2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Forum rules
Please read the forum rules
User avatar
mds
Posts: 11443
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by mds »

lamo wrote:Kimi losing 27 seconds I think was due to him having terrible pace on the in lap and on the new tyres.
I'm not taking the lap splits, I'm taking pretty much the last data point before pitting and the first stabilized point after pitting.

Looking at the stop you refer I get Verstappen 39 behind > 14.5 behind, so indeed lower than I first said - maybe Kimi lost a bit more time through his stop. So that makes 24.5s.

So that still makes for a good 7 seconds Hamilton needed to find on Vettel.
Go Vandoorne :( - Verstappen - Vettel!

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

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by mds »

F1_Ernie wrote:
Also I'm sure the SC came out while they was around the 1st sector.
Actually Hamilton had completed S1, Vettel hadn't yet.
Go Vandoorne :( - Verstappen - Vettel!

User avatar
SmoothRide
Posts: 902
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:56 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by SmoothRide »

Zoue wrote:
LKS1 wrote:
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
mds wrote:
LKS1 wrote: 2) I miss the 'running' order at the bottom of the screen, which nearly always showed the time gap between drivers - making it far easier to keep track of the progress of those drivers in which we were interested. Nowadays, the list on the left hand side of the screen more often than not just shows the running order or positions gained/lost :( .
You're right about this. I didn't notice it because I subscribed to the live timing app, but yeah it was missing and I used to find this invaluable to follow the race.

Guess this is an extra reason to validate me subscribing for the app, but it's a shame this basically forces people to pay up to get some really basic information.
I complained about this on F1 fanatic at the time I was watching the race too and several others agreed. I find that where they dump the list at the moment of the left of your screen blocks and ruins the view. And most of the time, it isn't even showing the gaps between the drivers.

It was far better when it just showed 5 drivers at a time in a small, less obvious box at the bottom of the screen. As it also showed the times! I have to say, I think the graphics were quite a bit better and far more reliable last year. They really need improving now! It just drives me mad how much they block the screen where they are now. Every time they film a car go past, It so often drives behind the graphics. I think it is a silly place to have them permanently. Fair enough if something just occasionally gets shown there for a short period of time such as what tyre each driver is using. But during both of the latest races, I spent ages looking at it waiting for them to show the gaps between the drivers which they only seem to show every 5 minutes or so.
Not good.
:thumbup: It used to be a running box at the bottom of the screen showing the time difference between drivers - that occasionally changed to show the tyres being used or number of stops.

FAR, FAR better - and I fail to see how those responsible think just showing the running order at the side of the screen is an improvement :x

Sorry to go on, but I not only find it extremely annoying as (assuming you're not following an app) it makes it impossible to follow who is gaining or losing time until a few laps later.
I strongly suspect this is deliberate, in order to force people towards taking up the app.

LinkedIn is a trailblazer with this sort of thing. They regularly discontinue features in the free version in the name of "improving the experience," only for them to appear in the expensive packages. Once people know what they are missing they are more likely to consider paying to get it. I can't see how anyone would think the current graphics are an improvement on previous years, which leads me to conclude this is part of the same marketing design, cynic that I am
The free live timing app used to show sector lap times and number of stops by each driver. It has been moved behind a pay wall a couple of years ago. They actually had to SPEND money to take those features away, but I am sure they more than made it back by inducing people to pay for access.

User avatar
speedysoprano
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 12:52 pm
Location: Londonish

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by speedysoprano »

pokerman wrote:
F1Oz wrote:Sorry - but waiting till the guy has committed and only THEN moving and moving to say you have to move again or you'll hit me - is just dangerous driving

Max is just lucky Daniel is good enough to avoid the accident

For me it's unacceptable - it's the move or crash mentality - and is not good driving - just brinksmanship
He is the golden child that perhaps needs protecting?
The "golden child" narrative we're being sold, for sure. I'm not buying it. Good driver, lots of potential, but the jury's still firmly out for me. I'm bored of hearing how great he is when some of that (not all, admittedly) is down to his good luck in somehow avoiding repercussions from his reckless driving and mistakes. It's the child prodigy phenomenon - he'll always get a pass because of his age, people are loath to point out the truth and less likely to praise older drivers for being just as good (or better) because that's no fun, is it?

