Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Forum rules
Please read the forum rules
Prema
Posts: 6650
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:40 pm

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by Prema »

pg55555 wrote:
Prema wrote:
Mechanics might or might not had been unsure. They might even honestly believe there was a big problem while in fact there might not had been a big problem. Never mind. The fact is that you do not know just anything about what the instructions they have as how to react in such situation. You only pretend to know facts. You are but speculating that only in the case of being 100% sure that there is some problem that they got to raise their hands, but otherwise they keep quite and perhaps pray to Holy Mary that it all ends just fine and that their driver doesn't end in a coma due to their fault. About that, you really are.. in a darkness.

In any case, according to the Ferrari boss, they, the team, were unsure. That is why they, the team, stopped the car.

"We realized there was a possible problem and we decided to stop the car immediately"

But because you apparently do not understand the difference between "a possible problem" (not being sure if there was actually a problem or not) and "a problem" (being sure there is a problem), you naturally then cannot understand the difference between a potentially (or a possibly) unsafe release and an unsafe release.


So, you don't think that the mechanics had a special "we are unsure" signal.

The mechanics did their job and signalled for the release to be stopped, it wasn't - THAT is the team's fault.

Simple, with video evidence.



Good night.

Zoue
Posts: 25158
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by Zoue »

pg55555 wrote:
Zoue wrote:and you seem to think that partial facts are all one needs to form a judgement


No. There is video evidence that the mechanics realised there was a problem and tried to stop the release but the team failed.

Do you deny the video evidence ?

It's interesting that you feel perfectly justified in asking me questions while refusing to answer ones I've presented you with.

I've never denied the video evidence. But, unlike you, I accept the the FIA has other sources of evidence in addition to this and will form their judgement on the basis of a full and balanced picture, not a partial one. Your refusal to accept any other evidence beyond this video is somewhat bizarre

PzR Slim
Posts: 2039
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by PzR Slim »

pg55555 wrote:
PzR Slim wrote:Maybe the mechanics made a mistake? They thought there was a problem and so put their hands up, maybe once the car came back to the garage it was checked and deemed a safe release. None of us can say what the truth is without access to all the evidence.


No, they did not make a mistake - witness the car being stopped.

You seem to think that a vivid imagination trumps the facts.

How do you know they didn't make a mistake? And don't say, ' because the car was stopped.' The car would still have been stopped if they made a mistake because they wouldn't have found out the mistake until after it was stopped. If you can provide irrefutable proof that it was an unsafe release then all power to you but until that point you are forming an opinion on partial evidence and claiming it as fact.

And I'm not imagining anything, I'm saying I can't tell if it was an unsafe release because I don't have all the evidence which means I have to take the FIA, who have a great deal more evidence than me, at face value. You on the other hand, have taken one piece of evidence, two engineers putting their hands up, and claiming you know exactly what happened as a result.
If...

mas
Posts: 2011
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:29 am

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by mas »

trento wrote:
mds wrote:
cosmo wrote:Despite being on different strategies it seems that he had at least the same pace as Vettel(considering also the tyre differences) and also in qualifying ...i really hate Alonso, my least favorite driver, but this is showing again how good he is compared with Raikkonen/Vettel/Massa. Even the small difference between Hamilton vs Rosberg show that no driver can destroy his team mate as Alonso does...


Vettel drives the perfect race and that shows how great Alonso is.

Can't make this up.


I believe he was referring to the gap between Alonso and Kimi was far greater than Seb and Kimi. I think the lap times show it. Alonso completely destroyed Kimi last season in an average car. No guesses what he could have done this year.


I must have imagined what happened at Spa last year because I am pretty sure Kimi was ahead of Alonso as well at Monaco before being taken out. Alonso shines in bad cars and not so much in good cars, it would have been a lot closer this year if he had stayed because this year they have definitely built a car that Kimi can just race naturally with rather than fret about its handling predictability every lap.

mikeyg123
Posts: 17897
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by mikeyg123 »

mas wrote:
trento wrote:
mds wrote:
cosmo wrote:Despite being on different strategies it seems that he had at least the same pace as Vettel(considering also the tyre differences) and also in qualifying ...i really hate Alonso, my least favorite driver, but this is showing again how good he is compared with Raikkonen/Vettel/Massa. Even the small difference between Hamilton vs Rosberg show that no driver can destroy his team mate as Alonso does...


Vettel drives the perfect race and that shows how great Alonso is.

Can't make this up.


I believe he was referring to the gap between Alonso and Kimi was far greater than Seb and Kimi. I think the lap times show it. Alonso completely destroyed Kimi last season in an average car. No guesses what he could have done this year.


