planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:54 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5556
Mort Canard wrote:
Exediron wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
The 2018 Ferrari is the most mysterious car in years

I read that they took off all the upgrades they had put on the car since Germany, and this was essentially a Hockenheim-spec car running in Austin. If true, that's a complete debacle for Ferrari's development department - regressing the car half a season makes it faster? And people complain about McLaren's development! x(


Exediron,
Do you have a source for the backdate to Germany claim. Several sites I have seen are saying the car was backdated to Russia. Would be interested in checking it out.

I believe they went back to Singapore, not Russia.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28442
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Remember Suzuka 1990? I do...

Yes I was thinking of that when I said it, I guess it was Senna that got it changed?
Who thought he had arranged to get it switched. The reason I felt this was important, was that it showed that the inside line, with pole position advantage, may or may not be decisive.

It may be track specific as well, if some tracks are more dirty offline?
Obviously, yes. Plus tarmac quality, clutch, driver performance, etc.

Why does clutch or driver performance come into what is the best starting position for pole position?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28442
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Yes I was thinking of that when I said it, I guess it was Senna that got it changed?

Wanted it changed...

Yes but the controversy it caused may have got it changed later?

Later maybe, I was talking about '90, as per the post above

Yes but I never said that Senna actually got it changed in 1990 it would be interesting to know exactly why it got changed?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:14 am
Posts: 459
Location: Stratford
Battle Far wrote:
Raikonnen's start had nothing to do with him being on the inside, instead it had everything to do with his tyres... He was the only front runner to start on Ultra Softs, the others were on Super Softs, that's a car length right away.

Vettel also took it easy on his Softs, that's what allowed him to take 18s out of Bottas in the last 20 laps.

Great drive by Kimi, driving only just fast enough to win, a skill set that's missing from so many of the new generation.

Watching Hamilton pussy footing around with Verstappen at the end was depressing, it means that VER's bully boy tactics have worked just as they did with Senna and Schumacher, even the 5 time champion elect has been intimidated


I think Hamilton is just very aware that he didn't have to win the championship in that moment. He still has another three races to do so and he knows that. If things were closer between him and Vettel I think he would have taken more of a risk and got past no problems.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2046
It is really unbelievable. Vettel had two chances to win this race by the virtue of his car - but both times he single-handedly destroyed it by stupid mistakes.

First, he should have won it having the fastest car even after qualifying 'only' second (but ahead of eventual winner Räikkönen). But he accelerated under red flags in free practice, getting himself a completely unnecessary grid penalty.

Second, even with the grid penalty, he was in a position to win (ahead of eventual second-placed Verstappen) - with or without team orders. But he spun in an unnecessary way, destroying his second win chance this weekend ...

Adding to this Baku, Le Castellet, Hockenheim, Monza, Suzuka (also two crucial mistakes) ...

Would you not be looking for a new number one if you were Ferrari?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 10:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6405
Location: Nebraska, USA
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
It is really unbelievable. Vettel had two chances to win this race by the virtue of his car - but both times he single-handedly destroyed it by stupid mistakes.

First, he should have won it having the fastest car even after qualifying 'only' second (but ahead of eventual winner Räikkönen). But he accelerated under red flags in free practice, getting himself a completely unnecessary grid penalty.

Second, even with the grid penalty, he was in a position to win (ahead of eventual second-placed Verstappen) - with or without team orders. But he spun in an unnecessary way, destroying his second win chance this weekend ...

Adding to this Baku, Le Castellet, Hockenheim, Monza, Suzuka (also two crucial mistakes) ...

Would you not be looking for a new number one if you were Ferrari?


I think they keep him around just so you have him to rant against, Paolo.
;)

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 10:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2046
Blake wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
It is really unbelievable. Vettel had two chances to win this race by the virtue of his car - but both times he single-handedly destroyed it by stupid mistakes.

First, he should have won it having the fastest car even after qualifying 'only' second (but ahead of eventual winner Räikkönen). But he accelerated under red flags in free practice, getting himself a completely unnecessary grid penalty.