It's clear where my allegiances lie and I'm not going to pretend I'm not a massive Ricciardo fan, however I think I'd have the same opinion regardless.

It was a good battle, though, and I look forward to seeing many more. After Melbourne I was a bit jaded, but it seems this year is going to be pretty exciting and mixed up. Bring it on!
1)Team Daniel.
2)Team Lewis.

Reluctant Red Bull Fan - they just keep hiring Aussies.

sandman1347
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by sandman1347 »

speedysoprano wrote:
pokerman wrote:
F1Oz wrote:Sorry - but waiting till the guy has committed and only THEN moving and moving to say you have to move again or you'll hit me - is just dangerous driving

Max is just lucky Daniel is good enough to avoid the accident

For me it's unacceptable - it's the move or crash mentality - and is not good driving - just brinksmanship
He is the golden child that perhaps needs protecting?
The "golden child" narrative we're being sold, for sure. I'm not buying it. Good driver, lots of potential, but the jury's still firmly out for me. I'm bored of hearing how great he is when some of that (not all, admittedly) is down to his good luck in somehow avoiding repercussions from his reckless driving and mistakes. It's the child prodigy phenomenon - he'll always get a pass because of his age, people are loath to point out the truth and less likely to praise older drivers for being just as good (or better) because that's no fun, is it?

It's clear where my allegiances lie and I'm not going to pretend I'm not a massive Ricciardo fan, however I think I'd have the same opinion regardless.

It was a good battle, though, and I look forward to seeing many more. After Melbourne I was a bit jaded, but it seems this year is going to be pretty exciting and mixed up. Bring it on!
The one thing I agree on is the moving in the braking zone needs to stop. I can't imagine why the FIA removed the "Verstappen rule". It was much needed clarification considering Max's reckless defensive moves. Any driver can avoid being passed by moving in the braking zone but it's simply not good driving and it forces the other driver off the road most of the time. He's done it numerous times to numerous drivers and it's not going away. He doesn't seem to get it and the FIA is letting him get away with it (probably because they believe he is the future of the sport).

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

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by mds »

sandman1347 wrote:He doesn't seem to get it and the FIA is letting him get away with it (probably because they believe he is the future of the sport).
I'd say he gets it very well, especially that second part of your sentence. Why stop if it brings him points, podiums even, and it doesn't get him in trouble?
Go Vandoorne :( - Verstappen - Vettel!

BlackMan
Posts: 352
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 2:10 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by BlackMan »

Could someone please explain to me why Vettel position at the start was within the rules and didn't get penalized? I'm just eager to know,nothing else...

lucifers
Posts: 586
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 5:33 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by lucifers »

pokerman wrote:
flyboy10 wrote:So, what happened to the standing restart after the safety car?
Good point, I don't believe that it actually was ever agreed, who wants to see races continuously gridded back up and restarted, even in MotoGP they changed the rules regarding wet/dry races so the race is now one continuous race.
I agree I wasn't looking forward to a standing start after a safety car.once the race gets going it must continue.

User avatar
Black_Flag_11
Posts: 8034
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by Black_Flag_11 »

BlackMan wrote:Could someone please explain to me why Vettel position at the start was within the rules and didn't get penalized? I'm just eager to know,nothing else...
From what I can see it's a bit of a grey area. The sporting regulations simply say "When the cars come back to the grid at the end of the formation lap, they will stop within their respective grid positions"

Now it doesn't say that all 4 wheels have to be within the grid slot, which I assume is why Vettel wasn't penalised. It could also be that Charlie Whiting should have abandoned the start and sent the cars around for another formation lap, so as he didn't do this the stewards didn't see fit to penalise Vettel.

The rules could do with a clarification really though, stating:
A) How much of the car needs to be in the grid slot? (all 4 tyres seems to me to be the easiest wording)
B) What happens if this is not the case e.g. will there be a second formation lap? Will the driver involved be penalised?

lamo

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by lamo »

mds wrote:
lamo wrote:Kimi losing 27 seconds I think was due to him having terrible pace on the in lap and on the new tyres.
I'm not taking the lap splits, I'm taking pretty much the last data point before pitting and the first stabilized point after pitting.

