GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: Alonsofan on May 26, 2013, 07:32:01 PM
-
Thumbs up :good:
Rosberg - Great win under difficult stop start conditions
Sutil - Loves the place, well done to finish 5th
Raikkonen - (I know he had the crash with Perez) Still did great to get back to 10th and keep his run going. On top of that to threaten to punch Perez in the face is funny, might make him calm down a bit
Thumbs down
Hamilton - Too slow under safety car, cost himself and Mercedes 2nd place
Perez - Pushed his luck one to many times :fool: :fool:
Grosjean - Even worse, when will he learn?? :fool: :fool: :fool:
Ferd - Was last night too much for you? ;) Did you fall asleep in the cockpit? |-(
Massa - :fool:
Sky - Has anyone else noticed that Ferd has won both the live BBC races this year??? Well at least he should be ok in Canada then :D
-
Utterly disgusted with the race, as it was completely spoilt by the illegal and dishonourable test. Though I'm not convinced that Mercedes was actually at fault for doing the test; it appears it was misled by some combination of Pirelli and the FIA into thinking that sort of behaviour ws allowed. I was also irritated by most drivers leaving their brains at home.
Heroes:
- Force India. Their drivers and their vivacious driving made the race worth persisting with despite the victory being made meaningless.
- Raikkonen. It took a while for him to get going, but his last 10 laps were something to see. Can't help but feel, though, that he was rewarded for Pérez swiping him (by getting new tyres late in), but that was clearly the latter's fault, so the blame for that goes elsewhere.
- Whoever dragged the marshal in the middle of the track during Pic's retrieval out of harm's way. Thank goodness someone had some sense, because I was worried we were going to see F1's first fatality since 2001 about then.
Zeroes (people were queuing for this one):
- FIA/Pirelli. Between them, they've completely changed the course of the championship, by persuading Mercedes that it was OK to do a cheaty test. Severe penalties for both are deserved, but I can't see the FIA giving itself a penalty for its poor behaviour, and it may be too desperate to keep Pirelli sweet to take meaningful action against it.
- Bianchi. Of all the places for a rookie to have a bad hair day, this is the worst. He seemed to be using Maldonado as a second brake (I realise Pastor's done this a few times in the past, but that does not excuse Jules one bit). The BBC crew were a bit harsh on him, but I can see this being the equivalent of Karthikeyan in 2005 - the race his campaign to carve a career in F1 is thwarted by overshadowing by a quiet team-mate and the cumulative consequences of errors.
- Pérez. Driving like the rookie he is not. Using Raikkonen and Button as brakes is not OK.
Dishonourable mentions, in no particular order to (deep breath): the TV directors for missing most of the action (meaning one would have to have watched the highlights to see Raikkonen's good performance), the marshal directors for an uncharacteristic lack of co-ordination, the Safety Car-phobic Charlie Whiting, whichever marshal tried waving drivers round in the middle of the track during Pic's retrieval (dangerous!), Button for moaning, Grosjean for pushing Ricciardo down the hill, whatever caused Massa's maladies, Maldonado for serial crashing, Hamilton for not paying attention when it was time to pit and whoever was controlling the confused Safety Car wave-bys.
Sorry I'm not in a very good mood at the moment. I was in a good one before the highlights show started...
-
I obviously have no clue about SC rules, but when the first SC came out, was the leader not Webber? Nico went in the pits after the SC was called out. Why was he chosen as leader by the SC? Kimi was second at the time as well, then I think Vettel and Alonso.
Yeah I don't know about that Pirelli test with Merc. Obviously it helped Merc immensely. Nico wasn't challenged the whole race, not even by his teammate in the early stages while Hamilton was behind him.
Sutil was fantastic. I couldn't imagine one pass at the Leows, much less two by the same guy. I wondered in chat if Force India gave him a much tighter turn radius than the others had. He even did his second pass cleanly.
Perez. One thing to hear Jenson moaning about him, but really, you can't play bumper cars at Monaco.
I complained also about the TV director, but my biggest gripe was about 20 laps in when they showed nothing but Petronas for about 5 minutes. They cut the split second before Webber would come into the frame every time.
Massa - wow, sorry for your aches and pains, but really...
-
NBC crew says Ferrari also got private test between Bahrain and Spain. It is apparently legal; Pirelli is allowed to nominate any team for a test if there is a safety issue, such as tires delaminating at speed.
