planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:20 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2936
Location: UK
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(

I'm not sure I believe this story. It's hard to believe any development department, let alone Ferrari's, could make such a monumental cock-up and take so many races to realise it. When you look at the straight line speed, and in particular the acceleration coming out of the corners (and Kimi's start), there's something going in the power unit that disappeared for a few races and is now back. Like I said in the Mercedes vs Ferrari thread, I feel there's more going on behind the scenes than we're being informed of.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5556
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(

That would be an absolute shock if true. Not sure why they would go that far back (unless Hockenheim spec is the same as the car was through Monza).

What's clear is that they were suddenly nowhere in Russia and Japan (at least in qualy) after being the quickest car for most of the season. It's truly a mystery.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28442
Giving it a bit more thought I think it's fair to say that Mercedes' strategy in this race was a shambles, Ferrari have been even worse this season fortunately for Hamilton.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 3077
sandman1347 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(

That would be an absolute shock if true. Not sure why they would go that far back (unless Hockenheim spec is the same as the car was through Monza).

What's clear is that they were suddenly nowhere in Russia and Japan (at least in qualy) after being the quickest car for most of the season. It's truly a mystery.


I read on amus Ferrari went back to Singapore spec, a race I think they feel they lost due to circumstances more than pace.

_________________
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: Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5556
F1_Ernie wrote:
sandman1347 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(

That would be an absolute shock if true. Not sure why they would go that far back (unless Hockenheim spec is the same as the car was through Monza).

What's clear is that they were suddenly nowhere in Russia and Japan (at least in qualy) after being the quickest car for most of the season. It's truly a mystery.


I read on amus Ferrari went back to Singapore spec, a race I think they feel they lost due to circumstances more than pace.

Makes sense and I do recall that being the case.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6100
Location: Michigan, USA
pokerman wrote:
Giving it a bit more thought I think it's fair to say that Mercedes' strategy in this race was a shambles, Ferrari have been even worse this season fortunately for Hamilton.

I think maybe they initially didn't realize that the Soft would never make it to the end from where they pitted Lewis - at most races this year it's pretty easy to take the hardest compound to the end from just about any lap.

Where there's really no excuse, however, was to leave him out for so long after Kimi was catching him hand over fist. That was just poor.

_________________
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: Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 6:31 am
Posts: 2088
mas wrote:
Indeed, Hamilton was the only one of the top twelve to do two pit stops.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... mQAEG.html


Which is why he came 3rd. He was having trouble managing his tyres.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5556
bourbon19 wrote:
mas wrote:
Indeed, Hamilton was the only one of the top twelve to do two pit stops.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... mQAEG.html


Which is why he came 3rd. He was having trouble managing his tyres.

No that's not it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 11:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28442
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Giving it a bit more thought I think it's fair to say that Mercedes' strategy in this race was a shambles, Ferrari have been even worse this season fortunately for Hamilton.

I think maybe they initially didn't realize that the Soft would never make it to the end from where they pitted Lewis - at most races this year it's pretty easy to take the hardest compound to the end from just about any lap.

Where there's really no excuse, however, was to leave him out for so long after Kimi was catching him hand over fist. That was just poor.

The brainstorm was to pit under the VSC and then go to the end but when that began to unravel they just seemed to freeze asking Hamilton if his tyres were alright when his lap times were rubbish and both rears had bad graining, they just didn't react fast enough, they had a plan A but no plan B.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 3rd

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 21, 2018 11:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28442
bourbon19 wrote:
mas wrote:
Indeed, Hamilton was the only one of the top twelve to do two pit stops.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... mQAEG.html


Which is why he came 3rd. He was having trouble managing his tyres.

In part because they stopped him on lap 11 which was too early and then expected him to push hard for the rest of the race, Bottas did a normal one stop strategy and ran out of tyres.

_________________
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 12:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7522
F1_Ernie wrote:
sandman1347 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(

That would be an absolute shock if true. Not sure why they would go that far back (unless Hockenheim spec is the same as the car was through Monza).

What's clear is that they were suddenly nowhere in Russia and Japan (at least in qualy) after being the quickest car for most of the season. It's truly a mystery.


I read on amus Ferrari went back to Singapore spec, a race I think they feel they lost due to circumstances more than pace.