Looking at the stop you refer I get Verstappen 39 behind > 14.5 behind, so indeed lower than I first said - maybe Kimi lost a bit more time through his stop. So that makes 24.5s.

So that still makes for a good 7 seconds Hamilton needed to find on Vettel.
Yes interesting info, it seems pitting under the VSC saved even more than 5 seconds against a normal stop. It seems to be more like 10 seconds?

Vettel was 1.5 behind Hamilton, pitted under VSC and was 18 behind. Assuming they did similar times, Vettel lost 16.5 seconds. The teams would have known this information before the race, which makes it more surprising that Hamilton did not pit under the VSC. The rule is, always pit under VSC. Its free time. It seemed to save at least 7 or at most 10 seconds over pitting normally.

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

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by RaggedMan »

lamo wrote:
mds wrote:
lamo wrote:Kimi losing 27 seconds I think was due to him having terrible pace on the in lap and on the new tyres.
I'm not taking the lap splits, I'm taking pretty much the last data point before pitting and the first stabilized point after pitting.

Looking at the stop you refer I get Verstappen 39 behind > 14.5 behind, so indeed lower than I first said - maybe Kimi lost a bit more time through his stop. So that makes 24.5s.

So that still makes for a good 7 seconds Hamilton needed to find on Vettel.
Yes interesting info, it seems pitting under the VSC saved even more than 5 seconds against a normal stop. It seems to be more like 10 seconds?

Vettel was 1.5 behind Hamilton, pitted under VSC and was 18 behind. Assuming they did similar times, Vettel lost 16.5 seconds. The teams would have known this information before the race, which makes it more surprising that Hamilton did not pit under the VSC. The rule is, always pit under VSC. Its free time. It seemed to save at least 7 or at most 10 seconds over pitting normally.
I think a lot of the lost advantage was down to the crash being on the main straight and the safety car leading the cars through pit lane. Had the crash been somewhere else on the track there would've been more of a time penalty to pitting behind the safety car.
{Insert clever sig line here}

F1_Ernie
Posts: 3730
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by F1_Ernie »

lamo wrote:
mds wrote:
lamo wrote:Kimi losing 27 seconds I think was due to him having terrible pace on the in lap and on the new tyres.
I'm not taking the lap splits, I'm taking pretty much the last data point before pitting and the first stabilized point after pitting.

Looking at the stop you refer I get Verstappen 39 behind > 14.5 behind, so indeed lower than I first said - maybe Kimi lost a bit more time through his stop. So that makes 24.5s.

So that still makes for a good 7 seconds Hamilton needed to find on Vettel.
Yes interesting info, it seems pitting under the VSC saved even more than 5 seconds against a normal stop. It seems to be more like 10 seconds?

Vettel was 1.5 behind Hamilton, pitted under VSC and was 18 behind. Assuming they did similar times, Vettel lost 16.5 seconds. The teams would have known this information before the race, which makes it more surprising that Hamilton did not pit under the VSC. The rule is, always pit under VSC. Its free time. It seemed to save at least 7 or at most 10 seconds over pitting normally.
I guess the teams didn't have enough info to see how the slicks was doing. If you say it's the rule and only Vettel pitted from the top 6 then surely they knew more than us. GIO crashed on slicks, I saw a radio call from RB confirming to Verstappen GIO was on softs and crashed. Hulkenberg was complaining, others was going off. Only one driver from the top 6 thought it was wise to pit, no dis repect to the middle teams but they have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

I still don't think anyone can say it would of worked or not, all i know is the SC stopped the fans from seeing a great call or bad call. Vettel himself said it was a risk.
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place
2018: 12th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016, 3rd China 2018, 3rd Japan 2018, 2nd Mexico 2018

F1_Ernie
Posts: 3730
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by F1_Ernie »

To Hamilton: “The important thing is to get to the transition point, the inter-to-dry-point. We suspect that will be lap 6.”