I must have imagined what happened at Spa last year because I am pretty sure Kimi was ahead of Alonso as well at Monaco before being taken out. Alonso shines in bad cars and not so much in good cars, it would have been a lot closer this year if he had stayed because this year they have definitely built a car that Kimi can just race naturally with rather than fret about its handling predictability every lap.


The gap would be smaller in a good car. the better the car the less difference a driver can make.

User avatar
mds
Posts: 11443
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by mds »

trento wrote:
mds wrote:
cosmo wrote:Despite being on different strategies it seems that he had at least the same pace as Vettel(considering also the tyre differences) and also in qualifying ...i really hate Alonso, my least favorite driver, but this is showing again how good he is compared with Raikkonen/Vettel/Massa. Even the small difference between Hamilton vs Rosberg show that no driver can destroy his team mate as Alonso does...


Vettel drives the perfect race and that shows how great Alonso is.

Can't make this up.


I believe he was referring to the gap between Alonso and Kimi was far greater than Seb and Kimi. I think the lap times show it.


With Vettel in third, why should he have gone faster? 4 PU's per year. Controlling the gap with Massa sufficed so why push more?

On top of that - lap times? You're going to compare lap times of a twostopping driver with faster rubber with those of a onestopper who has to drive more conservatively?
Go Vandoorne :( - Verstappen - Vettel!

jackmoo
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:08 am

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by jackmoo »

I would only agree if someone says the bad luck one is Alonso.

spronkey
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:54 am

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by spronkey »

I thought this might be 2005 repeating itself... a mechanical situation resulting in a penalty for the next race. Glad to see that they were sensible this time around though.

Unsafe is not black and white - there's a scale of safety here. They stopped the car as soon as they could, past the pit box. The penalties for unsafe release are all about trying to improve safety - they have to acknowledge that mistakes will happen - but this is to keep the teams honest. If they tried to get Kimi to drive as fast as he could without the wheel falling off back to the pits, then that would be a real safety problem and probably deserve a penalty. As it stands, he lost an almost certain 5th, maybe even 4th place because they stopped instead of trying to salvage it.

These cars have wheel retention systems don't they? Maybe that was in place, but the wheel was loose enough to be unsafe to race at high speed?

iknownothing
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:04 pm

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by iknownothing »

mds wrote:
trento wrote:
mds wrote:
cosmo wrote:Despite being on different strategies it seems that he had at least the same pace as Vettel(considering also the tyre differences) and also in qualifying ...i really hate Alonso, my least favorite driver, but this is showing again how good he is compared with Raikkonen/Vettel/Massa. Even the small difference between Hamilton vs Rosberg show that no driver can destroy his team mate as Alonso does...


Vettel drives the perfect race and that shows how great Alonso is.

Can't make this up.


I believe he was referring to the gap between Alonso and Kimi was far greater than Seb and Kimi. I think the lap times show it.


With Vettel in third, why should he have gone faster? 4 PU's per year. Controlling the gap with Massa sufficed so why push more?

On top of that - lap times? You're going to compare lap times of a twostopping driver with faster rubber with those of a onestopper who has to drive more conservatively?


Not only that, but with Kimi on track for a good finish I don't know how Vettel is expected to magically make Kimi finish further back. I mean what was kimi's average finishing position last year? Kimi drives better apparently means that fernando is better than Vettel!

User avatar
infi24r
Posts: 2203
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 9:41 am

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by infi24r »

mds wrote:
trento wrote:
mds wrote:
cosmo wrote:Despite being on different strategies it seems that he had at least the same pace as Vettel(considering also the tyre differences) and also in qualifying ...i really hate Alonso, my least favorite driver, but this is showing again how good he is compared with Raikkonen/Vettel/Massa. Even the small difference between Hamilton vs Rosberg show that no driver can destroy his team mate as Alonso does...


Vettel drives the perfect race and that shows how great Alonso is.

Can't make this up.


I believe he was referring to the gap between Alonso and Kimi was far greater than Seb and Kimi. I think the lap times show it.


With Vettel in third, why should he have gone faster? 4 PU's per year. Controlling the gap with Massa sufficed so why push more?

On top of that - lap times? You're going to compare lap times of a twostopping driver with faster rubber with those of a onestopper who has to drive more conservatively?



I wouldn't really say Vettel looked faster than Raikkonen at any point. Of course the race was run on different strategy but their qualifying was seperated by half a tenth. Its far too early to say who is faster out of the two of them.

User avatar
mds
Posts: 11443
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by mds »

infi24r wrote:
mds wrote:
trento wrote:
mds wrote:
cosmo wrote:Despite being on different strategies it seems that he had at least the same pace as Vettel(considering also the tyre differences) and also in qualifying ...i really hate Alonso, my least favorite driver, but this is showing again how good he is compared with Raikkonen/Vettel/Massa. Even the small difference between Hamilton vs Rosberg show that no driver can destroy his team mate as Alonso does...