The one where Mercedes beat them by half a second in qualifying and 40 seconds in the race? I've seen some deluded statements from Ferrari this year but I really struggle to believe they actually think they had the pace that weekend, they were blown away by Mercedes and were challenged by Red Bull.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5556
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
sandman1347 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(

That would be an absolute shock if true. Not sure why they would go that far back (unless Hockenheim spec is the same as the car was through Monza).

What's clear is that they were suddenly nowhere in Russia and Japan (at least in qualy) after being the quickest car for most of the season. It's truly a mystery.


I read on amus Ferrari went back to Singapore spec, a race I think they feel they lost due to circumstances more than pace.

The one where Mercedes beat them by half a second in qualifying and 40 seconds in the race? I've seen some deluded statements from Ferrari this year but I really struggle to believe they actually think they had the pace that weekend, they were blown away by Mercedes and were challenged by Red Bull.

Not really. If you look at that qualifying session, it's clear that both Ferrari drivers made massive errors on their hot laps in Q3. They also struggled to properly time their runs. Both Raikkonen and Vettel said that they should have been on pole there and the data showed the same performance edge in terms of acceleration that you saw everywhere else. By Ferrari's own analysis, they still had the better car there (at least over a single lap). It was really Russia where Mercedes seemed to all of a sudden be substantially ahead.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm
Posts: 3207
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Giving it a bit more thought I think it's fair to say that Mercedes' strategy in this race was a shambles, Ferrari have been even worse this season fortunately for Hamilton.

I think maybe they initially didn't realize that the Soft would never make it to the end from where they pitted Lewis - at most races this year it's pretty easy to take the hardest compound to the end from just about any lap.

Where there's really no excuse, however, was to leave him out for so long after Kimi was catching him hand over fist. That was just poor.

The brainstorm was to pit under the VSC and then go to the end but when that began to unravel they just seemed to freeze asking Hamilton if his tyres were alright when his lap times were rubbish and both rears had bad graining, they just didn't react fast enough, they had a plan A but no plan B.

It was clear after how quickly the gap dropped below 17 seconds he wasn't going to make it until the end. I was screaming that Merc should be pitting him if they wanted any chance to win, but they had bought into their delusion he would last until the end. Pitting under the VSC was an inspired decision, going all or nothing on making it until the end was foolhardy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 543
Location: Kansas
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Giving it a bit more thought I think it's fair to say that Mercedes' strategy in this race was a shambles, Ferrari have been even worse this season fortunately for Hamilton.

I think maybe they initially didn't realize that the Soft would never make it to the end from where they pitted Lewis - at most races this year it's pretty easy to take the hardest compound to the end from just about any lap.

Where there's really no excuse, however, was to leave him out for so long after Kimi was catching him hand over fist. That was just poor.

The brainstorm was to pit under the VSC and then go to the end but when that began to unravel they just seemed to freeze asking Hamilton if his tyres were alright when his lap times were rubbish and both rears had bad graining, they just didn't react fast enough, they had a plan A but no plan B.

It was clear after how quickly the gap dropped below 17 seconds he wasn't going to make it until the end. I was screaming that Merc should be pitting him if they wanted any chance to win, but they had bought into their delusion he would last until the end. Pitting under the VSC was an inspired decision, going all or nothing on making it until the end was foolhardy.


:thumbup: :nod:

_________________
Mission WinLater


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6100
Location: Michigan, USA
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Giving it a bit more thought I think it's fair to say that Mercedes' strategy in this race was a shambles, Ferrari have been even worse this season fortunately for Hamilton.

I think maybe they initially didn't realize that the Soft would never make it to the end from where they pitted Lewis - at most races this year it's pretty easy to take the hardest compound to the end from just about any lap.

Where there's really no excuse, however, was to leave him out for so long after Kimi was catching him hand over fist. That was just poor.

The brainstorm was to pit under the VSC and then go to the end but when that began to unravel they just seemed to freeze asking Hamilton if his tyres were alright when his lap times were rubbish and both rears had bad graining, they just didn't react fast enough, they had a plan A but no plan B.

It was clear after how quickly the gap dropped below 17 seconds he wasn't going to make it until the end. I was screaming that Merc should be pitting him if they wanted any chance to win, but they had bought into their delusion he would last until the end. Pitting under the VSC was an inspired decision, going all or nothing on making it until the end was foolhardy.

