planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Aug 18, 2018 8:02 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 3:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 2600
Johnson wrote:
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
Hahaha seriously. Hamilton saying we normally use the kerb like that. And before the corner the steering broke. Well he went off many times before this. Normally go way to wide? Don't think so. Toto is saying quite different and is implying Hamilton damaged it on the kerb. Sorry, but what hamilton said is laughable. I respect his driving most of the time, but his attitude is not good and his excuses today are pretty weak.


I never saw the Toto interview, did he say Hamilton broke it on kerbs or imply?


I think the ones who are reporting what he said maybe forgot the interview started with 'it seems' ........and ended 'but the car is just coming back so we need to check that is the case.'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:15 am
Posts: 1386
UnlikeUday wrote:
Mercedes also are saying now it's not Hamilton's fault. When he ran over he kerb at turn 1, he suffered a hydraulic issue resulting in failed power steering which is why he went off track & over the mini crests which only aggravated the issue.

https://www.motorsportweek.com/news/id/19193



I'm not so sure that Hamilton wasn't at all to blame though.
Hamilton ran wide and bounded over the kerb more than many drivers this session. He went off here at least twice before hand by the look of it. So I'm not that convinced that Hamilton is blameless for loosing the power steering. He took a rough ride several times before Mercedes have now analysed that something was wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 379
Fiki wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Tufty wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Nothing angers me more than "protecting trees" around race tracks. They couldn't get permission to cut down a single tree at Brands Hatch, a tree that was obviously a big safety risk. That is the tree that enabled the sequence of events that resulted in the death of Henry Surtees.

Basically, 2 or 3 trees needed to be removed to make that part of the track as safe as can be. Its a couple of trees in the middle of a piece of private property. Its ridiculous. They could plant 10x new tress in the infield for everyone they remove. It still angers me today, I remember seeing that tree a few years before Surtees accident and was amazed it was still there.

I've often wondered if someone will snap one day and sneak down there with a chainsaw... totally illegal but it would solve the problem and maybe save a life or two. And then the circuit could plant more in safer places as a peace offering, despite their lack of responsibility.
What is it with people wanting to cut down trees?
Fiki wrote:
I just saw the footage of that accident for the first time, and while I agree that we should never lose sight of safety, there may be more ways towards that, than just cutting down trees. How about replacing that grass strip towards that single tree with a sand trap? Failing that, how about putting the armco right next to the track? That seems to work at Monaco. Was that rear wheel assembly tethered to the car? It doesn't look like it was, and I know tethers aren't always the answer, but even if the tether fails, it will reduce the energy of the loose wheel.

All I'm saying is that it's best to look at alternatives before you take action. And yes, Surtees's death was tragic, and through no fault of his own. But I fail to see why that tree should be held responsible.


Trees are nice in the right place and that place is not next to a race track where it may contribute to a bad incident. That tree at Brands should have been removed.

When people take the policy of preservation of trees too far, people can & do die because of this policy.

Don't get me wrong, i'm dead against wholesale deforestation, but trees are a renewable resource and if the removal of a tree here or there for safety purposes, especially if that tree is replaced, is an almost insignificant price to pay to potentially save a life.
Perhaps this should have a thread of its own, but I find it very odd that some prefer cutting down trees rather than consider enforcing track limits or discussing the other alternatives I put forward. Disappointing. :?


Enforcing track limits has nothing to do with a crash and this particular situation. To me it is very simple.

Benefit of keeping the tree: Basically none, 1 tree. There are 3 trillion trees in the world. They could also re-plant 50 trees for cutting this single one down (in the infield of the track).

Benefit of cutting down the tree: Stops cars being pushed back onto the track due to the angle of the barrier. There is literally a tree in the middle of the crash barrier. It you cut down about 4-5 trees the chances of cars or debris being pushed back on are completely eliminated.

The corner is blind and on a crest, so basically if somebody goes into there and gets pushed back onto track you have no time to do anything about it.

You suggest having an Armco like Monaco. Monaco is a race track used twice per year by professional race drivers and marshalled to the highest standard. Brands hatch is used by cars and motorbikes about 300 days per year from complete amateurs to professional. It would result in deaths.

I think safety is something where you tackle all angles. The cars should have strong wheel tethers, no doubt. But the tracks should also maximise safety too and an obvious part of that is not having a single tree dictate the angle on a safety barrier.