Second, even with the grid penalty, he was in a position to win (ahead of eventual second-placed Verstappen) - with or without team orders. But he spun in an unnecessary way, destroying his second win chance this weekend ...

Adding to this Baku, Le Castellet, Hockenheim, Monza, Suzuka (also two crucial mistakes) ...

Would you not be looking for a new number one if you were Ferrari?


I think they keep him around just so you have him to rant against, Paolo.
;)


:lol:

I don't have to do anything; he is doing it all by himself lately. ;)

But seriously, I was always critical about voices claiming Vettel was as good as Hamilton or Alonso, that's true (and I got always heavily attacked for that which is fine with me). But I also classified him as an absolute top driver right behind those. His current run of (mostly stupid) mistakes is really making me speechless. It is not good for F1 if a 4x wdc looks like a medium talented rookie every second weekend.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 4:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6100
Location: Michigan, USA
Mort Canard wrote:
Exediron wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
The 2018 Ferrari is the most mysterious car in years

I read that they took off all the upgrades they had put on the car since Germany, and this was essentially a Hockenheim-spec car running in Austin. If true, that's a complete debacle for Ferrari's development department - regressing the car half a season makes it faster? And people complain about McLaren's development! x(

Exediron,
Do you have a source for the backdate to Germany claim. Several sites I have seen are saying the car was backdated to Russia. Would be interested in checking it out.

I tried to find it, but I couldn't - and then I remembered that it wasn't anything I read, it was actually something they said on Sky during practice. So no, I don't really have a source, and I wouldn't trust it if Crofty said it anyway! :lol:

EDIT: I did find something... https://www.racefans.net/2018/10/22/vet ... -from-car/

Three or four months ago means no later than Hockenheim, which was almost exactly 3 months before the United States GP.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 7:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7383
Location: Belgium
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:

Yes I was thinking of that when I said it, I guess it was Senna that got it changed?
Who thought he had arranged to get it switched. The reason I felt this was important, was that it showed that the inside line, with pole position advantage, may or may not be decisive.

It may be track specific as well, if some tracks are more dirty offline?
Obviously, yes. Plus tarmac quality, clutch, driver performance, etc.

Why does clutch or driver performance come into what is the best starting position for pole position?
It doesn't, you're quite right.

I was probably thinking out loud about why Senna made such a show about it in '90. I believe it may have been because he had a terrible start from pole the year before, and possibly because of the Ferrari's semi-automatic gearbox.

(I tried to answer this last night, but got one of those blank screen things again. Fingers crossed now!)

_________________
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: Tue Oct 23, 2018 8:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6565
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Wanted it changed...

Yes but the controversy it caused may have got it changed later?

Later maybe, I was talking about '90, as per the post above

Yes but I never said that Senna actually got it changed in 1990 it would be interesting to know exactly why it got changed?

I didn't say that you said that. Why do you always get caught in these annoying tiny semantics?

They probably changed it to stop Senna ramming people! (just joking here)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28442
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
It may be track specific as well, if some tracks are more dirty offline?
Obviously, yes. Plus tarmac quality, clutch, driver performance, etc.

Why does clutch or driver performance come into what is the best starting position for pole position?
It doesn't, you're quite right.

I was probably thinking out loud about why Senna made such a show about it in '90. I believe it may have been because he had a terrible start from pole the year before, and possibly because of the Ferrari's semi-automatic gearbox.

(I tried to answer this last night, but got one of those blank screen things again. Fingers crossed now!)

Fair enough :thumbup:

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28442
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Yes but the controversy it caused may have got it changed later?

Later maybe, I was talking about '90, as per the post above

Yes but I never said that Senna actually got it changed in 1990 it would be interesting to know exactly why it got changed?

I didn't say that you said that. Why do you always get caught in these annoying tiny semantics?

They probably changed it to stop Senna ramming people! (just joking here)

I started the semantics?

Ok let's leave it at that.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 12:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 5:05 pm
Posts: 2616
Location: Finland
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
It is really unbelievable. Vettel had two chances to win this race by the virtue of his car - but both times he single-handedly destroyed it by stupid mistakes.