Vettel drives the perfect race and that shows how great Alonso is.

Can't make this up.


I believe he was referring to the gap between Alonso and Kimi was far greater than Seb and Kimi. I think the lap times show it.


With Vettel in third, why should he have gone faster? 4 PU's per year. Controlling the gap with Massa sufficed so why push more?

On top of that - lap times? You're going to compare lap times of a twostopping driver with faster rubber with those of a onestopper who has to drive more conservatively?



I wouldn't really say Vettel looked faster than Raikkonen at any point. Of course the race was run on different strategy but their qualifying was seperated by half a tenth. Its far too early to say who is faster out of the two of them.


Of course. But I didn't say Vettel looked faster than Raikkonen, did I? :)
Just that Vettel pretty much drove the perfect race and the notion that Raikkonen doing better somehow means Alonso is better than the rest.
Go Vandoorne :( - Verstappen - Vettel!

User avatar
infi24r
Posts: 2203
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 9:41 am

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by infi24r »

mds wrote:Of course. But I didn't say Vettel looked faster than Raikkonen, did I? :)
Just that Vettel pretty much drove the perfect race and the notion that Raikkonen doing better somehow means Alonso is better than the rest.


Higher than 3rd wasn't available, but that doesn't mean its the perfect race. He has a pretty poor start and pushed kimi wide into turn 1, then he couldn't pass Massa until the pit stops.

He drove well, but nothing spectacular.

We will need to wait a while before we can make comment on Vettel v Raikkonen. I'd need atleast 5 races both guys finish to see who has the upper hand in performance.

User avatar
mds
Posts: 11443
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by mds »

infi24r wrote:Higher than 3rd wasn't available, but that doesn't mean its the perfect race. He has a pretty poor start and pushed kimi wide into turn 1, then he couldn't pass Massa until the pit stops.


He started from the dirty side, which often means you're going to drop back a little. He regained third place fair and square, then bided his time, saving his tires, and unlocked great speed on worn tires when Massa pitted. Perfect race in my book.
Go Vandoorne :( - Verstappen - Vettel!

User avatar
infi24r
Posts: 2203
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 9:41 am

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by infi24r »

mds wrote:
infi24r wrote:Higher than 3rd wasn't available, but that doesn't mean its the perfect race. He has a pretty poor start and pushed kimi wide into turn 1, then he couldn't pass Massa until the pit stops.


He started from the dirty side, which often means you're going to drop back a little. He regained third place fair and square, then bided his time, saving his tires, and unlocked great speed on worn tires when Massa pitted. Perfect race in my book.


We seem to have different definitions of the perfect race. To me it means extracted every ounce of performance from the car. But on track he barely beat Felipe Massa in a Williams many consider to be a worse car.

Thats the thing with your car performance operating in such a chasm, if your team mate is out and you're only racing slower cars there is no real way of telling how well you went.

Considering how fast Kimi looked inbetween issues I think that car had a lot more pace than Vettel showed us, but like I said we'll need to wait and see.

User avatar
Covalent
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by Covalent »

infi24r wrote:
mds wrote:
infi24r wrote:Higher than 3rd wasn't available, but that doesn't mean its the perfect race. He has a pretty poor start and pushed kimi wide into turn 1, then he couldn't pass Massa until the pit stops.


He started from the dirty side, which often means you're going to drop back a little. He regained third place fair and square, then bided his time, saving his tires, and unlocked great speed on worn tires when Massa pitted. Perfect race in my book.


We seem to have different definitions of the perfect race. To me it means extracted every ounce of performance from the car. But on track he barely beat Felipe Massa in a Williams many consider to be a worse car.

Thats the thing with your car performance operating in such a chasm, if your team mate is out and you're only racing slower cars there is no real way of telling how well you went.

Considering how fast Kimi looked inbetween issues I think that car had a lot more pace than Vettel showed us, but like I said we'll need to wait and see.

That depends on if you're more a Prost (minimum effort while maximizing result) or a Senna (balls out) type of person.

User avatar
infi24r
Posts: 2203
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 9:41 am

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by infi24r »

Covalent wrote:That depends on if you're more a Prost (minimum effort while maximizing result) or a Senna (balls out) type of person.


Perfect result is just that, perfect result. The perfect pace of that car would have been a lot closer to Mercedes. Finishing ahead of Felipe Massa by the skin of your teeth isn't really a perfect result to me.

What I would love to have seen is Alonso in that Williams. We know he routinely beat Massa by incredibly large amounts of time for 4 seasons straight.