The worst thing about the surtees accident is it was preventable. I was at brands a few years before and couldn't believe that tree was there and saw the danger. Everybody knew the danger of tamburello before Senna died but a river runs right behind it so there was no option to do anything.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2774
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
UnlikeUday wrote:
Mercedes also are saying now it's not Hamilton's fault. When he ran over he kerb at turn 1, he suffered a hydraulic issue resulting in failed power steering which is why he went off track & over the mini crests which only aggravated the issue.

https://www.motorsportweek.com/news/id/19193



I'm not so sure that Hamilton wasn't at all to blame though.
Hamilton ran wide and bounded over the kerb more than many drivers this session. He went off here at least twice before hand by the look of it. So I'm not that convinced that Hamilton is blameless for loosing the power steering. He took a rough ride several times before Mercedes have now analysed that something was wrong.


“We had the failure at Turn 1 as Lewis ran the “normal” kerb which all the drivers use in that stage of qualifying.

“Then, with failed power steering as a result of the hydraulic failure, he had the “jumping” moments that were seen on TV and which people understandably thought might have been the cause of the issue – but were in fact a consequence of it.”

Hamilton later took to social media to further clarify the situation.

“To avoid all assumptions, today was nobody’s fault,” he commented.

“When I got to the exit kerb of Turn 1 the hydraulics in the steering failed. When this happened, the car pulled to the left and so I was forced to drive off the track and subsequently taking a bumpy ride before re-joining. Those big bumps did zero damage."

Mercedes and Hamilton have the data, unless we hear otherwise it seems to have happened at turn 1.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7176
Location: Belgium
UnlikeUday wrote:
Doesn't Kimi wear goggles even when it rains during an interview?
Especially when it rains! :D

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:15 am
Posts: 1386
F1_Ernie wrote:
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
UnlikeUday wrote:
Mercedes also are saying now it's not Hamilton's fault. When he ran over he kerb at turn 1, he suffered a hydraulic issue resulting in failed power steering which is why he went off track & over the mini crests which only aggravated the issue.

https://www.motorsportweek.com/news/id/19193



I'm not so sure that Hamilton wasn't at all to blame though.
Hamilton ran wide and bounded over the kerb more than many drivers this session. He went off here at least twice before hand by the look of it. So I'm not that convinced that Hamilton is blameless for loosing the power steering. He took a rough ride several times before Mercedes have now analysed that something was wrong.


“We had the failure at Turn 1 as Lewis ran the “normal” kerb which all the drivers use in that stage of qualifying.

“Then, with failed power steering as a result of the hydraulic failure, he had the “jumping” moments that were seen on TV and which people understandably thought might have been the cause of the issue – but were in fact a consequence of it.”

Hamilton later took to social media to further clarify the situation.

“To avoid all assumptions, today was nobody’s fault,” he commented.

“When I got to the exit kerb of Turn 1 the hydraulics in the steering failed. When this happened, the car pulled to the left and so I was forced to drive off the track and subsequently taking a bumpy ride before re-joining. Those big bumps did zero damage."

Mercedes and Hamilton have the data, unless we hear otherwise it seems to have happened at turn 1.

I guess this does add up, is just quite difficult to take in. As Hamilton was making mistakes that looked to have a similar result to what happened before Mercedes said anything was wrong. Turn 8 for example. So at first, it looked pretty obvious it was his own mistake, but I think this is enough to show otherwise then. Still, not a clean session from Hamilton and his actions afterwards were very poor. Then made even worse when pushing the car when he should have known you can't get away with it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 484
Fiki wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Tufty wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Nothing angers me more than "protecting trees" around race tracks. They couldn't get permission to cut down a single tree at Brands Hatch, a tree that was obviously a big safety risk. That is the tree that enabled the sequence of events that resulted in the death of Henry Surtees.

Basically, 2 or 3 trees needed to be removed to make that part of the track as safe as can be. Its a couple of trees in the middle of a piece of private property. Its ridiculous. They could plant 10x new tress in the infield for everyone they remove. It still angers me today, I remember seeing that tree a few years before Surtees accident and was amazed it was still there.