First, he should have won it having the fastest car even after qualifying 'only' second (but ahead of eventual winner Räikkönen). But he accelerated under red flags in free practice, getting himself a completely unnecessary grid penalty.

Second, even with the grid penalty, he was in a position to win (ahead of eventual second-placed Verstappen) - with or without team orders. But he spun in an unnecessary way, destroying his second win chance this weekend ...

Adding to this Baku, Le Castellet, Hockenheim, Monza, Suzuka (also two crucial mistakes) ...

Would you not be looking for a new number one if you were Ferrari?

Leclerc will become the new number one. If he's able to beat or even match Vettel next year I expect Vettel to bail all by himself.

_________________
“I'm happy, but there's nothing to jump around about.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 12:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28442
froze wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
It is really unbelievable. Vettel had two chances to win this race by the virtue of his car - but both times he single-handedly destroyed it by stupid mistakes.

First, he should have won it having the fastest car even after qualifying 'only' second (but ahead of eventual winner Räikkönen). But he accelerated under red flags in free practice, getting himself a completely unnecessary grid penalty.

Second, even with the grid penalty, he was in a position to win (ahead of eventual second-placed Verstappen) - with or without team orders. But he spun in an unnecessary way, destroying his second win chance this weekend ...

Adding to this Baku, Le Castellet, Hockenheim, Monza, Suzuka (also two crucial mistakes) ...

Would you not be looking for a new number one if you were Ferrari?

Leclerc will become the new number one. If he's able to beat or even match Vettel next year I expect Vettel to bail all by himself.

I have a feeling that some people underestimate how fast Vettel is, Leclerc beating Vettel might be reliant on Vettel doing the multiple mistakes he has done this year, that might not be a given?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 8:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2046
pokerman wrote:
froze wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
It is really unbelievable. Vettel had two chances to win this race by the virtue of his car - but both times he single-handedly destroyed it by stupid mistakes.

First, he should have won it having the fastest car even after qualifying 'only' second (but ahead of eventual winner Räikkönen). But he accelerated under red flags in free practice, getting himself a completely unnecessary grid penalty.

Second, even with the grid penalty, he was in a position to win (ahead of eventual second-placed Verstappen) - with or without team orders. But he spun in an unnecessary way, destroying his second win chance this weekend ...

Adding to this Baku, Le Castellet, Hockenheim, Monza, Suzuka (also two crucial mistakes) ...

Would you not be looking for a new number one if you were Ferrari?

Leclerc will become the new number one. If he's able to beat or even match Vettel next year I expect Vettel to bail all by himself.

I have a feeling that some people underestimate how fast Vettel is, Leclerc beating Vettel might be reliant on Vettel doing the multiple mistakes he has done this year, that might not be a given?


Absolutely. I cannot see Vettel going on to be that much mistake-prone. Whether Leclerc is as quick as Vettel remains to be seen.

However, my point was more that after the last two years Ferrari must see Vettel as a liability in any upcoming wdc fight. And will you want to put all your money behind Leclerc right now? He may turn out to be the right deal, but that is far away from being a given.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6100
Location: Michigan, USA
pokerman wrote:
froze wrote:
Leclerc will become the new number one. If he's able to beat or even match Vettel next year I expect Vettel to bail all by himself.

I have a feeling that some people underestimate how fast Vettel is, Leclerc beating Vettel might be reliant on Vettel doing the multiple mistakes he has done this year, that might not be a given?

I personally have the feeling that people overestimate how fast Vettel is, but the real question isn't anything about Vettel - it's how fast is Leclerc. And nobody knows that, beyond 'much faster than Ericsson'.

Of course, we also know that because he's much faster than Ericsson he's probably faster than Nasr, Wehrlein and Ocon as well. But we don't have any comparison to Vettel in that list.