User avatar
Covalent
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by Covalent »

infi24r wrote:
Covalent wrote:That depends on if you're more a Prost (minimum effort while maximizing result) or a Senna (balls out) type of person.


Perfect result is just that, perfect result. The perfect pace of that car would have been a lot closer to Mercedes. Finishing ahead of Felipe Massa by the skin of your teeth isn't really a perfect result to me.

What I would love to have seen is Alonso in that Williams. We know he routinely beat Massa by incredibly large amounts of time for 4 seasons straight.

Well that was my point, in the Prost ideology it was the perfect result since no better finishing position was possible. Maximum result by minimum effort.

User avatar
LKS1
Posts: 3863
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:22 am

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by LKS1 »

infi24r wrote:
Covalent wrote:That depends on if you're more a Prost (minimum effort while maximizing result) or a Senna (balls out) type of person.


Perfect result is just that, perfect result. The perfect pace of that car would have been a lot closer to Mercedes. Finishing ahead of Felipe Massa by the skin of your teeth isn't really a perfect result to me.

What I would love to have seen is Alonso in that Williams. We know he routinely beat Massa by incredibly large amounts of time for 4 seasons straight.

Only if you believe that the Ferrari was capable of getting anywhere near the Merc... I expect you're in a v small minority if you believe this is the case.

The Ferrari and Williams seemed pretty close to me in Aus, with Seb only getting the upper-hand during Massa's pit stop. The lack of (on track) overtakes indicates to me that overtaking was difficult.

Zoue
Posts: 25158
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by Zoue »

infi24r wrote:
Covalent wrote:That depends on if you're more a Prost (minimum effort while maximizing result) or a Senna (balls out) type of person.


Perfect result is just that, perfect result. The perfect pace of that car would have been a lot closer to Mercedes. Finishing ahead of Felipe Massa by the skin of your teeth isn't really a perfect result to me.

What I would love to have seen is Alonso in that Williams. We know he routinely beat Massa by incredibly large amounts of time for 4 seasons straight.

I think the Williams and Ferrari aren't too far apart from each other. I don't really agree he beat Massa by the skin of his teeth. Overtaking at this track is very difficult - he put in some very quick laps when Massa went into the pits and getting in front was no fluke. After that he managed his race well, knowing that Massa didn't have the pace to take him. There was no point trying to hunt down the Mercs and putting undue stress on the engine when a podium was virtually guaranteed if he kept station. Taking on Rosberg would have been a fantasy and wholly unrealistic. The gap to Massa never dropped below 2.5s and that only occurred on two laps as it was usually well above 3s - Vettel controlled it as well as Lewis controlled the gap to Rosberg. It certainly wasn't skin of his teeth. I agree that it was the best result Vettel could have hoped for.

User avatar
LKS1
Posts: 3863
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:22 am

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by LKS1 »

Zoue wrote:
infi24r wrote:
Covalent wrote:That depends on if you're more a Prost (minimum effort while maximizing result) or a Senna (balls out) type of person.


Perfect result is just that, perfect result. The perfect pace of that car would have been a lot closer to Mercedes. Finishing ahead of Felipe Massa by the skin of your teeth isn't really a perfect result to me.

What I would love to have seen is Alonso in that Williams. We know he routinely beat Massa by incredibly large amounts of time for 4 seasons straight.

I think the Williams and Ferrari aren't too far apart from each other. I don't really agree he beat Massa by the skin of his teeth. Overtaking at this track is very difficult - he put in some very quick laps when Massa went into the pits and getting in front was no fluke. After that he managed his race well, knowing that Massa didn't have the pace to take him. There was no point trying to hunt down the Mercs and putting undue stress on the engine when a podium was virtually guaranteed if he kept station. Taking on Rosberg would have been a fantasy and wholly unrealistic. The gap to Massa never dropped below 2.5s and that only occurred on two laps as it was usually well above 3s - Vettel controlled it as well as Lewis controlled the gap to Rosberg. It certainly wasn't skin of his teeth. I agree that it was the best result Vettel could have hoped for.

:thumbup:

User avatar
mds
Posts: 11443
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by mds »

infi24r wrote:We seem to have different definitions of the perfect race. To me it means extracted every ounce of performance from the car.


To extract every ounce of performance from the car without it resulting in a higher finishing position would be incredibly stupid in 2015, where a driver has no more than 4 PU's at his disposal. The smartest thing to do is get your maximum finishing position in a way that is as economical as possible for your PU.

But on track he barely beat Felipe Massa in a Williams many consider to be a worse car.


Why use the word "barely"? He got by in a clever way, then managed it. Maybe he could have finished 10 or 20 seconds up the road, but then why on earth would he have wanted that?