I've often wondered if someone will snap one day and sneak down there with a chainsaw... totally illegal but it would solve the problem and maybe save a life or two. And then the circuit could plant more in safer places as a peace offering, despite their lack of responsibility.
What is it with people wanting to cut down trees?
Fiki wrote:
I just saw the footage of that accident for the first time, and while I agree that we should never lose sight of safety, there may be more ways towards that, than just cutting down trees. How about replacing that grass strip towards that single tree with a sand trap? Failing that, how about putting the armco right next to the track? That seems to work at Monaco. Was that rear wheel assembly tethered to the car? It doesn't look like it was, and I know tethers aren't always the answer, but even if the tether fails, it will reduce the energy of the loose wheel.

All I'm saying is that it's best to look at alternatives before you take action. And yes, Surtees's death was tragic, and through no fault of his own. But I fail to see why that tree should be held responsible.


Trees are nice in the right place and that place is not next to a race track where it may contribute to a bad incident. That tree at Brands should have been removed.

When people take the policy of preservation of trees too far, people can & do die because of this policy.

Don't get me wrong, i'm dead against wholesale deforestation, but trees are a renewable resource and if the removal of a tree here or there for safety purposes, especially if that tree is replaced, is an almost insignificant price to pay to potentially save a life.
Perhaps this should have a thread of its own, but I find it very odd that some prefer cutting down trees rather than consider enforcing track limits or discussing the other alternatives I put forward. Disappointing. :?

Not saying whether the tree should stay or go, but enforcing track limits is not a way to deal with something potentially dangerous at the edge of a track, other alternatives may be viable but just effectively telling drivers to avoid it is not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:21 am
Posts: 3428
Fiki wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Tufty wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Nothing angers me more than "protecting trees" around race tracks. They couldn't get permission to cut down a single tree at Brands Hatch, a tree that was obviously a big safety risk. That is the tree that enabled the sequence of events that resulted in the death of Henry Surtees.

Basically, 2 or 3 trees needed to be removed to make that part of the track as safe as can be. Its a couple of trees in the middle of a piece of private property. Its ridiculous. They could plant 10x new tress in the infield for everyone they remove. It still angers me today, I remember seeing that tree a few years before Surtees accident and was amazed it was still there.

I've often wondered if someone will snap one day and sneak down there with a chainsaw... totally illegal but it would solve the problem and maybe save a life or two. And then the circuit could plant more in safer places as a peace offering, despite their lack of responsibility.
What is it with people wanting to cut down trees?
Fiki wrote:
I just saw the footage of that accident for the first time, and while I agree that we should never lose sight of safety, there may be more ways towards that, than just cutting down trees. How about replacing that grass strip towards that single tree with a sand trap? Failing that, how about putting the armco right next to the track? That seems to work at Monaco. Was that rear wheel assembly tethered to the car? It doesn't look like it was, and I know tethers aren't always the answer, but even if the tether fails, it will reduce the energy of the loose wheel.

All I'm saying is that it's best to look at alternatives before you take action. And yes, Surtees's death was tragic, and through no fault of his own. But I fail to see why that tree should be held responsible.


Trees are nice in the right place and that place is not next to a race track where it may contribute to a bad incident. That tree at Brands should have been removed.

When people take the policy of preservation of trees too far, people can & do die because of this policy.

Don't get me wrong, i'm dead against wholesale deforestation, but trees are a renewable resource and if the removal of a tree here or there for safety purposes, especially if that tree is replaced, is an almost insignificant price to pay to potentially save a life.
Perhaps this should have a thread of its own, but I find it very odd that some prefer cutting down trees rather than consider enforcing track limits or discussing the other alternatives I put forward. Disappointing. :?

Yeah, start a thread - it's an interesting topic but not relevant to the race weekend.

_________________
AlienTurnedHuman wrote:
Eurytus probably thought he was God. At least until he was banned. Which means if he was God, it makes me very scared of PF1-Mod.