That was Mercedes thinking just before the race start.
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place
2018: 12th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016, 3rd China 2018, 3rd Japan 2018, 2nd Mexico 2018

ALESI
Posts: 2418
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by ALESI »

Due to (I think) rubbish highlights on Channel 4, I was slightly bemused to see Hamilton behind the safety car on slicks. How did no one overtake him when he pitted? Surely Sainz would have already been on slicks - or was he so far behind the leaders even behind the safety car?
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

kleefton
Posts: 4009
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by kleefton »

Honestly I wish Vettel didn't take the gamble to pit for slicks under the VSC. It really robbed us of a great battle between him and Hamilton to the finish. People can praise him all they want for making that decision but the facts remain that
1)the safety car happened,
2)it is still not clear that the slicks would have given him that initial advantage he needed to be in front once Lewis pitted let alone keep the car on the track when people were crashing out and going off on slicks. All we know for sure is his decision to pit ultimately cost him.

ALESI
Posts: 2418
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by ALESI »

Max's move was pretty bad I thought. Someone's going to have to drive into him before he learns. I bet Ric had some words with the team behind closed doors.
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

lamo

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by lamo »

F1_Ernie wrote:To Hamilton: “The important thing is to get to the transition point, the inter-to-dry-point. We suspect that will be lap 6.”

That was Mercedes thinking just before the race start.
This seems to fit with what we have seen before, but if you can save 7-10 seconds by pitting under a VSC that changes everything that is why we saw teams willing to take the risk of the early pit stop

User avatar
tootsie323
Posts: 3176
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by tootsie323 »

ALESI wrote:Due to (I think) rubbish highlights on Channel 4, I was slightly bemused to see Hamilton behind the safety car on slicks. How did no one overtake him when he pitted? Surely Sainz would have already been on slicks - or was he so far behind the leaders even behind the safety car?
A bunch of cars switched tyres once the SC was deployed. Like you, I watched the highlights and was a bit peeved that C4 saw fit to overlook this detail, particularly when the commentary team had been specific about Sainz needing to keep a given gap to ensure he maintained the pit-stop time advantage he had 'bought' by starting on slicks. I think that's my first gripe at C4 coverage to date!
Where I'm going, I don't need roads

User avatar
Black_Flag_11
Posts: 8034
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by Black_Flag_11 »

ALESI wrote:Due to (I think) rubbish highlights on Channel 4, I was slightly bemused to see Hamilton behind the safety car on slicks. How did no one overtake him when he pitted? Surely Sainz would have already been on slicks - or was he so far behind the leaders even behind the safety car?
As the accident was on the pit straight all cars had to come through the pit lane once the safety car was called out. So a tyre change only cost those guys 3 seconds.

So for example pitting cost Vettel around 10 seconds under the virtual safety car, whereas the other drivers only lost about 3, which is what put Vettel down in P6 when he was running P2 when he pitted.

WHoff78
Posts: 778
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by WHoff78 »

Regarding the decision to pit under the VSC, I think both sides of the argument are valid, but it is certainly not as simple as split times, and when the crossover point is. Key as well would have been potential for traffic after the stop. It was clearly still difficult to overtake, and would need to look closer, but is there not a risk that if cars behind the leading 6 had not pitted then Vettel would have got stuck behind traffic. Perhaps he had a better window than other drivers. Also, tough to say how long the tyres will last stopping that early, in mixed conditions and an evolving track. If the Ferrari is kinder on the tyres, as well as potentially being the faster race car come Sunday (difficult to say at this point) they probably have a little more flexibility over pit windows. They also consider a lot of factors when making these calls including probability of further incidents, and it is fair to say given the conditions and the number of cars gambling on the early switch that the likelihood of another VSC/SC was fairly high. I do agree that the SC was still unfortunate for Vettel, but it would have been even more unfortunate if it had happed 3 or 4 laps later as he would have been in the same situation with the extra laps of tyre wear. That said we would have probably had 3-4 laps of Hamilton complaining that they should have pitted him during the VSC. That is the beauty of a drying track I guess.

