might work at the end. But the VSC changed that for them.

But you go ahead and continue to believe, against all the evidence, that the VSC was inconsequential

Yawn, your pattern of attempting an appeal to authority when all else fails is nearly 100% predictable. Regardless of your interpretation of his comments (he did not say that they weren't hopeful that he could win; in fact he said the opposite "We started to go on a remote strategy - that was to put the medium tyre on and keep the soft for the end to, hopefully, attack") the fact remains that the strategy was always going to lead to Hamilton being faster than Vettel during the closing stint and close enough to attempt to overtake.
Yawn, your pattern of ignoring evidence that's staring you in the face in favour of your own whacked out theory is nearly 100% predictable. He said:

"And from then on we were on the back foot. And there wasn't really a lot to do so we tried to extend the stint and hopefully, towards the end of the race, have a better tyre."

It's difficult to interpret being on the back foot and relying on hope to win as being confident of your own chances, but to each their own.

No-one's disputing Lewis would have been faster at the end, so nice strawman there. But Vettel had track position and by Wolff's own admission their strategy call was brought on by the VSC, which changed the game. Without it, the tyre stints, gaps and ultimate tyre differences would have been different and Mercedes would have faced a much bigger uphill battle than they did. The VSC turned their race for them, like I've been saying all along,

In an effort to avoid a perpetual and circular argument (and with knowledge that it will have to be me to do so) I will abandon this conversation with the caveat that I must once again point out the blatantly obvious fact that all the VSC did was move up the time table of their inevitable on track confrontation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 9:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9380
Location: Ireland
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
No, Hamilton gained roughly 4 seconds by pitting under the VSC. He gained another 3 seconds on his outlap. Without the VSC, Hamilton would still have easily been able to catch Vettel on the quicker tires within 3-4 laps. There was nothing that would have prevented Vettel from being on the slower tire with Hamilton on his tail during the final stint.

Hamilton was 8.267s behind Vettel when he pitted under the VSC. Vettel pitted the following lap when there was no more VSC and when he came out they were neck and neck. So Vettel lost 8s seconds because of the VSC. And you're saying the VSC was inconsequential? How much time has to be lost to be of consequence? Vettel also lost a further 3s stuck behind Bottas. So all in all Vettel lost more than 11s to Hamilton because of the VSC and Bottas. He couldn't have anticipated Bottas being so slow or the VSC playing into Hamilton's hands and cutting short his Medium stint, so he had everything under control until outside events conspired against him and took his victory away. Hamilton/Mercedes would not have won without the VSC, therefore it was anything but inconsequential.

That's actually not the way to look at it because of the VSC delta rules. When the VSC period began, Hamilton was 7.5 seconds behind Vettel. Hamilton then lost time under the VSC (something which shouldn't happen). It seems as though Mercedes actually got their wires crossed under the VSC as they could easily have had Lewis do a quicker lap and then make up for the reduced gap when he came into the pits. Anyway, as I said, the fact that Lewis was on the faster tire was always going to mean he would catch Vettel. The safety car only reduced the amount of time it took for that to happen. Much of the time Vettel lost was on the lap he did on old tires while Hamilton was on new tires. The VSC just trimmed about 3-4 laps from the time-frame in which they ended up nose to tail.

It's exactly the way to look at it. The VSC reduced the gap from 8s to nothing, while allowing Hamilton to get rid of the slower Medium compound early and forcing Vettel to compromise his own strategy to cover him off. Without it, it's highly likely that Lewis would have stayed out loner on the Mediums, thereby reducing the number of laps that he had available to catch Vettel anyway. And even if Lewis had caught Seb at the end, he would not have had the gift of completely fresh tyres that he did have in this race. The VSC was a race changer and anything but inconsequential

No it did not. Again, a big part of what wiped out Vettel's lead was simply the fact that he pitted AFTER Hamilton. The opportunity was there for both of them and Hamilton actually did not maximize the opportunity. Hamilton's outlap/Vettel's inlap account for a chunk of the time Vettel lost. Even had there been no virtual safety car period in this race, Hamilton was in a good position as he was going to be quicker than Vettel during the final stint and was easily close enough to catch him. We can't know whether or not he would have pulled off the win under different circumstances but writing off the win to the VSC is a lopsided way of looking at it.