EDIT: I'm curious, what does the somewhat byzantine path of Vettel vs. Raikkonen > Raikkonen vs. Alonso > Alonso vs. Button > Button vs. Perez > Perez vs. Ocon > Ocon vs. Wehrlein > Wehrlein vs. Ericsson suggest? :]

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 8:05 pm
Posts: 48
Location: Gateshead
Off topic and a bit late but...
I do find it strange that the guy starting P2 at the US GP gets the inside line in the run down to turn one.

I get that it’s an anti clockwise track and P2 is the dirty side of the grid - but between 2015-2018 on 3 occasions the driver starting P2 has taken the lead at or before the first corner 🤷🏻‍♂️

_________________
25/05/2005


"It’s lights out and away we go”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28442
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
froze wrote:
Leclerc will become the new number one. If he's able to beat or even match Vettel next year I expect Vettel to bail all by himself.

I have a feeling that some people underestimate how fast Vettel is, Leclerc beating Vettel might be reliant on Vettel doing the multiple mistakes he has done this year, that might not be a given?

I personally have the feeling that people overestimate how fast Vettel is, but the real question isn't anything about Vettel - it's how fast is Leclerc. And nobody knows that, beyond 'much faster than Ericsson'.

Of course, we also know that because he's much faster than Ericsson he's probably faster than Nasr, Wehrlein and Ocon as well. But we don't have any comparison to Vettel in that list.

EDIT: I'm curious, what does the somewhat byzantine path of Vettel vs. Raikkonen > Raikkonen vs. Alonso > Alonso vs. Button > Button vs. Perez > Perez vs. Ocon > Ocon vs. Wehrlein > Wehrlein vs. Ericsson suggest? :]

Some of the match ups are rookie match ups so I give them a pass but basically:-

Alonso>Vettel>Button/Ocon>Perez>Kimi, but we are talking of gaps of less than a tenth of a second.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 1:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28442
Xink wrote:
Off topic and a bit late but...
I do find it strange that the guy starting P2 at the US GP gets the inside line in the run down to turn one.

I get that it’s an anti clockwise track and P2 is the dirty side of the grid - but between 2015-2018 on 3 occasions the driver starting P2 has taken the lead at or before the first corner 🤷🏻‍♂️

I know, this has been discussed in another thread, basically it's seen as more of an advantage for the pole man to start on the clean side of the track, I might beg to differ.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 6838
Location: Mumbai, India

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9349
pokerman wrote:
Xink wrote:
Off topic and a bit late but...
I do find it strange that the guy starting P2 at the US GP gets the inside line in the run down to turn one.

I get that it’s an anti clockwise track and P2 is the dirty side of the grid - but between 2015-2018 on 3 occasions the driver starting P2 has taken the lead at or before the first corner 🤷🏻‍♂️

I know, this has been discussed in another thread, basically it's seen as more of an advantage for the pole man to start on the clean side of the track, I might beg to differ.

I have a feeling some people would be up in arms about it also had the pole been on the left side, especially if and when Kimi would have passed Lewis in that case too. "How is it possible that the pole position is on the dirty side??!!11"

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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6100
Location: Michigan, USA
Covalent wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Xink wrote:
Off topic and a bit late but...
I do find it strange that the guy starting P2 at the US GP gets the inside line in the run down to turn one.

I get that it’s an anti clockwise track and P2 is the dirty side of the grid - but between 2015-2018 on 3 occasions the driver starting P2 has taken the lead at or before the first corner 🤷🏻‍♂️

I know, this has been discussed in another thread, basically it's seen as more of an advantage for the pole man to start on the clean side of the track, I might beg to differ.

I have a feeling some people would be up in arms about it also had the pole been on the left side, especially if and when Kimi would have passed Lewis in that case too. "How is it possible that the pole position is on the dirty side??!!11"

:thumbup:

Kimi was always going to get ahead. He was fully enough ahead that he would have easily overtaken Lewis around the outside.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9349
Exediron wrote:
Covalent wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Xink wrote:
Off topic and a bit late but...
I do find it strange that the guy starting P2 at the US GP gets the inside line in the run down to turn one.