Please report forum problems to us, via PM/Feedback Thread. Screenshots will also help.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:38 pm
Posts: 2534
UnlikeUday wrote:
Mercedes also are saying now it's not Hamilton's fault. When he ran over he kerb at turn 1, he suffered a hydraulic issue resulting in failed power steering which is why he went off track & over the mini crests which only aggravated the issue.

https://www.motorsportweek.com/news/id/19193


Ferrari tactics. ;)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 1581
UnlikeUday wrote:
Rosberg seems quite surprised seeing the body language of Hamilton today. He said he's never seen such a body language come off Hamilton.

https://www.planetf1.com/news/rosberg-worried-about-hamiltons-body-language/


Maybe Rosberg will now be allowed to do the podium interviews - unless Hamilton gets to the first 3 positions?
https://www.grandprix247.com/2018/07/21 ... view-team/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2774
Apparently Ferrari have an overall advantage of 4 tenths over Mercedes on the straights.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 6:08 pm
Posts: 3614
F1_Ernie wrote:
Apparently Ferrari have an overall advantage of 4 tenths over Mercedes on the straights.


That's an odd bit of information. The straights are not all the same length so I'm not sure how that is accurate.

_________________
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: Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2763
Location: UK
Asphalt_World wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Apparently Ferrari have an overall advantage of 4 tenths over Mercedes on the straights.


That's an odd bit of information. The straights are not all the same length so I'm not sure how that is accurate.

I assume this means 4 tenths per lap over all the straights combined. Would be interested to see the source of this info...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2774
j man wrote:
Asphalt_World wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
Apparently Ferrari have an overall advantage of 4 tenths over Mercedes on the straights.


That's an odd bit of information. The straights are not all the same length so I'm not sure how that is accurate.

I assume this means 4 tenths per lap over all the straights combined. Would be interested to see the source of this info...


https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... eim-quali/

"The GPS data has shown again that Ferrari is currently a force on the straights. Even if the top speed difference at the end is only 1.8 km / h to Sebastian Vettel and 3.9 km / h to Raikkonen.

But the direct speed comparisons also show: Vettel and Bottas came with each 100 km / h from curve 2. In the acceleration phase of the Mercedes can keep up briefly. From the moment when the propulsion is determined solely by power , the Ferrari wins up to 7 km / h on the Silver Arrows. Overall, Mercedes loses on Ferrari on all straights adds four tenths to the red opponent."

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 6:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:15 am
Posts: 1386
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
UnlikeUday wrote:
Mercedes also are saying now it's not Hamilton's fault. When he ran over he kerb at turn 1, he suffered a hydraulic issue resulting in failed power steering which is why he went off track & over the mini crests which only aggravated the issue.

https://www.motorsportweek.com/news/id/19193



I'm not so sure that Hamilton wasn't at all to blame though.
Hamilton ran wide and bounded over the kerb more than many drivers this session. He went off here at least twice before hand by the look of it. So I'm not that convinced that Hamilton is blameless for loosing the power steering. He took a rough ride several times before Mercedes have now analysed that something was wrong.


“We had the failure at Turn 1 as Lewis ran the “normal” kerb which all the drivers use in that stage of qualifying.

“Then, with failed power steering as a result of the hydraulic failure, he had the “jumping” moments that were seen on TV and which people understandably thought might have been the cause of the issue – but were in fact a consequence of it.”

Hamilton later took to social media to further clarify the situation.

“To avoid all assumptions, today was nobody’s fault,” he commented.

“When I got to the exit kerb of Turn 1 the hydraulics in the steering failed. When this happened, the car pulled to the left and so I was forced to drive off the track and subsequently taking a bumpy ride before re-joining. Those big bumps did zero damage."

Mercedes and Hamilton have the data, unless we hear otherwise it seems to have happened at turn 1.

I guess this does add up, is just quite difficult to take in. As Hamilton was making mistakes that looked to have a similar result to what happened before Mercedes said anything was wrong. Turn 8 for example. So at first, it looked pretty obvious it was his own mistake, but I think this is enough to show otherwise then. Still, not a clean session from Hamilton and his actions afterwards were very poor. Then made even worse when pushing the car when he should have known you can't get away with it.

I've just watched the Channel 4 interview with Toto on Channel 4 soon after this happened.

Toto hear said things slightly differently to on sky.