I thought I was losing my marbles. From what I recall both could have pitted under VSC. Merc did, Ferrari didn't. Merc pulled a fast one on them, ditched the slower tyre and gained all the time all in on go. Absolutely great call by the Merc pitwall

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 9:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8280
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
Man I can't stand how sky have suddenly come to a conclusion that Vettel and Hamilton are now "clear number 1 drivers" Remember Bottas had an old engine and had to retire throught no fault of his own!. If Hamilton was to retire next race and Bottas was to win, they would be back to just 10 points appart. At which point sky were saying Bottas looks like he'll be in the championship fight! We are only 5 races in and we don't know what will happen.


The title was basically won in the first 4 races last season. Can Bottas beat Vettel to a title, he has beaten him one in 5 races and is 41 points behind him. Given that it seems a long shot...
If the Mercedes car is strong there is a good chance Hamilton will be too, Bottas has also beaten Hamilton 1 race in 5 too.

So basically he needs a huge upturn in form and start beating drivers who have beaten him 80% of the time and whom he is quite a long way behind in the WDC. His engine failure today was very unfortunate, if Hamilton and Vettel 1-2 the next 2 races, Bottas is out of it for sure.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 10:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2015 3:45 am
Posts: 484
Location: Michigan, USA
I'm going to go with Wehrlein, putting that Sauber much higher than expected both in qualy and the race. Honorable mention to Alonso for his qualy performance.

_________________
Top Three: 5 wins, 15 podiums | 2016: 9th [6th] | 2017: 15th [6th]
Pick 10: 1 win, 3 podiums | 2016: 22nd | 2017: 25th
F1 Oracle: 5 wins | 2016: 6th | 2017: 5th
Group Pick'em: 2 wins, 4 podiums | 2016: 14th | 2017: 12th


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 11:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8280
Without the VSC the race was going to be Hamilton chasing down Vettel on soft tyres over the last 20 odd laps.

There wasn't much difference between their pace when the VSC came out, when both had clean air Vettel was about 0.2 quicker at that stage but he was dealing with the traffic slightly better. Vettel pulled 4.4 seconds over the 9 laps after he cleared Bottas but Mercedes actually expected Hamilton to begin to close that as Vettels softs went off.

We likely would have seen Hamilton on softs needing to close down a 11-12 second lead with probably 4-5 lap fresher soft tyres against Vettels mediums over about 20 laps. I think there is no doubt he would close the gap, but overtaking is the question mark. The soft tyre was so much faster than the medium that Mercedes were weary of Ferrari pitting Vettel onto them with 12 laps to go and being able to catch Hamilton from 26 seconds behind! We are talking 1.5+ seconds

Hamilton was able to overtake Vettel soft vs medium on equal aged tyres. He would have had a life advantage at the end but it depends how well both wore. It would have been interesting and either could have won it. The Hamilton-Mercedes package was a faster race car than the Vettel-Ferrari one today with the single exception of the first lap in which Vettel really did fly.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 11:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4202
Location: Michigan, USA
Pascal Wehrlein.

'Nuff said.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 12:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 11710
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Well, Wolff doesn't share your optimism or ideas on pit strategies and credits the VSC call as winning the race for them:

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/magic ... ff-906118/

Lol maybe you should actually read these articles before posting them. He doesn't say that at all. He does make a solid point though. by pitting right at the end of the VSC period, Vettel was unable to pit under VSC conditions in response.

I think you're blind. That's exactly what he says. He also says that without the VSC he wasn't hopeful that Hamilton could win and all they could do was hope the tyre advantage might work at the end. But the VSC changed that for them.

But you go ahead and continue to believe, against all the evidence, that the VSC was inconsequential

Yawn, your pattern of attempting an appeal to authority when all else fails is nearly 100% predictable. Regardless of your interpretation of his comments (he did not say that they weren't hopeful that he could win; in fact he said the opposite "We started to go on a remote strategy - that was to put the medium tyre on and keep the soft for the end to, hopefully, attack") the fact remains that the strategy was always going to lead to Hamilton being faster than Vettel during the closing stint and close enough to attempt to overtake.
Yawn, your pattern of ignoring evidence that's staring you in the face in favour of your own whacked out theory is nearly 100% predictable. He said:

"And from then on we were on the back foot. And there wasn't really a lot to do so we tried to extend the stint and hopefully, towards the end of the race, have a better tyre."