I get that it’s an anti clockwise track and P2 is the dirty side of the grid - but between 2015-2018 on 3 occasions the driver starting P2 has taken the lead at or before the first corner 🤷🏻‍♂️

I know, this has been discussed in another thread, basically it's seen as more of an advantage for the pole man to start on the clean side of the track, I might beg to differ.

I have a feeling some people would be up in arms about it also had the pole been on the left side, especially if and when Kimi would have passed Lewis in that case too. "How is it possible that the pole position is on the dirty side??!!11"

:thumbup:

Kimi was always going to get ahead. He was fully enough ahead that he would have easily overtaken Lewis around the outside.

Especially considering he would have had an increased grip advantage.

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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 12:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:58 pm
Posts: 87
.

This is an extract from a BBC article - I've not seen it on this site (I'm probably wrong) ;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/45984212

".... Austin problems explained

Hamilton revealed that his struggles in the race last weekend in Austin, Texas, were partly caused by the team making an error in the set-up of both Mercedes cars when they put them back together after changing their water pumps before the race.

"They took the car apart and when they put it back together, it was imbalanced, with a massive cross-weight, in the order of 50kg," he said. "So the right front and left rear take all the weight and the car would not turn through the left-hand corners.

"It felt very strange out there. I thought I had a massive tail wind or something when I was going through places like Turn 19.

"But the right-handers it was better, but there are not a lot of right-handers at that track. If we had not had that problem, it would have been a much different race." ......"


.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 1:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1648
Greenman wrote:
.

This is an extract from a BBC article - I've not seen it on this site (I'm probably wrong) ;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/45984212

".... Austin problems explained

Hamilton revealed that his struggles in the race last weekend in Austin, Texas, were partly caused by the team making an error in the set-up of both Mercedes cars when they put them back together after changing their water pumps before the race.

"They took the car apart and when they put it back together, it was imbalanced, with a massive cross-weight, in the order of 50kg," he said. "So the right front and left rear take all the weight and the car would not turn through the left-hand corners.

"It felt very strange out there. I thought I had a massive tail wind or something when I was going through places like Turn 19.

"But the right-handers it was better, but there are not a lot of right-handers at that track. If we had not had that problem, it would have been a much different race." ......"


.


If this quote is correct then Mercedes should be excluded from the race results at Austin, as they are in breach of Parc Ferme rules.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28442
Rockie wrote:
Greenman wrote:
.

This is an extract from a BBC article - I've not seen it on this site (I'm probably wrong) ;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/45984212

".... Austin problems explained

Hamilton revealed that his struggles in the race last weekend in Austin, Texas, were partly caused by the team making an error in the set-up of both Mercedes cars when they put them back together after changing their water pumps before the race.

"They took the car apart and when they put it back together, it was imbalanced, with a massive cross-weight, in the order of 50kg," he said. "So the right front and left rear take all the weight and the car would not turn through the left-hand corners.

"It felt very strange out there. I thought I had a massive tail wind or something when I was going through places like Turn 19.

"But the right-handers it was better, but there are not a lot of right-handers at that track. If we had not had that problem, it would have been a much different race." ......"


.


If this quote is correct then Mercedes should be excluded from the race results at Austin, as they are in breach of Parc Ferme rules.

I believe you are allowed to change damaged parts?

You think you know the rules better than the stewards and all the teams?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 4:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7383
Location: Belgium
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Greenman wrote:
.

This is an extract from a BBC article - I've not seen it on this site (I'm probably wrong) ;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/45984212

".... Austin problems explained

Hamilton revealed that his struggles in the race last weekend in Austin, Texas, were partly caused by the team making an error in the set-up of both Mercedes cars when they put them back together after changing their water pumps before the race.

"They took the car apart and when they put it back together, it was imbalanced, with a massive cross-weight, in the order of 50kg," he said. "So the right front and left rear take all the weight and the car would not turn through the left-hand corners.

"It felt very strange out there. I thought I had a massive tail wind or something when I was going through places like Turn 19.

"But the right-handers it was better, but there are not a lot of right-handers at that track. If we had not had that problem, it would have been a much different race." ......"


.


If this quote is correct then Mercedes should be excluded from the race results at Austin, as they are in breach of Parc Ferme rules.