BlackMan
Posts: 352
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 2:10 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by BlackMan »

Black_Flag_11 wrote:
BlackMan wrote:Could someone please explain to me why Vettel position at the start was within the rules and didn't get penalized? I'm just eager to know,nothing else...
From what I can see it's a bit of a grey area. The sporting regulations simply say "When the cars come back to the grid at the end of the formation lap, they will stop within their respective grid positions"

Now it doesn't say that all 4 wheels have to be within the grid slot, which I assume is why Vettel wasn't penalised. It could also be that Charlie Whiting should have abandoned the start and sent the cars around for another formation lap, so as he didn't do this the stewards didn't see fit to penalise Vettel.

The rules could do with a clarification really though, stating:
A) How much of the car needs to be in the grid slot? (all 4 tyres seems to me to be the easiest wording)
B) What happens if this is not the case e.g. will there be a second formation lap? Will the driver involved be penalised?
thank you :-P :thumbup:

flyboy10
Posts: 5402
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 5:21 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by flyboy10 »

BlackMan wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
BlackMan wrote:Could someone please explain to me why Vettel position at the start was within the rules and didn't get penalized? I'm just eager to know,nothing else...
From what I can see it's a bit of a grey area. The sporting regulations simply say "When the cars come back to the grid at the end of the formation lap, they will stop within their respective grid positions"

Now it doesn't say that all 4 wheels have to be within the grid slot, which I assume is why Vettel wasn't penalised. It could also be that Charlie Whiting should have abandoned the start and sent the cars around for another formation lap, so as he didn't do this the stewards didn't see fit to penalise Vettel.

The rules could do with a clarification really though, stating:
A) How much of the car needs to be in the grid slot? (all 4 tyres seems to me to be the easiest wording)
B) What happens if this is not the case e.g. will there be a second formation lap? Will the driver involved be penalised?
thank you :-P :thumbup:
Surely this would be something Vettel was certain of getting away with either from reading the rules or by asking directly for a clarification before the race? It's not the kind of thing he'd have just gambled on. Too much at stake.

GingerFurball
Posts: 1804
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:20 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by GingerFurball »

sandman1347 wrote:
speedysoprano wrote:
pokerman wrote:
F1Oz wrote:Sorry - but waiting till the guy has committed and only THEN moving and moving to say you have to move again or you'll hit me - is just dangerous driving

Max is just lucky Daniel is good enough to avoid the accident

For me it's unacceptable - it's the move or crash mentality - and is not good driving - just brinksmanship
He is the golden child that perhaps needs protecting?
The "golden child" narrative we're being sold, for sure. I'm not buying it. Good driver, lots of potential, but the jury's still firmly out for me. I'm bored of hearing how great he is when some of that (not all, admittedly) is down to his good luck in somehow avoiding repercussions from his reckless driving and mistakes. It's the child prodigy phenomenon - he'll always get a pass because of his age, people are loath to point out the truth and less likely to praise older drivers for being just as good (or better) because that's no fun, is it?

It's clear where my allegiances lie and I'm not going to pretend I'm not a massive Ricciardo fan, however I think I'd have the same opinion regardless.

It was a good battle, though, and I look forward to seeing many more. After Melbourne I was a bit jaded, but it seems this year is going to be pretty exciting and mixed up. Bring it on!
The one thing I agree on is the moving in the braking zone needs to stop. I can't imagine why the FIA removed the "Verstappen rule". It was much needed clarification considering Max's reckless defensive moves. Any driver can avoid being passed by moving in the braking zone but it's simply not good driving and it forces the other driver off the road most of the time. He's done it numerous times to numerous drivers and it's not going away. He doesn't seem to get it and the FIA is letting him get away with it (probably because they believe he is the future of the sport).
There's nothing for Verstappen to 'get'. As he pointed out on Sky last year when it was put to him that his driving while defending wasn't of an acceptable standard, he hasn't been sanctioned by the stewards for his driving, so is there really anything wrong with it?

What really needs to happen is for a driver to make contact as the result of his moving all over the place in the braking zone, ideally ending his race. Unfortunately he's getting away with his Ayrton Senna 'move or we crash' tribute act because he's pulling his moves against guys who know better than to chuck away a big haul of points by crashing into him to prove a point.