"what we see on the data is that it was jumping over the kerb that caused the hydraulic leak." What he could mean hear is Hamilton jumping over the kerbs earlier on in the lap. In which case, this may have been Hamilton's fault that he had the following issue at turn one.

karun Chandhok to clarify then asked, "so you can definetely see a hydraulic leak whe Hamilton goes over the kerbs?" Toto "Exactly yes"


This was before Hamilton had got back with the car, but they were still using data. So this had now got me stuck again as to why they think differently now. Was the data incorrect then but correct now. This is just getting silly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 6:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2774
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
UnlikeUday wrote:
Mercedes also are saying now it's not Hamilton's fault. When he ran over he kerb at turn 1, he suffered a hydraulic issue resulting in failed power steering which is why he went off track & over the mini crests which only aggravated the issue.

https://www.motorsportweek.com/news/id/19193



I'm not so sure that Hamilton wasn't at all to blame though.
Hamilton ran wide and bounded over the kerb more than many drivers this session. He went off here at least twice before hand by the look of it. So I'm not that convinced that Hamilton is blameless for loosing the power steering. He took a rough ride several times before Mercedes have now analysed that something was wrong.


“We had the failure at Turn 1 as Lewis ran the “normal” kerb which all the drivers use in that stage of qualifying.

“Then, with failed power steering as a result of the hydraulic failure, he had the “jumping” moments that were seen on TV and which people understandably thought might have been the cause of the issue – but were in fact a consequence of it.”

Hamilton later took to social media to further clarify the situation.

“To avoid all assumptions, today was nobody’s fault,” he commented.

“When I got to the exit kerb of Turn 1 the hydraulics in the steering failed. When this happened, the car pulled to the left and so I was forced to drive off the track and subsequently taking a bumpy ride before re-joining. Those big bumps did zero damage."

Mercedes and Hamilton have the data, unless we hear otherwise it seems to have happened at turn 1.

I guess this does add up, is just quite difficult to take in. As Hamilton was making mistakes that looked to have a similar result to what happened before Mercedes said anything was wrong. Turn 8 for example. So at first, it looked pretty obvious it was his own mistake, but I think this is enough to show otherwise then. Still, not a clean session from Hamilton and his actions afterwards were very poor. Then made even worse when pushing the car when he should have known you can't get away with it.

I've just watched the Channel 4 interview with Toto on Channel 4 soon after this happened.

Toto hear said things slightly differently to on sky.

"what we see on the data is that it was jumping over the kerb that caused the hydraulic leak." What he could mean hear is Hamilton jumping over the kerbs earlier on in the lap. In which case, this may have been Hamilton's fault that he had the following issue at turn one.

karun Chandhok to clarify then asked, "so you can definetely see a hydraulic leak whe Hamilton goes over the kerbs?" Toto "Exactly yes"


This was before Hamilton had got back with the car, but they were still using data. So this had now got me stuck again as to why they think differently now. Was the data incorrect then but correct now. This is just getting silly.


Sounds like to me Toto just said hitting the kerb in turn 1 caused the failure. Then he probably was just say "exactly yes" to get away from the subject.

Wouldn't the interview with channel 4 be shortly after the race, not when the highlights package comes on. The statement has been released after the interview he gave to ch4.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 6:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:15 am
Posts: 1386
F1_Ernie wrote:
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
TheGiantHogweed wrote:


I'm not so sure that Hamilton wasn't at all to blame though.
Hamilton ran wide and bounded over the kerb more than many drivers this session. He went off here at least twice before hand by the look of it. So I'm not that convinced that Hamilton is blameless for loosing the power steering. He took a rough ride several times before Mercedes have now analysed that something was wrong.


“We had the failure at Turn 1 as Lewis ran the “normal” kerb which all the drivers use in that stage of qualifying.

“Then, with failed power steering as a result of the hydraulic failure, he had the “jumping” moments that were seen on TV and which people understandably thought might have been the cause of the issue – but were in fact a consequence of it.”

Hamilton later took to social media to further clarify the situation.

“To avoid all assumptions, today was nobody’s fault,” he commented.

“When I got to the exit kerb of Turn 1 the hydraulics in the steering failed. When this happened, the car pulled to the left and so I was forced to drive off the track and subsequently taking a bumpy ride before re-joining. Those big bumps did zero damage."

Mercedes and Hamilton have the data, unless we hear otherwise it seems to have happened at turn 1.

I guess this does add up, is just quite difficult to take in. As Hamilton was making mistakes that looked to have a similar result to what happened before Mercedes said anything was wrong. Turn 8 for example. So at first, it looked pretty obvious it was his own mistake, but I think this is enough to show otherwise then. Still, not a clean session from Hamilton and his actions afterwards were very poor. Then made even worse when pushing the car when he should have known you can't get away with it.

I've just watched the Channel 4 interview with Toto on Channel 4 soon after this happened.