-
NBC crew says Ferrari also got private test between Bahrain and Spain. It is apparently legal; Pirelli is allowed to nominate any team for a test if there is a safety issue, such as tires delaminating at speed.
And Ferrari won Spain. This is now getting very, very suspicious. One team winning after doing one of these tests is bad. Two pulling the trick in consecutive races, without the FIA and teams receiving proper notification, is a recipe for disaster.
I am extremely disappointed in Pirelli's behaviour if the NBC report is true. They appear to have decided two races and may end up deciding others if this behaviour is allowed to go unchecked.
-
Then the only fair thing to do is let each team have
a tire test
-
Why people keep pointing at Massa as the Villain? :DntKnw: :DntKnw:
He was never going to be in the points, so he sacrificed( ;) himself for the sports, and fans to bring out Safety car, which definitely spiced things up. Otherwise before that everyone was racing for the tyre Delta, Timed lap and all those stupid things.
Why does the Monaco brings out the worst in Maldonado & Romain? In Maldo's case I think he can be excused as because it was hardly his fault this time,it had more to do with Jules, but in case of Romain :o
But then again Kimi & Adrian did almost the same, and many have done it before, so we must consider it part of Monaco, should not blame them :D Honestly these are the charms of Monaco, without these it would have been the most boring race of the season, so please a clap for them.
I am immensely & utterly disgusted at Sky for failing to pick up the charging Kimi, in a race where there is scarcity of overtaking, how come crew miss almost 6 place overtake in last 5 laps :swoon:
What were you doing? Queuing up for pass for Mercedes party? |-(
I think Jean Eric Vergne did a fabulous job, he should keep that Cevert themed crash helmet, seems to rejuvenate his driving.
And now I will say something that I thought I will never do it, and that is thanking Bernie for letting Kimi keep the James Hunt helmet,and not abiding by a stupid TV right regulation (which always seemed dubious to me in the first place)
And last but not least thanks to Alia for summing it up very nicely :good: :good:
-
The whole Pirelli thing seems to hang on Mercedes having used their current car, while Ferrari used a 2011 spec car. The rule Pirelli has invoked apparently allows the testing as long as the test vehicle is at least 2 years old. Merc says they asked the FIA about the test and got the OK directly from the FIA. So, the FIA is seemingly investigating itself along with Mercedes and Pirelli. Some people think this eliminates Pirelli from getting the contract for 2014.
-
F1FanaticBd, in fairness, Monaco's TV director (the only one of the year that isn't FOM) also missed Kimi on the main feed. Snippets of Kimi's charge were shown on the BBC but only because it was a highlights show and able to access footage that the live stations could not do live. This one wasn't Sky's fault, unless it then failed to show Kimi's charge at a later opportunity.
-
Monaco being Monaco means a procession for the most part and qualifying is everything.
2013 showed that there are places to pass if you are either very brave or very stupid.
But...the one thing that bothered me the entire race was James Allen's apparent ignorance of French pronunciation.
He knows how to say the names but every time he said the names of the corners that were obviously French he Anglo-sized them and sounded like the Ugly Tourist.
San Devote is pronounced with a silent "t" but Allen said it with a hard "t" every time.
I know...it's just nitpicking but it took away from the race for me every time he screwed up a name.
This is his job....surely he knows better. Or maybe he's just an idiot!
-
F1FanaticBd, in fairness, Monaco's TV director (the only one of the year that isn't FOM) also missed Kimi on the main feed. Snippets of Kimi's charge were shown on the BBC but only because it was a highlights show and able to access footage that the live stations could not do live. This one wasn't Sky's fault, unless it then failed to show Kimi's charge at a later opportunity.
Isn't that strange, :DntKnw: :DntKnw: as there was nothing else happening in the race. How come so many people of television crew miss a charging Lotus, while all the other drivers are holding station? :DntKnw: I might have been harsh with Sky, but now I am more critical about the whole TV crew of the race. You job is to pick up the action, film it and send it to us, is that too much to ask for? |-( |-(
-
TV directors are convinced that the average viewer is more interested in the leader than anything else. Unless the lead is enormous that's what they show.
-
I rather enjoyed the extensive radio chatter, showing how much the race a was a chess match, and not really a matter of driver skill. It was a matter of pushing the buttons the engineers wanted at the right times.