I believe you are allowed to change damaged parts?

You think you know the rules better than the stewards and all the teams?
What have all the teams got to do with Mercedes getting their repairs wrong or potentially illegal?
I share Rockie's concerns. I don't know what to make of his comment about a "cross-weight", but 50kgs is hardly inconsequential. And what about the necessity of racing with a car that is fully in line with the technical rules? It's not the scrutineers' responsibility to make sure the teams do, it's every individual team's task to make sure its cars do conform.
This comment by Hamilton is very worrying indeed, if he did get his explanation correct.

_________________
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: Fri Oct 26, 2018 5:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2623
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Greenman wrote:
.

This is an extract from a BBC article - I've not seen it on this site (I'm probably wrong) ;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/45984212

".... Austin problems explained

Hamilton revealed that his struggles in the race last weekend in Austin, Texas, were partly caused by the team making an error in the set-up of both Mercedes cars when they put them back together after changing their water pumps before the race.

"They took the car apart and when they put it back together, it was imbalanced, with a massive cross-weight, in the order of 50kg," he said. "So the right front and left rear take all the weight and the car would not turn through the left-hand corners.

"It felt very strange out there. I thought I had a massive tail wind or something when I was going through places like Turn 19.

"But the right-handers it was better, but there are not a lot of right-handers at that track. If we had not had that problem, it would have been a much different race." ......"


.


If this quote is correct then Mercedes should be excluded from the race results at Austin, as they are in breach of Parc Ferme rules.

I believe you are allowed to change damaged parts?

You think you know the rules better than the stewards and all the teams?
What have all the teams got to do with Mercedes getting their repairs wrong or potentially illegal?
I share Rockie's concerns. I don't know what to make of his comment about a "cross-weight", but 50kgs is hardly inconsequential. And what about the necessity of racing with a car that is fully in line with the technical rules? It's not the scrutineers' responsibility to make sure the teams do, it's every individual team's task to make sure its cars do conform.
This comment by Hamilton is very worrying indeed, if he did get his explanation correct.
I'd assume that poker is being generic in saying 'all the teams.' I'd also assume that if a part was changed between qualifying and the race the authorities would monitor it closely enough that any irregularities would be addressed. My interpretation of Hamilton's 'set-up' quote is that he's referring to the general balance.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 5:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7383
Location: Belgium
tootsie323 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Greenman wrote:
.

This is an extract from a BBC article - I've not seen it on this site (I'm probably wrong) ;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/45984212

".... Austin problems explained

Hamilton revealed that his struggles in the race last weekend in Austin, Texas, were partly caused by the team making an error in the set-up of both Mercedes cars when they put them back together after changing their water pumps before the race.

"They took the car apart and when they put it back together, it was imbalanced, with a massive cross-weight, in the order of 50kg," he said. "So the right front and left rear take all the weight and the car would not turn through the left-hand corners.

"It felt very strange out there. I thought I had a massive tail wind or something when I was going through places like Turn 19.

"But the right-handers it was better, but there are not a lot of right-handers at that track. If we had not had that problem, it would have been a much different race." ......"


.


If this quote is correct then Mercedes should be excluded from the race results at Austin, as they are in breach of Parc Ferme rules.

I believe you are allowed to change damaged parts?

You think you know the rules better than the stewards and all the teams?
What have all the teams got to do with Mercedes getting their repairs wrong or potentially illegal?
I share Rockie's concerns. I don't know what to make of his comment about a "cross-weight", but 50kgs is hardly inconsequential. And what about the necessity of racing with a car that is fully in line with the technical rules? It's not the scrutineers' responsibility to make sure the teams do, it's every individual team's task to make sure its cars do conform.
This comment by Hamilton is very worrying indeed, if he did get his explanation correct.
I'd assume that poker is being generic in saying 'all the teams.' I'd also assume that if a part was changed between qualifying and the race the authorities would monitor it closely enough that any irregularities would be addressed. My interpretation of Hamilton's 'set-up' quote is that he's referring to the general balance.
I doubt he's talking of general balance, which is mainly aerodynamic balance these days. He speaks of weight, and getting that wrong (laterally?) to the tune of 50kgs (and presumably to both cars) is not a minor issue. It's possible he means that something with a weight of 50kgs was incorrectly aligned within the car, but that might make the car different from the state in which it was scrutineered