Toto hear said things slightly differently to on sky.

"what we see on the data is that it was jumping over the kerb that caused the hydraulic leak." What he could mean hear is Hamilton jumping over the kerbs earlier on in the lap. In which case, this may have been Hamilton's fault that he had the following issue at turn one.

karun Chandhok to clarify then asked, "so you can definetely see a hydraulic leak whe Hamilton goes over the kerbs?" Toto "Exactly yes"


This was before Hamilton had got back with the car, but they were still using data. So this had now got me stuck again as to why they think differently now. Was the data incorrect then but correct now. This is just getting silly.


Sounds like to me Toto just said hitting the kerb in turn 1 caused the failure. Then he probably was just say "exactly yes" to get away from the subject.

Wouldn't the interview with channel 4 be shortly after the race, not when the highlights package comes on. The statement has been released after the interview he gave to ch4.



If you had understood what i wrote, I think you will have realise that I meant that this was before Hamilton had got back and before Mercedes had the car. So it wasn't what mercedes thought at the time the broadcast was shown. After that interview, they were talking with DC and Steve Jones about the fact that Hamilton said very different things to Toto and the team who had the data. So that is why I'm still puzzled now how they have jumped from one thing to another. If they were using data then and data now, they may find more data tomorrow proving Hamilton didn't help be doing something else too. it just confuses me why they say so many different things. Toto's expression in the interview looked like frustration in terms of having to admit that Hamilton was at fault when he said exactly. He may think differently now, but why would the data he saw then be wrong compared to what they have now.



Edit. Although when I watch further into the chanel 4 coverage. DC did think Hamilton should be able to say his own view on things as he was the one driving. And although I thought his first excuse sounded a bit silly relative to what toto said, it seems more sensible now. DC said as soon as he had seen the replay that he thought he saw Hamilton try to adjust something when he had gone round the corner before going on the kerb. He was basically implying that he though there could well have been an issue before he ran wide. This was before he heard Hamilton's interview or anything from mercedes. And although I fine what Mercedes have said a bit hard to believe because of what toto first said, DC is usually very good as predicting possible causes of things. And I think he could well be right. But I still think the choice Hamilton made by going over the kerb and remaining on it not trying to avoid driving on it for the amount of time he did was a mistake. Then obviously what he did afterwards, I think most will think was pretty bad. He's basically possibly made his broken parts suffer far moor than they needed to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 7:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 379
That is the Hamilton incident in real time with radio if anybody is interested;

https://streamable.com/tei1t

Very similar to the discussion Vettel had with his engineer at a race last year when they told him to pull over in qualifying and retire the car, but after a 20 second discussion they said ok, limp home and we see if we can fix it. They fixed it and he qualified P2.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 7:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 1581
Johnson wrote:
That is the Hamilton incident in real time with radio if anybody is interested;

https://streamable.com/tei1t

Very similar to the discussion Vettel had with his engineer at a race last year when they told him to pull over in qualifying and retire the car, but after a 20 second discussion they said ok, limp home and we see if we can fix it. They fixed it and he qualified P2.


Doesn't look to me like he was ever going to make that kerb.

Yes - Mercedes have a history of not making good calls at short notice and his car had momentum, so it is difficult to see what the harm to the car would be if he could coast home with the engine off. It depends on what their data was showing as to what was the best plan of action. Was the hydraulic loss from the steering? suspension? Engine? gearbox?
It might also be a requirement for safety to get off the track is your car is going to be too slow and is leaking oil.

Coultard on Ch4 said that Lewis was the best source of data on the car. If so, Mercedes are in big trouble.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 7:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 379
Both Hamilton's and Wolfs explainations align if the hydraulics failed at this point. In fact looking at the on boards that seems the case. The hydralics were damaged on the blue and white kerb or before?

The damage is already done here according to Hamilton and it kind of looks that way the way it just understeers off.

[Unsourced image removed]


It also looks like it may have gone on entry to T1, I haven't seen onboards of his other laps but he has twice as much lock on as Vettel's pole lap and doesn't make the corner.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 10:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9240
babararacucudada wrote:
UnlikeUday wrote:
Rosberg seems quite surprised seeing the body language of Hamilton today. He said he's never seen such a body language come off Hamilton.

https://www.planetf1.com/news/rosberg-worried-about-hamiltons-body-language/


Maybe Rosberg will now be allowed to do the podium interviews - unless Hamilton gets to the first 3 positions?
https://www.grandprix247.com/2018/07/21 ... view-team/

:?