It's difficult to interpret being on the back foot and relying on hope to win as being confident of your own chances, but to each their own.

No-one's disputing Lewis would have been faster at the end, so nice strawman there. But Vettel had track position and by Wolff's own admission their strategy call was brought on by the VSC, which changed the game. Without it, the tyre stints, gaps and ultimate tyre differences would have been different and Mercedes would have faced a much bigger uphill battle than they did. The VSC turned their race for them, like I've been saying all along,


It wasn't luck though was it? Nothing to stop Ferrari pitting under the VSC as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 12:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8280
Indeed, Ferrari just needed to pit under the VSC and Vettel holds his 8 second lead (if both pit) or as Mercedes have now disclosed they wouldn't have pitted if Vettel did which would have likely won Ferrari the race as Vettel would be 5 seconds behind Hamilton on track with 10 lap fresher mediums so he would have caught him at which point he could have pitted himself onto another set of softs and undercut Hamilton to take the lead and both be on softs to the end or he could have let Hamilton pit and try to close the 22 second gap whilst he went to the end on his mediums.

The teams have at least 2 or three strategy guys evaluating every second "what will we do now if a VSC or SC comes out" and both teams had 2-3 minutes to decide to pit or not. Ferrari got it wrong, Mercedes caught them napping and timed that stop to perfection.

Ferrari lost out today because the car behind has nothing to lose and can gamble on strategy. Mercedes adopted the "whatever you do we will do the opposite" strategy and it worked for them. Ferrari did the same in Russia by leaving Vettel out and Vettel won Australia in the same fashion. Vettel also nearly won China with such a gamble. The 2nd place man has everything to gain in these situations.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 2:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 10:20 am
Posts: 66
Location: London, UK
My vote goes to WEH ... Sure the VSC helped but he had to be up there to take advantage of it . And OMG Sauber in front of McL !!!

ON the vet/Ham Ferrari/Mercedes issue... IMHO the race was won by merc strat eliminating that 8s advantage by pitting at the end of VSC and making Ferrari pit to cover and Bot making Vet lose 6s

_________________
The bond that links your true family is not one of blood, but of respect and joy in each other's life. Rarely do members of one family grow up under the same roof.”
Richard Bach, Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 7:01 am 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20199
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lol maybe you should actually read these articles before posting them. He doesn't say that at all. He does make a solid point though. by pitting right at the end of the VSC period, Vettel was unable to pit under VSC conditions in response.

I think you're blind. That's exactly what he says. He also says that without the VSC he wasn't hopeful that Hamilton could win and all they could do was hope the tyre advantage might work at the end. But the VSC changed that for them.

But you go ahead and continue to believe, against all the evidence, that the VSC was inconsequential

Yawn, your pattern of attempting an appeal to authority when all else fails is nearly 100% predictable. Regardless of your interpretation of his comments (he did not say that they weren't hopeful that he could win; in fact he said the opposite "We started to go on a remote strategy - that was to put the medium tyre on and keep the soft for the end to, hopefully, attack") the fact remains that the strategy was always going to lead to Hamilton being faster than Vettel during the closing stint and close enough to attempt to overtake.
Yawn, your pattern of ignoring evidence that's staring you in the face in favour of your own whacked out theory is nearly 100% predictable. He said:

"And from then on we were on the back foot. And there wasn't really a lot to do so we tried to extend the stint and hopefully, towards the end of the race, have a better tyre."

It's difficult to interpret being on the back foot and relying on hope to win as being confident of your own chances, but to each their own.

No-one's disputing Lewis would have been faster at the end, so nice strawman there. But Vettel had track position and by Wolff's own admission their strategy call was brought on by the VSC, which changed the game. Without it, the tyre stints, gaps and ultimate tyre differences would have been different and Mercedes would have faced a much bigger uphill battle than they did. The VSC turned their race for them, like I've been saying all along,


It wasn't luck though was it? Nothing to stop Ferrari pitting under the VSC as well.