I think it's telling that Ferrari was immediately telling Kimi that Hamilton was on a two-stop. They knew there was no chance he could make it to the end, so why didn't Merc?

As for leaving Hamilton out too long, it exposes - once again - a serious weakness in the Mercedes pitwall when making pressure decisions on strategy. Far more often than not, when faced with adversity in their strategy they make the wrong call. Contrast this to Red Bull who almost never do, and it's clear that not all elements of the Mercedes machine are as well-oiled as they would like.

_________________
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: Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 543
Location: Kansas
Exediron wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I think it's telling that Ferrari was immediately telling Kimi that Hamilton was on a two-stop. They knew there was no chance he could make it to the end, so why didn't Merc?

As for leaving Hamilton out too long, it exposes - once again - a serious weakness in the Mercedes pitwall when making pressure decisions on strategy. Far more often than not, when faced with adversity in their strategy they make the wrong call. Contrast this to Red Bull who almost never do, and it's clear that not all elements of the Mercedes machine are as well-oiled as they would like.


Well at this point pitting Lewis early was a calculated risk that Merc can afford to do. Leaving Lewis out on worn out tires should have been seen as a bad move. When Lewis times began to drop off and Kimi was making up ground they should have brought Lewis in right then.

Still Lewis and Merc can afford this right now. If Lewis scores 5 more points in any combination of the next three races, the WDC is his. Not quite as certain in the WCC.

OTOH Kimi repassed Valtteri for third in the WDC. They are 221 and 217 respectively.

_________________
Mission WinLater


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 4:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:19 pm
Posts: 21
My 16 yr old daughter and even the eejit Eddie Jordan both said before the start pole is on wrong side as the person on the inside will always come off best especially if polesitter has anything to lose by cutting off the corner

Still doesnt excuse Mercedes poor strategy and Bottas being non existent


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 4:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5556
Jaicey wrote:
My 16 yr old daughter and even the eejit Eddie Jordan both said before the start pole is on wrong side as the person on the inside will always come off best especially if polesitter has anything to lose by cutting off the corner

Still doesnt excuse Mercedes poor strategy and Bottas being non existent

Your daughter has a point. There is a massive advantage to starting on the inside.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 543
Location: Kansas
mas wrote:
Indeed, Hamilton was the only one of the top twelve to do two pit stops.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... mQAEG.html


Ok, that makes more sense.

_________________
Mission WinLater


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28442
Exediron wrote:
Alienturnedhuman wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Giving it a bit more thought I think it's fair to say that Mercedes' strategy in this race was a shambles, Ferrari have been even worse this season fortunately for Hamilton.

I think maybe they initially didn't realize that the Soft would never make it to the end from where they pitted Lewis - at most races this year it's pretty easy to take the hardest compound to the end from just about any lap.

Where there's really no excuse, however, was to leave him out for so long after Kimi was catching him hand over fist. That was just poor.

The brainstorm was to pit under the VSC and then go to the end but when that began to unravel they just seemed to freeze asking Hamilton if his tyres were alright when his lap times were rubbish and both rears had bad graining, they just didn't react fast enough, they had a plan A but no plan B.

It was clear after how quickly the gap dropped below 17 seconds he wasn't going to make it until the end. I was screaming that Merc should be pitting him if they wanted any chance to win, but they had bought into their delusion he would last until the end. Pitting under the VSC was an inspired decision, going all or nothing on making it until the end was foolhardy.

I think it's telling that Ferrari was immediately telling Kimi that Hamilton was on a two-stop. They knew there was no chance he could make it to the end, so why didn't Merc?

As for leaving Hamilton out too long, it exposes - once again - a serious weakness in the Mercedes pitwall when making pressure decisions on strategy. Far more often than not, when faced with adversity in their strategy they make the wrong call. Contrast this to Red Bull who almost never do, and it's clear that not all elements of the Mercedes machine are as well-oiled as they would like.

Indeed and they have been fortunate that Ferrari have been even worse.