Sure, the "perfect pace" would have been closer to Mercedes - but then Mercedes' perfect pace would have been further up the road again. Seeing how Hamilton put in his second-to-fastest lap about 20 laps from the end and only marginally improved later on, he probably also had way more speed than he showed.

Anyway, TL;DR: "perfect pace" doesn't equal "perfect race". Not in 2015.
Go Vandoorne :( - Verstappen - Vettel!

User avatar
infi24r
Posts: 2203
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 9:41 am

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by infi24r »

mds wrote:
infi24r wrote:
Anyway, TL;DR: "perfect pace" doesn't equal "perfect race". Not in 2015.


Perfect is too strong of a word though. Perfect would indicate no issues. He drove a strong race and got the best position the car was realistically capable of. But that doesn't mean his race was perfect, perfect means no imperfections.

I'd give it a 7-8/10, but really without his team mate to compare it against its hard to say how strong his pace actually was.

By your definition Jenson Button also drove the perfect race, because he put the car in the best position it was reasonable capable of achieving.

User avatar
mds
Posts: 11443
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by mds »

infi24r wrote:Perfect is too strong of a word though. Perfect would indicate no issues. He drove a strong race and got the best position the car was realistically capable of. But that doesn't mean his race was perfect, perfect means no imperfections.


The only imperfection would be the first seconds of the race (and even then, being on the dirty side, I can't really fault him for it), but given that he ultimately held on to his starting position I can't count it against.
He did drive perfectly for the rest of the race. I can't fault you for having your own and different opinion about that, but this is mine.

By your definition Jenson Button also drove the perfect race, because he put the car in the best position it was reasonable capable of achieving.


Maximizing the result is not the only requirement - e.g. if you spin, lose places and make it up afterwards, that is not the perfect race as it requires you to put more stress on the PU.

But yes, Button actually drove a great race and his defense against Perez, keeping him behind for a good 40 laps, was admirable.
Go Vandoorne :( - Verstappen - Vettel!

User avatar
infi24r
Posts: 2203
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 9:41 am

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by infi24r »

mds wrote:
infi24r wrote:Perfect is too strong of a word though. Perfect would indicate no issues. He drove a strong race and got the best position the car was realistically capable of. But that doesn't mean his race was perfect, perfect means no imperfections.


The only imperfection would be the first seconds of the race (and even then, being on the dirty side, I can't really fault him for it), but given that he ultimately held on to his starting position I can't count it against.
He did drive perfectly for the rest of the race. I can't fault you for having your own and different opinion about that, but this is mine.

By your definition Jenson Button also drove the perfect race, because he put the car in the best position it was reasonable capable of achieving.


Maximizing the result is not the only requirement - e.g. if you spin, lose places and make it up afterwards, that is not the perfect race as it requires you to put more stress on the PU.

But yes, Button actually drove a great race and his defense against Perez, keeping him behind for a good 40 laps, was admirable.


I prefer just to call a good race a good race. Otherwise half the drivers on the grid drive a perfect race if they maximize their cars.

Also its very hard in isolation to determine just how fast a driver is going. I'm sure Massa would have looked to 'maximize' his car often had Alonso not been next to him proving there was another 30 seconds in it.

Vettel drove a good race, as 3rd is around about were the car should be. He underqualified and didn't get a great start though so his weekend as a whole was far from perfect. The end result would have ultimately been the same though.

User avatar
mds
Posts: 11443
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by mds »

infi24r wrote:I prefer just to call a good race a good race. Otherwise half the drivers on the grid drive a perfect race if they maximize their cars.


Sometimes such is the case :)

Also its very hard in isolation to determine just how fast a driver is going. I'm sure Massa would have looked to 'maximize' his car often had Alonso not been next to him proving there was another 30 seconds in it.


Ah, true. Then again, even with two drivers you can't be sure, as another could be faster. I mean, using that reasoning, how can you tell Nasr was really THAT great? What would Alonso have done? And so one can go on...

Vettel drove a good race, as 3rd is around about were the car should be. He underqualified and didn't get a great start though so his weekend as a whole was far from perfect.


Well, I for one wasn't talking about the weekend as a whole, merely about the race (I think I clearly stated "perfect race", not "perfect weekend"). Not a great start... well, we've been over it. Dirty side, no positions lost, so why are we even mentioning that?
Go Vandoorne :( - Verstappen - Vettel!

Honda Quick
Posts: 915
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:29 pm
Contact:

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by Honda Quick »

spronkey wrote:These cars have wheel retention systems don't they? Maybe that was in place, but the wheel was loose enough to be unsafe to race at high speed?