User avatar
ob1kenobi.23
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 11:47 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by ob1kenobi.23 »

Does any body believe that Dan deliberately nudged Seb as he was passing him or is he just having a laugh?

The Aussie was involved in a titanic tussle with Vettel, who provided one of more memorable moments from the Chinese Grand Prix with a sensational pass around the outside – but not before touching wheels along the way.
Asked about the battle, Ricciardo said it was all part of the plan to give the fans "a bit of smoke".
"I was honestly a bit bored so I just thought let’s bang some wheels and get the crowd excited!," Ricciardo joked after the race.
"I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t intentional, but I knew there was no harm done. A little bit of a smoke for the fans."



http://www.foxsportsasia.com/motorsport ... l-contact/
Champions are made from something they have deep inside of them - a desire, a dream, a vision. They have last-minute stamina, they have to be a little faster, they have the skill & the will but the will must be stronger than the skill. Muhammad Ali

User avatar
Exediron
Posts: 8132
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Location: Michigan, USA
Contact:

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by Exediron »

ob1kenobi.23 wrote:Does any body believe that Dan deliberately nudged Seb as he was passing him or is he just having a laugh?
Not really. At most he allowed it to happen, but I don't believe he made contact on purpose. If you watch the video of the overtake:



You can see at about 0:10 that it's actually Vettel who moves into him - Ricciardo might have decided to let the touch happen, but he doesn't initiate it.
PICK 10 COMPETITION (6 wins, 18 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017 & 2019
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion

pokerman
Posts: 35334
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by pokerman »

sandman1347 wrote:
speedysoprano wrote:
pokerman wrote:
F1Oz wrote:Sorry - but waiting till the guy has committed and only THEN moving and moving to say you have to move again or you'll hit me - is just dangerous driving

Max is just lucky Daniel is good enough to avoid the accident

For me it's unacceptable - it's the move or crash mentality - and is not good driving - just brinksmanship
He is the golden child that perhaps needs protecting?
The "golden child" narrative we're being sold, for sure. I'm not buying it. Good driver, lots of potential, but the jury's still firmly out for me. I'm bored of hearing how great he is when some of that (not all, admittedly) is down to his good luck in somehow avoiding repercussions from his reckless driving and mistakes. It's the child prodigy phenomenon - he'll always get a pass because of his age, people are loath to point out the truth and less likely to praise older drivers for being just as good (or better) because that's no fun, is it?

It's clear where my allegiances lie and I'm not going to pretend I'm not a massive Ricciardo fan, however I think I'd have the same opinion regardless.

It was a good battle, though, and I look forward to seeing many more. After Melbourne I was a bit jaded, but it seems this year is going to be pretty exciting and mixed up. Bring it on!
The one thing I agree on is the moving in the braking zone needs to stop. I can't imagine why the FIA removed the "Verstappen rule". It was much needed clarification considering Max's reckless defensive moves. Any driver can avoid being passed by moving in the braking zone but it's simply not good driving and it forces the other driver off the road most of the time. He's done it numerous times to numerous drivers and it's not going away. He doesn't seem to get it and the FIA is letting him get away with it (probably because they believe he is the future of the sport).
Ricciardo locked up and nearly drove off the track avoiding an accident with Verstappen as he did his thing under braking much like Hamilton had to do last year, it needs someone who doesn't give a damn just to plough straight into him before the stewards get the message that safety comes before protecting a certain driver.
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

pokerman
Posts: 35334
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by pokerman »

F1_Ernie wrote:To Hamilton: “The important thing is to get to the transition point, the inter-to-dry-point. We suspect that will be lap 6.”