I'm glad not all races are like that, but I did find it fascinating to get a feel for how much of the race is decided by the men and women sitting on stools staring at monitors.
(Don't get me wrong, Monaco is the ultimate test of skill, as Perez, Grojean and Bianchi demonstrated)
As for 'Heroes', I think that Hamilton deserves a mention. He was very effectively backing up the field to give Rosberg the best chance at winning. That's some good teamwork, which was spoiled by the safety car/red flag.
-
Like most Monaco races it was pretty boring, incidents aside. TV direction sucked especially towards the end (Kimi's charge completely missed/ignored). Mr. Coulthard said it best in his column for BBC sport here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/22678909
-
Under a Safety Car I was under the assumption that positions were locked until the green flag and racing resumed.
Is this not when Hamilton pitted? And if so how did Red Bull move ahead of him if positions were held?
I appear to be a bit confused.
-
They spin a pinwheel and choose the order that way :fool: :fool: |-( |-(
For me Rosberg should have lost his lead as he ducked in the pits as soon as the SC sign came out. So did Hamilton, but for some reason he lost places. I thought the order at the end of the SC period should have been Webber and Kimi.
-
If you enter the pits, where you come out is where you are. You are not allowed to pass cars to resume your position. :nono:
-
Under a Safety Car I was under the assumption that positions were locked until the green flag and racing resumed.
Is this not when Hamilton pitted? And if so how did Red Bull move ahead of him if positions were held?
I appear to be a bit confused.
Positions aren't locked at any time, except if there's a red flag (and then it's locked at the last point at which an order can be ascertained). The significance of the Safety Car is that every car gets a speed limit (albeit with limited enforcement) and nobody is allowed to do an on-track overtake. That still leaves scope for strategy-based passing.
-
They spin a pinwheel and choose the order that way :fool: :fool: |-( |-(
For me Rosberg should have lost his lead as he ducked in the pits as soon as the SC sign came out. So did Hamilton, but for some reason he lost places. I thought the order at the end of the SC period should have been Webber and Kimi.
I'm with you Scotty,in chat Philbe,you,and oui commented
on why Webber wasn't leading.
-
I believe the order reverts to the last green flag lap, so if Rosberg crossed the timing loop in the pits before the Red Bulls crossed it on the track, he's the leader.
-
Ok, then that's a stupid rule. As often as ot the SC comes out in the middle of various pit stops. Why should those that haven't pitted get a freebie?
-
Fairly boring race made worse by the awful mess caused by the Safety Car. I guess that use of the safety car at Monaco is difficult to get right but there is no excuse for getting it so wrong. In an ideal world the order should have been maintained - it would have been good to see if Hamilton could have / would have challenged Rossberg. Instead, second position was gifted to Vettel.
Hopefully Ali is now in a better mood because I cannot agree with her views on the Mercedes tyre test. Mercedes would have gained nothing from this. They were not allowed to change any parts, they did not know what tyres they were running and they had to run old engines and gearboxes. This test would not have offered any car set-up or development benefits and therefore would not affect any future races.
-
In fairness to James Allen, I heard several commentators Anglofying the pronunciation of San Devote.
-
Mercedes would have gained nothing from this. They were not allowed to change any parts, they did not know what tyres they were running and they had to run old engines and gearboxes. This test would not have offered any car set-up or development benefits and therefore would not affect any future races.
But.... Ross Brawn clearly stated in his interview that Pirelli asked them for feedback from the tests. This feedback would play a part, however minor, in Pirellis' continued development programme. It's impossible to rule out that the feedback given to Pirelli by Mercedes was not biased in their favour, and I'd go so far as to say that it would be impossible NOT to be biased, as you've only got your own feedback to feed back! And even if the ONLY effect on future races is psychological, ie: other teams feeling like they've missed out, then it's still affected.
I agree with Brundle - 1) if Mercedes benefit in any way and don't get punished then well done Mercedes, clever clever. And 2) the fact that this test wasn't made public at the time suggests there is something to hide.
-
Ok, then that's a stupid rule. As often as ot the SC comes out in the middle of various pit stops. Why should those that haven't pitted get a freebie?
Because when they used to have a (slightly) more complex system, officialdom got itself confused. Essentially the rule is written the way it is now to prevent another Brazil 2003 from happening.