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 21, 2018 10:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4772
babararacucudada wrote:
UnlikeUday wrote:
Rosberg seems quite surprised seeing the body language of Hamilton today. He said he's never seen such a body language come off Hamilton.

https://www.planetf1.com/news/rosberg-worried-about-hamiltons-body-language/


Maybe Rosberg will now be allowed to do the podium interviews - unless Hamilton gets to the first 3 positions?
https://www.grandprix247.com/2018/07/21 ... view-team/

If that’s true it says more about FOM than Hamilton, and it says a lot about Hamilton.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2018 1:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:10 pm
Posts: 63
post removed


Last edited by Mod Titanium on Sun Jul 22, 2018 1:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Inappropriate post removed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2018 1:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 938
Vettel & Bottas lap comparison


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0AEK5qsDDe4

_________________
PF1 pick 10 2016: 7th (1 win, 4 podiums), 2017: 17th (3 podiums)
Awards: Sergio perez trophy & Podium specialist
PF1 pick 3 2015: constructors 2nd, singles 5th
Autosport Gp 2016/17 - 5th
F1 Oracle 2017: 2nd (6 wins), 2016:5th (2wins)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2018 7:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 4:09 pm
Posts: 4250
Location: LONDON...!
https://youtu.be/fZi44FQD2nc

You can hear a noise just before he hits the apex at turn 1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2018 7:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23209
RaggedMan wrote:
babararacucudada wrote:
UnlikeUday wrote:
Rosberg seems quite surprised seeing the body language of Hamilton today. He said he's never seen such a body language come off Hamilton.

https://www.planetf1.com/news/rosberg-worried-about-hamiltons-body-language/


Maybe Rosberg will now be allowed to do the podium interviews - unless Hamilton gets to the first 3 positions?
https://www.grandprix247.com/2018/07/21 ... view-team/

If that’s true it says more about FOM than Hamilton, and it says a lot about Hamilton.

:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2018 9:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7176
Location: Belgium
Johnson wrote:
That is the Hamilton incident in real time with radio if anybody is interested;

https://streamable.com/tei1t

Very similar to the discussion Vettel had with his engineer at a race last year when they told him to pull over in qualifying and retire the car, but after a 20 second discussion they said ok, limp home and we see if we can fix it. They fixed it and he qualified P2.
Thanks! I do remember that Vettel incident.

Funny, without the red engine cover on the Sauber, I would never have understood that "LuckLuck" meant Leclerc. :-D Perhaps they should show Hamilton's race engineer an episode or two of 'Allo, allo!'

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2018 2:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 2:07 pm
Posts: 248
Location: Austin, USA
"Thank god I got team orders pulling for me. Thanks for that, guys"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2018 3:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:17 pm
Posts: 528
Location: illinois
the brit broadcasters were having a bit of a go at ferrari for team orders.
then were excitedly claiming "there are no team orders at mercedes" i sat here and laughed out loud, and said of course there are. then the merc team orders were broadcast, and they claim it was to keep kimi in third, not to keep lewis in first lol


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2018 4:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:58 pm
Posts: 1248
Location: London
pc27b wrote:
the brit broadcasters were having a bit of a go at ferrari for team orders.
then were excitedly claiming "there are no team orders at mercedes" i sat here and laughed out loud, and said of course there are. then the merc team orders were broadcast, and they claim it was to keep kimi in third, not to keep lewis in first lol


Really? I heard Brundle and Croft both wondering why it was taking so long for Ferrari to let Vettel through during the race, and both also stating that it was the right thing to do. I wonder how many of the people moaning about Merc instructing their drivers to hold position had also been screaming at their TVs earlier for Ferrari to let Vettel through. There is also some irony in the fact that team orders are even a thing today because of Ferrari "instructing" Massa to let Alonso past at this very race some years ago.