That was Mercedes thinking just before the race start.
How can Mercedes judge what lap it's going to be before the race has even started, it's like Australia when they told Hamilton before the race that he was pitting on a particular lap so Hamilton thought I'm having problems with the tyres so no harm pitting 1 lap earlier with no apparent concern to how the race has developed?
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

pokerman
Posts: 35334
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by pokerman »

kleefton wrote:Honestly I wish Vettel didn't take the gamble to pit for slicks under the VSC. It really robbed us of a great battle between him and Hamilton to the finish. People can praise him all they want for making that decision but the facts remain that
1)the safety car happened,
2)it is still not clear that the slicks would have given him that initial advantage he needed to be in front once Lewis pitted let alone keep the car on the track when people were crashing out and going off on slicks. All we know for sure is his decision to pit ultimately cost him.
I guess that's one a piece on unfortunate pit calls then?
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

pokerman
Posts: 35334
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by pokerman »

flyboy10 wrote:
BlackMan wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
BlackMan wrote:Could someone please explain to me why Vettel position at the start was within the rules and didn't get penalized? I'm just eager to know,nothing else...
From what I can see it's a bit of a grey area. The sporting regulations simply say "When the cars come back to the grid at the end of the formation lap, they will stop within their respective grid positions"

Now it doesn't say that all 4 wheels have to be within the grid slot, which I assume is why Vettel wasn't penalised. It could also be that Charlie Whiting should have abandoned the start and sent the cars around for another formation lap, so as he didn't do this the stewards didn't see fit to penalise Vettel.

The rules could do with a clarification really though, stating:
A) How much of the car needs to be in the grid slot? (all 4 tyres seems to me to be the easiest wording)
B) What happens if this is not the case e.g. will there be a second formation lap? Will the driver involved be penalised?
thank you :-P :thumbup:
Surely this would be something Vettel was certain of getting away with either from reading the rules or by asking directly for a clarification before the race? It's not the kind of thing he'd have just gambled on. Too much at stake.
Vettel would have been fully aware of the rules a bit like Rosberg who I believe read the rule book cover to cover, I don't know if it's just a German thing for thoroughness?
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

sandman1347
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by sandman1347 »

It's interesting that in both races so far, the guy who blinked first (pitted first) is the one who lost. Track position is king with these cars I suppose.

pokerman
Posts: 35334
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by pokerman »

ob1kenobi.23 wrote:Does any body believe that Dan deliberately nudged Seb as he was passing him or is he just having a laugh?

The Aussie was involved in a titanic tussle with Vettel, who provided one of more memorable moments from the Chinese Grand Prix with a sensational pass around the outside – but not before touching wheels along the way.
Asked about the battle, Ricciardo said it was all part of the plan to give the fans "a bit of smoke".
"I was honestly a bit bored so I just thought let’s bang some wheels and get the crowd excited!," Ricciardo joked after the race.
"I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t intentional, but I knew there was no harm done. A little bit of a smoke for the fans."



http://www.foxsportsasia.com/motorsport ... l-contact/
That's interesting at the time I thought that it was Vettel that brushed wheels with Ricciardo just to create more space for himself going into the following corner.
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

pokerman
Posts: 35334
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by pokerman »

sandman1347 wrote:It's interesting that in both races so far, the guy who blinked first (pitted first) is the one who lost. Track position is king with these cars I suppose.
Very much when I've just read that China is about the easiest track to pass on but passing certainly wasn't that easy with these cars, for many tracks we are hardly going to see any overtaking.
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

User avatar
Exediron
Posts: 8132
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Location: Michigan, USA
Contact:

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by Exediron »

pokerman wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:It's interesting that in both races so far, the guy who blinked first (pitted first) is the one who lost. Track position is king with these cars I suppose.
Very much when I've just read that China is about the easiest track to pass on but passing certainly wasn't that easy with these cars, for many tracks we are hardly going to see any overtaking.
Vettel didn't have track position when he pitted, and without the second safety car he probably would have been ahead after Lewis stopped. It's coincidence and nothing more.
PICK 10 COMPETITION (6 wins, 18 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017 & 2019
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion

sandman1347
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by sandman1347 »

Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:It's interesting that in both races so far, the guy who blinked first (pitted first) is the one who lost. Track position is king with these cars I suppose.
Very much when I've just read that China is about the easiest track to pass on but passing certainly wasn't that easy with these cars, for many tracks we are hardly going to see any overtaking.
Vettel didn't have track position when he pitted, and without the second safety car he probably would have been ahead after Lewis stopped. It's coincidence and nothing more.
Both men lost their chance at winning when they got stuck in traffic after pitting sooner than they needed to.