_________________
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: Fri Oct 26, 2018 6:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2634
Location: England
Sounds like something was reinstalled into the cars incorrectly after the pumps were changed.... and it'd only have to be something weighing 25kg to be installed on the wrong side of the car (something bolted to the wrong side of a bracket?) to create that 50kg swing. If it came out of the car and went back in it physically unchanged then (without really checking, if it's wrong feel free to instruct me otherwise) I imagine the Parc Ferme rules have been satisfied. Given that any and all work during this period would have been done under the watch of the FIA technical delegate, I doubt they sat there and happily watched Mercedes start bolting additional stuff to the car unchecked.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2018: {Rookie Year}
Current positon: 1st | 3 Podiums | 1 Win


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 6:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28442
Fiki wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
If this quote is correct then Mercedes should be excluded from the race results at Austin, as they are in breach of Parc Ferme rules.

I believe you are allowed to change damaged parts?

You think you know the rules better than the stewards and all the teams?
What have all the teams got to do with Mercedes getting their repairs wrong or potentially illegal?
I share Rockie's concerns. I don't know what to make of his comment about a "cross-weight", but 50kgs is hardly inconsequential. And what about the necessity of racing with a car that is fully in line with the technical rules? It's not the scrutineers' responsibility to make sure the teams do, it's every individual team's task to make sure its cars do conform.
This comment by Hamilton is very worrying indeed, if he did get his explanation correct.
I'd assume that poker is being generic in saying 'all the teams.' I'd also assume that if a part was changed between qualifying and the race the authorities would monitor it closely enough that any irregularities would be addressed. My interpretation of Hamilton's 'set-up' quote is that he's referring to the general balance.
I doubt he's talking of general balance, which is mainly aerodynamic balance these days. He speaks of weight, and getting that wrong (laterally?) to the tune of 50kgs (and presumably to both cars) is not a minor issue. It's possible he means that something with a weight of 50kgs was incorrectly aligned within the car, but that might make the car different from the state in which it was scrutineered

I heard it like the lead weights were incorrectly positioned.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2018 9:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7383
Location: Belgium
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I believe you are allowed to change damaged parts?

You think you know the rules better than the stewards and all the teams?
What have all the teams got to do with Mercedes getting their repairs wrong or potentially illegal?
I share Rockie's concerns. I don't know what to make of his comment about a "cross-weight", but 50kgs is hardly inconsequential. And what about the necessity of racing with a car that is fully in line with the technical rules? It's not the scrutineers' responsibility to make sure the teams do, it's every individual team's task to make sure its cars do conform.
This comment by Hamilton is very worrying indeed, if he did get his explanation correct.
I'd assume that poker is being generic in saying 'all the teams.' I'd also assume that if a part was changed between qualifying and the race the authorities would monitor it closely enough that any irregularities would be addressed. My interpretation of Hamilton's 'set-up' quote is that he's referring to the general balance.
I doubt he's talking of general balance, which is mainly aerodynamic balance these days. He speaks of weight, and getting that wrong (laterally?) to the tune of 50kgs (and presumably to both cars) is not a minor issue. It's possible he means that something with a weight of 50kgs was incorrectly aligned within the car, but that might make the car different from the state in which it was scrutineered

I heard it like the lead weights were incorrectly positioned.
It would be interesting to see this confirmed or denied.

This is what I found on the F1.com website:
Mark Hughes wrote:
The car was prone to blisters regardless - it hadn't been set up square in the garage earlier that morning and it seems this may have played a significant part.
I would have to read the parc fermé rules to come to any definite assessment, but this does seem to open the door to teams who want to alter set-up before the race. What is the use of parc fermé if it isn't fermé or controlled adequatly? :?