In the case of suspension failures, yes. They have cable tethers to keep the already properly secured wheel from flying away from the car. But the safety system in place for wheel itself IS the wheel nut. And if the mechanic failed to secure that properly, it WAS an unsafe release. End of story. This safety issue should be black and white and enforced pretty harshly. I know the teams are doing the tire changes in seconds, but that excuse and leniency is never going to be a proper one if a marshall, spectator, pit crew, or driver loses their life. Fortunately, Kimi stopped the car and nothing happened, but something like this can easily result in a Surtees situation and a loss of life.

Pretty foolish for the FIA not to penalize Ferrari for it given the Jules safety situation. How easily humans forget...

To those saying the FIA might have more evidence: The tire changer placed their hand up during/after car release and the car then retired THAT lap due to a loose wheel. There needs to be no more evidence beyond that. Unsafe release. Don't let your passion for a race driver blind your sensibility. I'm sure there's more evidence out there that we might not be privy to to say it was a "lesser" type of unsafe release - but it was still clearly an unsafe release.

Can't believe people are already beginning a Kimi / Vettel war. Ugh. They are friends and working awesome together. I LOVE this pairing no matter what happens!
[ Kimi Raikkonen ]
2007 Formula 1 World Drivers Champion

Fiki
Posts: 8057
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Location: Belgium

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by Fiki »

I don't think the "release" was unsafe, as there was no other car passing it in the pitlane. But given that the mechanics pointed out that the job wasn't finished, that car should have been stopped by radio before it was 10m away. At the very latest, it should have been stopped at the pitlane exit by a red light. (We know Räikkönen respects pitlane traffic lights. :D )

So, as relieved as I am that Räikkönen does not get a penalty, Ferrari should be given one. They didn't fail just once, but twice.
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi

User avatar
infi24r
Posts: 2203
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 9:41 am

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by infi24r »

mds wrote:
Ah, true. Then again, even with two drivers you can't be sure, as another could be faster. I mean, using that reasoning, how can you tell Nasr was really THAT great? What would Alonso have done? And so one can go on...

That is indeed a good question. One which should be asked. Hence why I reserve the term 'perfect' for only truly extraordinary races.

Spa 2014 was probably the most recent one I can think of from a driver.

RaggedMan
Posts: 4825
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by RaggedMan »

Fiki wrote:I don't think the "release" was unsafe, as there was no other car passing it in the pitlane. But given that the mechanics pointed out that the job wasn't finished, that car should have been stopped by radio before it was 10m away. At the very latest, it should have been stopped at the pitlane exit by a red light. (We know Räikkönen respects pitlane traffic lights. :D )

So, as relieved as I am that Räikkönen does not get a penalty, Ferrari should be given one. They didn't fail just once, but twice.

A car realeased with a loose wheel nut is an unsafe release even if there isn't anybody else in the pitlane.

All I can figure is that the mechanics raised their hands because they thought the wheel wasn't secured properly, and Kimi was told on the radio to park the car as soon as he safely could, and it was later found that the wheel was attached well enough.

The whole thing is odd and I was fully expecting him to take a penalty at the next race.
{Insert clever sig line here}

User avatar
Covalent
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by Covalent »

RaggedMan wrote:
Fiki wrote:I don't think the "release" was unsafe, as there was no other car passing it in the pitlane. But given that the mechanics pointed out that the job wasn't finished, that car should have been stopped by radio before it was 10m away. At the very latest, it should have been stopped at the pitlane exit by a red light. (We know Räikkönen respects pitlane traffic lights. :D )

So, as relieved as I am that Räikkönen does not get a penalty, Ferrari should be given one. They didn't fail just once, but twice.

A car realeased with a loose wheel nut is an unsafe release even if there isn't anybody else in the pitlane.

All I can figure is that the mechanics raised their hands because they thought the wheel wasn't secured properly, and Kimi was told on the radio to park the car as soon as he safely could, and it was later found that the wheel was attached well enough.

The whole thing is odd and I was fully expecting him to take a penalty at the next race.

That's my take on it as well. Didn't Arrivabene say that the threads on the nut had been damaged during the previous pit stop already? So the damage had been done far earlier already, but it wasn't noticed until the second pit stop and Kimi was called to stop. However, chances are that he could've finished the race no problem.

Zoue
Posts: 25158
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by Zoue »

The impact activated the anti-stall system and did some damage to the floor of the car. We were very quick in the race, able to catch the Williams and to fight for the podium: but then there were problems at both pit stops.”