Come on, you know better than that. It wasn't in Vettel's interest to pit that early, as that would put him on the slower Medium compound for longer and mess up his strategy. Put another way, the VSC didn't allow him to take advantage of the faster Soft tyres, while completely negating the disadvantage of the Mediums for Hamilton, while at the same time allowing him to get rid of them with minimal time penalty. Hamilton pitted because it gave him a massive advantage; Vettel pitted because he was forced to, but it put him at a massive disadvantage. So that was very lucky for one, but unlucky for the other.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 7:09 am 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20199
lamo wrote:
Indeed, Ferrari just needed to pit under the VSC and Vettel holds his 8 second lead (if both pit) or as Mercedes have now disclosed they wouldn't have pitted if Vettel did which would have likely won Ferrari the race as Vettel would be 5 seconds behind Hamilton on track with 10 lap fresher mediums so he would have caught him at which point he could have pitted himself onto another set of softs and undercut Hamilton to take the lead and both be on softs to the end or he could have let Hamilton pit and try to close the 22 second gap whilst he went to the end on his mediums.

The teams have at least 2 or three strategy guys evaluating every second "what will we do now if a VSC or SC comes out" and both teams had 2-3 minutes to decide to pit or not. Ferrari got it wrong, Mercedes caught them napping and timed that stop to perfection.

Ferrari lost out today because the car behind has nothing to lose and can gamble on strategy. Mercedes adopted the "whatever you do we will do the opposite" strategy and it worked for them. Ferrari did the same in Russia by leaving Vettel out and Vettel won Australia in the same fashion. Vettel also nearly won China with such a gamble. The 2nd place man has everything to gain in these situations.

I'm not sure I see that Mercedes would not have pitted if Vettel had? Pitting for them made sense, regardless of what Vettel did. Leaving it that late was to fool Ferrari into thinking they had gotten away with it and gave Mercedes an even better chance than if both had done, since it made Vettel pit at racing speeds and gave Mercedes an extra 8s on track. It meant Lewis didn't have to do any chasing on the Softs and could use their freshness to complete advantage. It was a really good call by Mercedes and made Lewis' job a lot easier but tbh the writing was on the wall for Ferrari as soon as the VSC came out. They were sitting ducks either way and all they could do was react to Mercedes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 7:14 am 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20199
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lol maybe you should actually read these articles before posting them. He doesn't say that at all. He does make a solid point though. by pitting right at the end of the VSC period, Vettel was unable to pit under VSC conditions in response.

I think you're blind. That's exactly what he says. He also says that without the VSC he wasn't hopeful that Hamilton could win and all they could do was hope the tyre advantage might work at the end. But the VSC changed that for them.

But you go ahead and continue to believe, against all the evidence, that the VSC was inconsequential

Yawn, your pattern of attempting an appeal to authority when all else fails is nearly 100% predictable. Regardless of your interpretation of his comments (he did not say that they weren't hopeful that he could win; in fact he said the opposite "We started to go on a remote strategy - that was to put the medium tyre on and keep the soft for the end to, hopefully, attack") the fact remains that the strategy was always going to lead to Hamilton being faster than Vettel during the closing stint and close enough to attempt to overtake.
Yawn, your pattern of ignoring evidence that's staring you in the face in favour of your own whacked out theory is nearly 100% predictable. He said:

"And from then on we were on the back foot. And there wasn't really a lot to do so we tried to extend the stint and hopefully, towards the end of the race, have a better tyre."

It's difficult to interpret being on the back foot and relying on hope to win as being confident of your own chances, but to each their own.

No-one's disputing Lewis would have been faster at the end, so nice strawman there. But Vettel had track position and by Wolff's own admission their strategy call was brought on by the VSC, which changed the game. Without it, the tyre stints, gaps and ultimate tyre differences would have been different and Mercedes would have faced a much bigger uphill battle than they did. The VSC turned their race for them, like I've been saying all along,

In an effort to avoid a perpetual and circular argument (and with knowledge that it will have to be me to do so) I will abandon this conversation with the caveat that I must once again point out the blatantly obvious fact that all the VSC did was move up the time table of their inevitable on track confrontation.

That's fine. But the very fact that the timetable for their confrontation would be moved makes all the difference, which should also be blatantly obvious. Lewis on brand new Softs facing Vettel on brand new Mediums, vs the same battle on used tyres further down the line, perhaps near the crossover point of the tyres? If you don't think that alone would make a difference then I think you're in denial.


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: funkymonkey, Zoue 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