_________________
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 11:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28442
Jaicey wrote:
My 16 yr old daughter and even the eejit Eddie Jordan both said before the start pole is on wrong side as the person on the inside will always come off best especially if polesitter has anything to lose by cutting off the corner

Still doesnt excuse Mercedes poor strategy and Bottas being non existent

I think the theory is that the pole sitter starts on the grippier side of the track but having said that I have also thought that starting on the inside with a car length advantage is of more benefit, in Austin in particular it seems that grid 2 always wins the first corner.

_________________
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 12:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7383
Location: Belgium
F1Tyrant wrote:
BMWSauber84 wrote:
You'd have to have a heart of stone not to be willing Kimi on for one more moment in the sun.

I don't get the Kimi love at all. He's never proved himself to be better than average. He couldn't consistently beat Massa.
Look at his entire career at Ferrari, and things will get a bit easier to understand. For him to beat Massa consistently would have taken more team support, and by Monaco 2008 he knew he was on his way out sooner or later. If development is not directed in your favour, no amount of upping your game is going to be good enough.

_________________
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: Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:17 pm
Posts: 560
Location: illinois
good race, congrats to kimi on possibly his last win. cool of him to say giving his son a pirelli hat will be his highlight


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:46 pm
Posts: 389
key point to kimi winning that race, he was very gentle on the softs at the start of the stint. unlike at monza. i remember ted kravitz saying a few races ago that this was to key to getting the softs to last and kimi was only one in france to do this and it paid off. in monza he didnt really have the chance to go easy but he went far too hard on them for the first few laps.

yesterday he pitted and then for 10 laps didnt really push and just kept the gap to hamiton about 17s. then hamiltons started to go off and he closed in. wily old dog.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 543
Location: Kansas
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
key point to kimi winning that race, he was very gentle on the softs at the start of the stint. unlike at monza. i remember ted kravitz saying a few races ago that this was to key to getting the softs to last and kimi was only one in france to do this and it paid off. in monza he didnt really have the chance to go easy but he went far too hard on them for the first few laps.

yesterday he pitted and then for 10 laps didnt really push and just kept the gap to hamiton about 17s. then hamiltons started to go off and he closed in. wily old dog.


:thumbup: :nod:

_________________
Mission WinLater


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28442
Fiki wrote:
F1Tyrant wrote:
BMWSauber84 wrote:
You'd have to have a heart of stone not to be willing Kimi on for one more moment in the sun.

I don't get the Kimi love at all. He's never proved himself to be better than average. He couldn't consistently beat Massa.
Look at his entire career at Ferrari, and things will get a bit easier to understand. For him to beat Massa consistently would have taken more team support, and by Monaco 2008 he knew he was on his way out sooner or later. If development is not directed in your favour, no amount of upping your game is going to be good enough.

The problem for Kimi was that he simply was not faster than Massa.

_________________
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 1:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7383
Location: Belgium
pokerman wrote:
Jaicey wrote:
My 16 yr old daughter and even the eejit Eddie Jordan both said before the start pole is on wrong side as the person on the inside will always come off best especially if polesitter has anything to lose by cutting off the corner

Still doesnt excuse Mercedes poor strategy and Bottas being non existent

I think the theory is that the pole sitter starts on the grippier side of the track but having said that I have also thought that starting on the inside with a car length advantage is of more benefit, in Austin in particular it seems that grid 2 always wins the first corner.
Remember Suzuka 1990? I do...

_________________
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: Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7383
Location: Belgium
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
F1Tyrant wrote:
BMWSauber84 wrote:
You'd have to have a heart of stone not to be willing Kimi on for one more moment in the sun.

I don't get the Kimi love at all. He's never proved himself to be better than average. He couldn't consistently beat Massa.
Look at his entire career at Ferrari, and things will get a bit easier to understand. For him to beat Massa consistently would have taken more team support, and by Monaco 2008 he knew he was on his way out sooner or later. If development is not directed in your favour, no amount of upping your game is going to be good enough.

The problem for Kimi was that he simply was not faster than Massa.
Which might be thought to be true, if you forget why he was hired to replace Schumacher. Or Massa, if you will. A very popular oversight, these days.

_________________
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: Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:26 pm
Posts: 200
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28442
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Jaicey wrote:
My 16 yr old daughter and even the eejit Eddie Jordan both said before the start pole is on wrong side as the person on the inside will always come off best especially if polesitter has anything to lose by cutting off the corner

Still doesnt excuse Mercedes poor strategy and Bottas being non existent

I think the theory is that the pole sitter starts on the grippier side of the track but having said that I have also thought that starting on the inside with a car length advantage is of more benefit, in Austin in particular it seems that grid 2 always wins the first corner.
Remember Suzuka 1990? I do...