User avatar
Covalent
Posts: 10155
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by Covalent »

pokerman wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:To Hamilton: “The important thing is to get to the transition point, the inter-to-dry-point. We suspect that will be lap 6.”

That was Mercedes thinking just before the race start.
How can Mercedes judge what lap it's going to be before the race has even started, it's like Australia when they told Hamilton before the race that he was pitting on a particular lap so Hamilton thought I'm having problems with the tyres so no harm pitting 1 lap earlier with no apparent concern to how the race has developed?
Because they're not armchair experts, they're pitwall-and-a-factory-full-of-data-analyst-experts. That doesn't make them clairvoyants but they can make very educated estimates.

User avatar
Exediron
Posts: 8132
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Location: Michigan, USA
Contact:

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by Exediron »

sandman1347 wrote:
Exediron wrote:Vettel didn't have track position when he pitted, and without the second safety car he probably would have been ahead after Lewis stopped. It's coincidence and nothing more.
Both men lost their chance at winning when they got stuck in traffic after pitting sooner than they needed to.
I get what you're saying, but I actually think Vettel pitted at the right time. There was no way he could have known there would be a second safety car period, and if there hadn't been he was in prime position to take the lead when everyone else had to pit. Getting screwed over by the safety car is nothing new, but it also doesn't do anything to prove that track position is more important under the new formula than it already was (and it was already very important).

Also, a crucial difference between China and Melbourne is that - aside from his own teammate - Vettel was able to overtake the cars he needed within a lap of catching them.
PICK 10 COMPETITION (6 wins, 18 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017 & 2019
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion

User avatar
Exediron
Posts: 8132
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Location: Michigan, USA
Contact:

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by Exediron »

Covalent wrote:
pokerman wrote:How can Mercedes judge what lap it's going to be before the race has even started, it's like Australia when they told Hamilton before the race that he was pitting on a particular lap so Hamilton thought I'm having problems with the tyres so no harm pitting 1 lap earlier with no apparent concern to how the race has developed?
Because they're not armchair experts, they're pitwall-and-a-factory-full-of-data-analyst-experts. That doesn't make them clairvoyants but they can make very educated estimates.
They can also, upon occasion, make some really shocking calls that a simple eye check should have told them not to do. If Mercedes strategy has one dominant weakness, it's unwillingness to deviate from what the computer tells them to do.
PICK 10 COMPETITION (6 wins, 18 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017 & 2019
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion

Warheart01

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by Warheart01 »

I wasn't able to see the race this weekend but could follow autosports livefeed. Pleased for Hamilton to win the race, that's 10 years of wins each F1 season.

Bottas was quite impressive on saturday but can only blame himself for the spin, it was a silly and costly mistake.
Iron out the mistakes and I think he will be closer to Hamilton than Rosberg was, I still think Bottas is better. Time will tell.

Also pleased for Vettel to take 2nd. It will be a close year for the WDC it seems, the developmentrace over the season will be crucial.

Would have prefered Ricciardo to be in a better car.

User avatar
Invade
Posts: 3053
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by Invade »

Warheart01 wrote:I wasn't able to see the race this weekend but could follow autosports livefeed. Pleased for Hamilton to win the race, that's 10 years of wins each F1 season.

Bottas was quite impressive on saturday but can only blame himself for the spin, it was a silly and costly mistake.
Iron out the mistakes and I think he will be closer to Hamilton than Rosberg was, I still think Bottas is better. Time will tell.

Also pleased for Vettel to take 2nd. It will be a close year for the WDC it seems, the developmentrace over the season will be crucial.

Would have prefered Ricciardo to be in a better car.

Ricc should focus on beating his own team-mate.

Warheart01

Re: 2017 Chinese Grand Prix Race Thread

Post by Warheart01 »

Yes, yes he should. There were a few laps where Ricciardo was nowhere but Max still had incredible pace.

Post Reply