Hopefully Ali is now in a better mood because I cannot agree with her views on the Mercedes tyre test. Mercedes would have gained nothing from this. They were not allowed to change any parts, they did not know what tyres they were running and they had to run old engines and gearboxes. This test would not have offered any car set-up or development benefits and therefore would not affect any future races.
The tyres were of the general type Mercedes struggled with (remember Mercedes had similar problems with last year's tyres, so why wouldn't they have them with Canada 2013 or 2014-spec ones). The car had to be similar enough to check the Bahrain and Spain delaminations didn't recur, which by definition meant it had to be close enough to help them solve their tyre issue. The tyres had to be the proposed solution compound, else Pirelli would be none the wiser as to how to remedy their delamination problem. They didn't need the exact details of the tyre to be able to use them for their purposes - knowing they had the fundamental high-wear flaws of the original 2013 tyres, which could be confirmed by either listening to Pirelli's rhetoric in the run-up to the test or by a simple "installation run" - the latter being standard procedure for the beginning of a test.
Having established this, they could have test data effectively equivalent to what they could expect the tyres to do in a race. The test gearboxes and engines have had no more wear than the race equivalents would have after 300 laps due to the limited pre-season testing permitted. Each race weekend, an engine does 150-200 laps, and a race engine has to do 2.5 race weekends (375-500 laps) in order to make the limit. Gearboxes, having to do 4 race weekends (600-800 laps) are even less wear-dependent. So the only state Mercedes could not have simulated was the situation with either fresh engine or fresh gearbox - an increasingly rare event as the season progresses. Indeed, not being allowed to swap parts would have made for quite realistic end-of-race simulations, which are exactly what Mercedes needs to fix its specific problem.
1000 km at Barcelona, by the way, would be 214 laps. That would get it to the end of an expected engine mileage and the middle of an expected gearbox mileage, assuming they've used the engine and gearbox that's already taken a quarter of the pre-season test mileage. Note that teams get 4 engines and as many gearboxes as they like for pre-season testing.
The advantage is obvious, even if the benefit isn't the same as a completely free test would be. Unless you count foreknowledge of compounds as an advantage, and Pirelli's actions are likely to make that a moot point - for 2014, at least. How much advantage for 2013 is not relevant, because it's an advantage the other teams could not get through honest means, and it's also clear that the test was not provided honestly (though it's unclear as to whether Pirelli, the FIA or both caused the dishonesty). Thanks to the cumulative nature of tyre knowledge, even giving a 3-day test to the other teams won't fix this. Only switching to a compound not used by Mercedes would bring the championship back into balance (unless Mercedes is kicked out, and I think it may well be the victim, albeit a lucky one, in all this), and there's no way that will be feasible this season.
Also, they got 1,000 kilometres, and it turns out each test can only be 100 km. (The 1,000 kilometre thing is to ensure multiple tests are doable, with multiple teams, in the same year, should they be appropriate).
-
Ok, then that's a stupid rule. As often as ot the SC comes out in the middle of various pit stops. Why should those that haven't pitted get a freebie?
In any racing series if there is a full course yellow or a safety car in the middle of a pit stop cycle, some teams will benefit. Happens all the time in NASCAR, happened at the Grand Am race at Barber. It's just part of racing.
-
The race would have been the most boring one that I have ever seen had it not been for the high accident rate, so I'm thankful for the collisions, crashes, and incidents, otherwise I would have fallen asleep. For that reason, I don't see Pérez and Grosjean as 'villains' so to speak.
It was a pretty tedious procession for the most part, enlivened solely by accidents, and by some great passes by Sutil and Di Resta. Force India were really on the ball in the race.
Ferrari were a disappointment, especially after showing so much pace in Thursday's practice session, and Mercedes win has been undermined by this tyre testing row, so that has all left me with a rather bitter taste in my mouth.
It was a tough weekend for the rookies, but it's worth pointing out that Bianchi's eventful race was not his fault. He can't keep his car out of the wall when a brake disc fails, and nor could he avoid Malonado after the Williams, and a barrier blocked the track right in front of him.
Finally, the safety car wasn't needed for the Pic incident, nor, in my view, was it needed for the Massa incident. The debris were well off the racing line, and they could have covered that with double waved yellows. They are too quick to use the safety car at Monaco these days. The marshals are very good, and know what they are doing. They don't tend to need the safety car to help them out.
Stopping the race for the Maldonado incident was right though, as the barrier was in a total state of disrepair, and that was a serious safety issue.