“I don’t know exactly what happened, but I know I lost something in terms of downforce. However, my team-mate’s podium is a great result for the team. Already in qualifying, despite my mistake on the quick lap, we knew we had a good car.”

he didn't do badly at all for someone who lost some downforce. Oh what might have been!

http://www.grandprix247.com/2015/03/16/raikkonen-i-dont-think-sebastian-hit-me/

RaggedMan
Posts: 4825
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by RaggedMan »

Covalent wrote:
RaggedMan wrote:
Fiki wrote:I don't think the "release" was unsafe, as there was no other car passing it in the pitlane. But given that the mechanics pointed out that the job wasn't finished, that car should have been stopped by radio before it was 10m away. At the very latest, it should have been stopped at the pitlane exit by a red light. (We know Räikkönen respects pitlane traffic lights. :D )

So, as relieved as I am that Räikkönen does not get a penalty, Ferrari should be given one. They didn't fail just once, but twice.

A car realeased with a loose wheel nut is an unsafe release even if there isn't anybody else in the pitlane.

All I can figure is that the mechanics raised their hands because they thought the wheel wasn't secured properly, and Kimi was told on the radio to park the car as soon as he safely could, and it was later found that the wheel was attached well enough.

The whole thing is odd and I was fully expecting him to take a penalty at the next race.

That's my take on it as well. Didn't Arrivabene say that the threads on the nut had been damaged during the previous pit stop already? So the damage had been done far earlier already, but it wasn't noticed until the second pit stop and Kimi was called to stop. However, chances are that he could've finished the race no problem.

Going by this story it's hard to tell but it sounds like the wheel was deemed to be secured. Now whether or not it was secured well enough to race on or just well enough to avoid a penalty I'm not sure.

http://en.espnf1.com/australia/motorsport/story/194701.html
{Insert clever sig line here}

User avatar
mds
Posts: 11443
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by mds »

infi24r wrote:
mds wrote:
Ah, true. Then again, even with two drivers you can't be sure, as another could be faster. I mean, using that reasoning, how can you tell Nasr was really THAT great? What would Alonso have done? And so one can go on...

That is indeed a good question. One which should be asked. Hence why I reserve the term 'perfect' for only truly extraordinary races.

Spa 2014 was probably the most recent one I can think of from a driver.


Fair enough. You're fully entitled to that opinion and I can understand it :)
Go Vandoorne :( - Verstappen - Vettel!

Fiki
Posts: 8057
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Location: Belgium

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by Fiki »

RaggedMan wrote:
Fiki wrote:I don't think the "release" was unsafe, as there was no other car passing it in the pitlane. But given that the mechanics pointed out that the job wasn't finished, that car should have been stopped by radio before it was 10m away. At the very latest, it should have been stopped at the pitlane exit by a red light. (We know Räikkönen respects pitlane traffic lights. :D )

So, as relieved as I am that Räikkönen does not get a penalty, Ferrari should be given one. They didn't fail just once, but twice.

A car realeased with a loose wheel nut is an unsafe release even if there isn't anybody else in the pitlane.
I understand that, but I make a distinction between an unsafe car and an unsafe release.

I think the solution for unsafe releases, of either type, is to do away with mandatory pitstops. If Jim Clark could run three Grands Prix on a single set of tyres, then I fail to see how F1 has made progress. I realise there are fans who like to see things go wrong during pitstops, but I don't. I don't even understand the attraction of forcing drivers to use two different tyre types.
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi

mas
Posts: 2011
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:29 am

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by mas »

egnat69 wrote:
mas wrote:
Prema wrote:I also think that, would it be the reverse situation, Kimi would do just the same as Vettel.


Kimi showed Vettel too much respect, he was ahead and should have cut inside to take the position but he stayed outside allowing Vettel to do his lunge on the inside.

8O :?
at the very best they were head to head entering the corner, with a small tendency in vettels favour... i don't really know how he should have cut inside... there was a car and he couldn't cut in there... he came from the outside and moved to the inside as far as possible... both managed to leave each other room and it would have been an intersting second corner... however, sainz braked a tad too late, he said it himself, and hit kimi and kimis car went into anti-stall which made for the rest of the chaos... it was not even the situation between the ferraris that lead to this, it was just sainz slightly tapping the ferrari...


Kimi was ahead of him before the corner but chose to follow Massa's line rather than cut in ahead of Vettel. Look at this race image still and ask yourself if the position is not already lost to Vettel if he had followed the racing line rather than a lunging blocking one from behind.

Image

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVMwq9gVIuw

Honda Quick
Posts: 915
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:29 pm
Contact:

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by Honda Quick »

Fiki wrote:I think the solution for unsafe releases, of either type, is to do away with mandatory pitstops. If Jim Clark could run three Grands Prix on a single set of tyres, then I fail to see how F1 has made progress. I realise there are fans who like to see things go wrong during pitstops, but I don't. I don't even understand the attraction of forcing drivers to use two different tyre types.