Source: https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.f1-inbox-your-questions-on-raikkonens-resurgence-and-vettels-errors.5KrG0QtxkccU8WMq4e0eYo.html

_________________
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 Oct 27, 2018 11:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28442
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
I'd assume that poker is being generic in saying 'all the teams.' I'd also assume that if a part was changed between qualifying and the race the authorities would monitor it closely enough that any irregularities would be addressed. My interpretation of Hamilton's 'set-up' quote is that he's referring to the general balance.
I doubt he's talking of general balance, which is mainly aerodynamic balance these days. He speaks of weight, and getting that wrong (laterally?) to the tune of 50kgs (and presumably to both cars) is not a minor issue. It's possible he means that something with a weight of 50kgs was incorrectly aligned within the car, but that might make the car different from the state in which it was scrutineered

I heard it like the lead weights were incorrectly positioned.
It would be interesting to see this confirmed or denied.

This is what I found on the F1.com website:
Mark Hughes wrote:
The car was prone to blisters regardless - it hadn't been set up square in the garage earlier that morning and it seems this may have played a significant part.
I would have to read the parc fermé rules to come to any definite assessment, but this does seem to open the door to teams who want to alter set-up before the race. What is the use of parc fermé if it isn't fermé or controlled adequatly? :?

Source: https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.f1-inbox-your-questions-on-raikkonens-resurgence-and-vettels-errors.5KrG0QtxkccU8WMq4e0eYo.html

Apparently it was the parc ferme rules that prevented Mercedes from doing the weight check balance on the car.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2018 11:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1648
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Greenman wrote:
.

This is an extract from a BBC article - I've not seen it on this site (I'm probably wrong) ;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/45984212

".... Austin problems explained

Hamilton revealed that his struggles in the race last weekend in Austin, Texas, were partly caused by the team making an error in the set-up of both Mercedes cars when they put them back together after changing their water pumps before the race.

"They took the car apart and when they put it back together, it was imbalanced, with a massive cross-weight, in the order of 50kg," he said. "So the right front and left rear take all the weight and the car would not turn through the left-hand corners.

"It felt very strange out there. I thought I had a massive tail wind or something when I was going through places like Turn 19.

"But the right-handers it was better, but there are not a lot of right-handers at that track. If we had not had that problem, it would have been a much different race." ......"


.


If this quote is correct then Mercedes should be excluded from the race results at Austin, as they are in breach of Parc Ferme rules.

I believe you are allowed to change damaged parts?

You think you know the rules better than the stewards and all the teams?


Yes you allowed to replace certain parts, but you can not alter a cars balance, the balance of the car changed from qualifying whether it was intentional or not which means it broke parc ferme rules as per Hamiltons explanation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2018 11:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28442
Rockie wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Greenman wrote:
.

This is an extract from a BBC article - I've not seen it on this site (I'm probably wrong) ;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/45984212

".... Austin problems explained

Hamilton revealed that his struggles in the race last weekend in Austin, Texas, were partly caused by the team making an error in the set-up of both Mercedes cars when they put them back together after changing their water pumps before the race.

"They took the car apart and when they put it back together, it was imbalanced, with a massive cross-weight, in the order of 50kg," he said. "So the right front and left rear take all the weight and the car would not turn through the left-hand corners.

"It felt very strange out there. I thought I had a massive tail wind or something when I was going through places like Turn 19.

"But the right-handers it was better, but there are not a lot of right-handers at that track. If we had not had that problem, it would have been a much different race." ......"


.


If this quote is correct then Mercedes should be excluded from the race results at Austin, as they are in breach of Parc Ferme rules.

I believe you are allowed to change damaged parts?

You think you know the rules better than the stewards and all the teams?


Yes you allowed to replace certain parts, but you can not alter a cars balance, the balance of the car changed from qualifying whether it was intentional or not which means it broke parc ferme rules as per Hamiltons explanation.

I think you are confusing weight balance as in the balance of the car you might change with set up?

Apparently the reason why the cars were out of weight balance was because the parc ferme rules prevent teams from doing that check.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


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

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MB-BOB 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