Like it or not, team orders are completely legal and in both instances today completely understandable. Ferrari should have been quicker in their instruction to Kimi, and Bottas had an excellent chance to take the position from Hamilton before the Merc order was even issued.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2018 5:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:17 pm
Posts: 528
Location: illinois
i didn't say i had a problem with either. expected both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2018 5:41 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13760
pc27b wrote:
the brit broadcasters were having a bit of a go at ferrari for team orders.
then were excitedly claiming "there are no team orders at mercedes" i sat here and laughed out loud, and said of course there are. then the merc team orders were broadcast, and they claim it was to keep kimi in third, not to keep lewis in first lol


You must've been watching C4?

On Sky they were saying for ages Kimi should let Vettel through and it was only Nico Rosberg who said Merc wouldn't impose team orders.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2018 7:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 379
Both teams gave the number 2 "too much". Kimi should have been moved aside 7 laps earlier and Bottas should have played rear gunner and given Hamilton a 1 second head start and not actually attack him for the race win a risk losing both cars to a collision. Bottas was a hairs width from getting the lead as well as close to losing both cars.

Kimi and Bottas wins are useless for either team now. Bottas in 66 points off Hamilton and Raikkonen approximately the same from Vettel, they should be outright number 2's now, they have zero chance at the title.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2018 7:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 2600
mikeyg123 wrote:
pc27b wrote:
the brit broadcasters were having a bit of a go at ferrari for team orders.
then were excitedly claiming "there are no team orders at mercedes" i sat here and laughed out loud, and said of course there are. then the merc team orders were broadcast, and they claim it was to keep kimi in third, not to keep lewis in first lol


You must've been watching C4?

On Sky they were saying for ages Kimi should let Vettel through and it was only Nico Rosberg who said Merc wouldn't impose team orders.


Nope, definitely not C4. They spent have a dozen laps before the team order questioning what the hell Ferrari were up to in keeping Vettel locked up behind Kimi.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2018 8:00 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13760
shoot999 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pc27b wrote:
the brit broadcasters were having a bit of a go at ferrari for team orders.
then were excitedly claiming "there are no team orders at mercedes" i sat here and laughed out loud, and said of course there are. then the merc team orders were broadcast, and they claim it was to keep kimi in third, not to keep lewis in first lol


You must've been watching C4?

On Sky they were saying for ages Kimi should let Vettel through and it was only Nico Rosberg who said Merc wouldn't impose team orders.


Nope, definitely not C4. They spent have a dozen laps before the team order questioning what the hell Ferrari were up to in keeping Vettel locked up behind Kimi.


Just like Sky then. God knows what pc27b was watching.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 22, 2018 10:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 484
shoot999 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pc27b wrote:
the brit broadcasters were having a bit of a go at ferrari for team orders.
then were excitedly claiming "there are no team orders at mercedes" i sat here and laughed out loud, and said of course there are. then the merc team orders were broadcast, and they claim it was to keep kimi in third, not to keep lewis in first lol


You must've been watching C4?

On Sky they were saying for ages Kimi should let Vettel through and it was only Nico Rosberg who said Merc wouldn't impose team orders.


Nope, definitely not C4. They spent have a dozen laps before the team order questioning what the hell Ferrari were up to in keeping Vettel locked up behind Kimi.

They were having a go at Ferrari for team orders by saying they should let Vettel through? Surely you don't believe that's saying Ferrari invoking them is a bar thing?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2018 11:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 938
Johnson wrote:
Both teams gave the number 2 "too much". Kimi should have been moved aside 7 laps earlier and Bottas should have played rear gunner and given Hamilton a 1 second head start and not actually attack him for the race win a risk losing both cars to a collision. Bottas was a hairs width from getting the lead as well as close to losing both cars.

Kimi and Bottas wins are useless for either team now. Bottas in 66 points off Hamilton and Raikkonen approximately the same from Vettel, they should be outright number 2's now, they have zero chance at the title.


disagree, their are 10 races left with plenty of points still on offer. While it is a LONG shot they are still not out mathematically which is why atleast in bottas case he wont be deemed a glorified #2 even though we know its inevitable. Also if not for bottas horrible luck this year he would be in the hunt for the wdc.

_________________
PF1 pick 10 2016: 7th (1 win, 4 podiums), 2017: 17th (3 podiums)
Awards: Sergio perez trophy & Podium specialist
PF1 pick 3 2015: constructors 2nd, singles 5th
Autosport Gp 2016/17 - 5th
F1 Oracle 2017: 2nd (6 wins), 2016:5th (2wins)


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: mikeyg123, owenmahamilton 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