You mean, aside from the fact that cars are 30+ seconds a lap quicker, create 2.5+ G's more in cornering, braking, etc., suffer relatively few mechanical failures, tyres have less frequent punctions, drivers don't get injured/killed nearly as often, et al? No. No improvements since then at all. :-P

In seriousness, did ANY of us like the one tyre per race rule? I didn't. Easiest thing to do is for a system to be put in place to slow the pitstops down - that holds EVERY car for EVERY pitstop at a set time before it can be released. Then, if something does go wrong, the teams still have a few seconds to safely handle it before it truly becomes an issue that hinders their overall race time. I think the issue at that point would be, WHAT do you make that set time limit so you don't necessarily advantage or disadvantage single and multiple stop strategies. At the same time, I do enjoy seeing fast pitstops and teams compete in that manner - as this is a team sport. It's a tough balance to keep. I don't envy the FIA's job to please everyone at times.

Agree about the two tyre compound rule. I think it's ridiculous. If a team wants to run only options or only primes through a race, let them. It wouldn't be difficult to still allocate a set amount of tires to the teams even doing so.
[ Kimi Raikkonen ]
2007 Formula 1 World Drivers Champion

Paolo_Lasardi
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by Paolo_Lasardi »

Honda Quick wrote:
Fiki wrote:I think the solution for unsafe releases, of either type, is to do away with mandatory pitstops. If Jim Clark could run three Grands Prix on a single set of tyres, then I fail to see how F1 has made progress. I realise there are fans who like to see things go wrong during pitstops, but I don't. I don't even understand the attraction of forcing drivers to use two different tyre types.


You mean, aside from the fact that cars are 30+ seconds a lap quicker, create 2.5+ G's more in cornering, braking, etc., suffer relatively few mechanical failures, tyres have less frequent punctions, drivers don't get injured/killed nearly as often, et al? No. No improvements since then at all. :-P

In seriousness, did ANY of us like the one tyre per race rule? I didn't. Easiest thing to do is for a system to be put in place to slow the pitstops down - that holds EVERY car for EVERY pitstop at a set time before it can be released. Then, if something does go wrong, the teams still have a few seconds to safely handle it before it truly becomes an issue that hinders their overall race time. I think the issue at that point would be, WHAT do you make that set time limit so you don't necessarily advantage or disadvantage single and multiple stop strategies. At the same time, I do enjoy seeing fast pitstops and teams compete in that manner - as this is a team sport. It's a tough balance to keep. I don't envy the FIA's job to please everyone at times.

Agree about the two tyre compound rule. I think it's ridiculous. If a team wants to run only options or only primes through a race, let them. It wouldn't be difficult to still allocate a set amount of tires to the teams even doing so.


I did.

Paolo_Lasardi
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by Paolo_Lasardi »

mas wrote:
egnat69 wrote:
mas wrote:
Prema wrote:I also think that, would it be the reverse situation, Kimi would do just the same as Vettel.


Kimi showed Vettel too much respect, he was ahead and should have cut inside to take the position but he stayed outside allowing Vettel to do his lunge on the inside.

8O :?
at the very best they were head to head entering the corner, with a small tendency in vettels favour... i don't really know how he should have cut inside... there was a car and he couldn't cut in there... he came from the outside and moved to the inside as far as possible... both managed to leave each other room and it would have been an intersting second corner... however, sainz braked a tad too late, he said it himself, and hit kimi and kimis car went into anti-stall which made for the rest of the chaos... it was not even the situation between the ferraris that lead to this, it was just sainz slightly tapping the ferrari...


Kimi was ahead of him before the corner but chose to follow Massa's line rather than cut in ahead of Vettel. Look at this race image still and ask yourself if the position is not already lost to Vettel if he had followed the racing line rather than a lunging blocking one from behind.

Image

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVMwq9gVIuw


Well, if the roles were reversed, I am sure Vettel would have blocked Räikkönen on the inside line. That's one of the reasons why he is going to be the number one at Ferrari and Räikkönen the number two.

mas
Posts: 2011
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:29 am

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by mas »

We shall see as you can't do moves like that for a whole race. It was a move that at the apex of the bend Vettel only just had his left front and rear wheels on the track so was barely legal which shows how hail-mary the move was.

Nosebuckle
Posts: 107
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly bad luck

Post by Nosebuckle »

So I went back and re-watched Raikkonen's second stop and concluded a more appropriate title of the thread might be 'Kimi Raikkonen's incredibly good luck (for escaping what arguably should have been a penalty).'

As for his luck in the first corner, I'd say no need to crash into your new teammate at the first corner of the season. The worst part was losing so much momentum and the resulting tumble down the order. If he had the pace for a podium with the car damage, sub-optimal strategy, and botched first stop, then I think his fans have a good amount to look forward to.

Post Reply