-
Many series close the pits from the time the Safety Car is dispatched until it picks up the leader and gains control of the field. Cars that need to pit for an emergency, like a puncture or fuel, must stop again once the pits are open. This would has avoided the confusion.
-
Ok, then that's a stupid rule. As often as ot the SC comes out in the middle of various pit stops. Why should those that haven't pitted get a freebie?
In any racing series if there is a full course yellow or a safety car in the middle of a pit stop cycle, some teams will benefit. Happens all the time in NASCAR, happened at the Grand Am race at Barber. It's just part of racing.
Which is something that Alonso knows very well, along with Piquet Jr and Flavio.
-
Many series close the pits from the time the Safety Car is dispatched until it picks up the leader and gains control of the field. Cars that need to pit for an emergency, like a puncture or fuel, must stop again once the pits are open. This would has avoided the confusion.
F1 tried pit lane closures late last decade and, among other problems, they facilitated the Singapore 2008 incident. Renault knew that by crashing one of their cars, they could stop people pitting for a number of laps and thus give Alonso a better chance of winning. (They were helped more than expected because Barrichello's car broke down just before they would have been in a position to re-open the pit lane following Piquet's crash). The crash shouldn't have happened anyway, but the authorities are unlikely to reintroduce anything which might put F1 in a similar situation again.
-
The advantage is obvious
You are one of the most knowledgable people I have ever had contact with in racing circles but as an ex-racing driver I still maintain there would have been zero benefit.
With no set-up changes allowed they would have been able to say "tyre type 'A' was really fast but had bad deg., tyre type 'B' was better/worse", etc. but not knowing what compound they were running means they have no additional knowledge to any other team. In my youth (and grief that was a long time ago) I did some 'blind' tyre testing and nobody in the team were any the wiser after the event!
Therefore, the only advantage gained is their drivers now know the track better than anyone else but, since they will not be there for at least another year, this is again of no help to them.
-
monty, Mercedes would have known roughly what tyres were being tested (or should have known) through a combination of their telemetry and what was being said before the test about tyres. They knew the 2013 ones could not have a compound change - only a belt change - which means that only certain alterations would have been possible. The 2014 tyres could and almost certainly would involve compound changes because tyre suppliers do that every year, in response to research and the changing needs/wants of their series. Further, it is likely that at some point the current tyre type would have been used for validation purposes (how else would Pirelli know the new belt type was safer than the old one?), which would clearly have behaved the same as in the Barcelona race weekend Mercedes had just done (adjusted by alterations in weather).
It is known that Rosberg drove differently in Monaco to earlier races, particularly in the early phase of the race. Specifically, he drove much slower in the early phases of the race than the team was doing hitherto. When it is more likely he would have discovered this: in 80-100 laps of practise/qualifying with alternate goals and traffic, or 214 laps in a three-day exclusive test specifically to test tyre performance? Practising such a technique would be impossible to ban in such a test, unless every team is going to be obliged to use robots as testers. (This is vaguely related to why in-season test bans hurt drivers - especially developing drivers - more than teams. It's easier for a driver to improve their performance without knowing all relevant parameters than it is to improve a car).
My guess is that your blind tyre test was in a situation where your tyre supplier had rather more freedom to experiment with tyres and was in pursuit of a variety of goals (not just safety and compliance with series needs/wants, but grip, endurance, wear patterns...) Therefore the contextual cues that Mercedes could and should have used were absent for your test. No wonder your team struggled to get any useful data for its own purposes, when the tyre company provided so few clues compared to Pirelli in the last few weeks.
-
Alia, we will obviously have to 'agree to disagree'. However, I am 100% certain that Mercedes would not have gained any advantage from this tyre test. Even trying to make educated guesses about what compound or construction they were running they could not have learnt anything useful. Even if they correctly guessed someting about the compounds they were not allowed to adjust their set-up so they could not understand what changes were required to the car to make the most of the tyre.
You seem to have convinced yourself that this tyre test dramatically altered the result at Monaco. Believe me, even a fully informed tyre test would not make dramatic changes to future events unless, during the test, you have the opportunity to change set-up to suit the tyre.
Of course the two Mercedes drivers approached Monaco differently to other races. They were fast during qualifying (as usual) got pole and second place and knew that it would be almost impossible for anyone to overtake them. It was therefore logical to drive at the slowest pace possible especially while on high fuel loads.