GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: rmassart on October 11, 2019, 08:28:21 AM
-
I just read that if conditions don't allow for qualifying on Sunday morning, the grid will be determined by the second practice session times. I didn't realise this could happen. Has it ever happened in the past?
-
I am not sure if it has happened before but certainly for many years the rules have allowed the last Free Practice positions to cover cancelled Qualifying.
Personally I hope they run qualifying on Sunday morning. It seems that the Renaults are currently out of position; the Red Bulls were getting faster and Bottas' spin probably stopped Hamilton going fastest.
As it stands the Mercedes, RBRs and Ferraris are all within 6tenths of each other but the next fastest car is another 6tenths behind. This doesn't offer much of a prospect for close racing!
-
I just read that if conditions don't allow for qualifying on Sunday morning, the grid will be determined by the second practice session times. I didn't realise this could happen. Has it ever happened in the past?
Not that I know of, but delaying Quali til Sunday is quite common - at least 4 times to my knowledge:-
Japan 2004 and 2010.
Australia 2013 ( only Q2 & Q3 were postponed til Sun).
US GP 2015.
-
Leclerc’s drift into Max...fault?
I put it down to racing. If you’re going to pass on the outside, be prepared is my opinion. Max gave the Ferrari room, but just a car width, and unfortunately for him, the Ferrari isn’t on rails, especially during the first lap.
Penalty is correct for Ferrari leaving him out there after his wing end plate was clearly going to fall off. The fact that it sheared off Lewis’ mirror (who needs mirrors anyhow?) shows just how dangerous it was. Imagine taking that in the visor at 300kph? Could have been catastrophic.
-
If you're going to allow a driver to force a rival off the track at corner exit, then this should not be a penalty, especially since loss of front aero was the cause. The penalty for driving around spewing bits of carbon fiber was more than fair. Probably deserved to be harsher. To his credit LeClerc took the blame saying he should have expected to lose front grip. What could he have done? He has no steering, if he backs off in all likelihood he gets hit from behind. I guess if you're going for a pass it's OK to sideswipe the other car, but if you're defending it's not.
-
Leclerc’s drift into Max...fault?
I put it down to racing. If you’re going to pass on the outside, be prepared is my opinion. Max gave the Ferrari room, but just a car width, and unfortunately for him, the Ferrari isn’t on rails, especially during the first lap.
Penalty is correct for Ferrari leaving him out there after his wing end plate was clearly going to fall off. The fact that it sheared off Lewis’ mirror (who needs mirrors anyhow?) shows just how dangerous it was. Imagine taking that in the visor at 300kph? Could have been catastrophic.
I was a little surprised Leclerc was not penalised for the collision (I think part of me is still in pre-Austria mode) and it was definitely a braking mistake he should have avoided. While Max would have been right to take caution, he was probably assuming better precision of skill than he actually got. Though none of this surprised me as much as the whole staying-out business - switching Charles to hard tyres on lap 1 would probably have been the optimal move from a speed perspective, given how well the Ferrari tends to use them, regardless of what the rules say about dragging front wing endplates round multiple laps of a track.
I wish I could say I was surprised it took until post-race for a penalty to be issued. Or that it took two attempts to decide not to issue a penalty for the collision...
-
A little treat that is better than the entire race coverage IMO...no, I’m not biased. ;) ;)
https://youtu.be/JUe6CSJl6II
-
The Renaults are under investigation for some kind of automatic braking system. Their steering wheels and brakes have been impounded.
-
Oh... :(
-
Racing Point filed a 12 page dossier in protest. The FIA grabbed Renault's ECU's, too. Renault responded, “Renault F1 team intends to use this recess to prepare an equally detailed case to rigorously defend its position.”
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-motor-f1-japan-renault/fia-impounds-renault-components-after-racing-point-protest-idUKKBN1WS0DA
Sorry I missed the race (and the Chat Room). I've been down with the flu for the past few days. Feeling much better now.
-
Glad to hear you're feeling better. According to what I've read the system uses something like an odometer to track track location and adjust the brake bias between corners.
-
Brilliant. So the FIA feels it is more important to distract the drivers to fiddle with their own brake bias between corners. It’s only not fair because Ferrari and Merc didn’t think of it first.
-
Much like back in 2006. The FIA declared Renault's mass damper a "movable aero device" even though it wasn't in the air flow.
-
This device type was, in fairness, banned in 1993, meaning I've only seen one race where it would have been legal (assuming it functions in the way advertised, which is not a given when we consider this is F1 we discuss).
-
Renault has had both it's cars DQ'd from the race due to its brake systems. They say they will not appeal. Now that they have no customers for their engines, will this ruling cause them to withdraw from 2021?
https://www.racefans.net/2019/10/23/renault-thrown-out-of-japanese-grand-prix-result/ (https://www.racefans.net/2019/10/23/renault-thrown-out-of-japanese-grand-prix-result/)