Yes I was thinking of that when I said it, I guess it was Senna that got it 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 2:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28442
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
F1Tyrant wrote:
BMWSauber84 wrote:
You'd have to have a heart of stone not to be willing Kimi on for one more moment in the sun.

I don't get the Kimi love at all. He's never proved himself to be better than average. He couldn't consistently beat Massa.
Look at his entire career at Ferrari, and things will get a bit easier to understand. For him to beat Massa consistently would have taken more team support, and by Monaco 2008 he knew he was on his way out sooner or later. If development is not directed in your favour, no amount of upping your game is going to be good enough.

The problem for Kimi was that he simply was not faster than Massa.
Which might be thought to be true, if you forget why he was hired to replace Schumacher. Or Massa, if you will. A very popular oversight, these days.

He was hired in the belief that like Schumacher he would be 3/5 tenths quicker than Massa, didn't happen though.

_________________
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 2:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28442
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

In respect to Hamilton you pick your battles in order to win the war, Hamilton had more to lose than to win.

_________________
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 3:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7383
Location: Belgium
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Jaicey wrote:
My 16 yr old daughter and even the eejit Eddie Jordan both said before the start pole is on wrong side as the person on the inside will always come off best especially if polesitter has anything to lose by cutting off the corner

Still doesnt excuse Mercedes poor strategy and Bottas being non existent

I think the theory is that the pole sitter starts on the grippier side of the track but having said that I have also thought that starting on the inside with a car length advantage is of more benefit, in Austin in particular it seems that grid 2 always wins the first corner.
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.

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

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Last edited by Fiki on Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 543
Location: Kansas
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.

_________________
Mission WinLater


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6565
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Jaicey wrote:
My 16 yr old daughter and even the eejit Eddie Jordan both said before the start pole is on wrong side as the person on the inside will always come off best especially if polesitter has anything to lose by cutting off the corner

Still doesnt excuse Mercedes poor strategy and Bottas being non existent

I think the theory is that the pole sitter starts on the grippier side of the track but having said that I have also thought that starting on the inside with a car length advantage is of more benefit, in Austin in particular it seems that grid 2 always wins the first corner.
Remember Suzuka 1990? I do...

Yes I was thinking of that when I said it, I guess it was Senna that got it changed?

Wanted it changed...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28442
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Jaicey wrote:
My 16 yr old daughter and even the eejit Eddie Jordan both said before the start pole is on wrong side as the person on the inside will always come off best especially if polesitter has anything to lose by cutting off the corner

Still doesnt excuse Mercedes poor strategy and Bottas being non existent

I think the theory is that the pole sitter starts on the grippier side of the track but having said that I have also thought that starting on the inside with a car length advantage is of more benefit, in Austin in particular it seems that grid 2 always wins the first corner.
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?

_________________
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 3:18 pm 
Offline

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

Yeah Germany makes no sense, the car was quick after Germany.

_________________
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 3:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28442
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Jaicey wrote:
My 16 yr old daughter and even the eejit Eddie Jordan both said before the start pole is on wrong side as the person on the inside will always come off best especially if polesitter has anything to lose by cutting off the corner

Still doesnt excuse Mercedes poor strategy and Bottas being non existent

I think the theory is that the pole sitter starts on the grippier side of the track but having said that I have also thought that starting on the inside with a car length advantage is of more benefit, in Austin in particular it seems that grid 2 always wins the first corner.
Remember Suzuka 1990? I do...

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?

_________________
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 3:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7383
Location: Belgium
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I think the theory is that the pole sitter starts on the grippier side of the track but having said that I have also thought that starting on the inside with a car length advantage is of more benefit, in Austin in particular it seems that grid 2 always wins the first corner.
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.

_________________
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: Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6565
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I think the theory is that the pole sitter starts on the grippier side of the track but having said that I have also thought that starting on the inside with a car length advantage is of more benefit, in Austin in particular it seems that grid 2 always wins the first corner.
Remember Suzuka 1990? I do...

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


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

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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

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