It is currently Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:43 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 10:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1407
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Yes that’s much better rather than saying I just think. I’ll pass judgement when I see the times but Hamiltons times never dropped suddenly on the mediums and I didn’t notice that on Bottas watching the live timing.

The question I would put to Wolf is, where did Hamilton finish? Yes, 3rd behind Vettel. So they pitted him to defend against Vettel and finished behind him anyway.

I just re-watched that part of the race and Hamilton was 17.5 ahead with 10 laps to. The last 2 laps of the stint he extended the gap to Vettel, where is the drop off?

The fact they said they won’t allow this strategy- why did they tell Bottas during the race (just after his first stop) that Hamilton is one stopping and you need to pass him on track then? Lots of BS from Mercedes there. Doesn’t add up. Hamilton wasn’t going to be allowed to win (based on Wolfs quotes) and the easiest way to manage that was pitting him, whether he needed it or not. It saved using tea, orders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0G4-Vp2TS0

From this video, the team radio heard was "OK Lewis so, pushing hard now." - Hamilton: "What do you think I've been doing this fast (or similar) God Knows how many laps. Tyres are dropping off."

I thought i remembered him saying similar to this. And I wasn't exactly wrong. This is what made me doubt that he would be able to keep Vettel behind right to the end. And given how fast Vettel was on the straights, i don't think A Ferrari getting by will have been that hard. I'm not sure if Mercedes expected Hamilton to be able to re pass Vettel, but it was worth doing what they did if Hamilton thought his tyres were dropping off. As he likely will have been got by Vettel. But then he could have waited for that anyway and still pitted for fastest lap. So i guess it still seems a bit strange.

But I do think my views are valid. Quite a lot of what I though seems to be the case from what Toto and Hamilton has said.


Put it this way...

If Bottas was in a Ferrari today and running 8 seconds behind Hamilton in a Mercedes. Exact same scenario otherwise. Do you really think Mercedes pit Hamilton for a second stop and put him 3rd? No chance I’d say.

Wolf said it himself, Hamilton wasn’t allowed to win this race so they needed him out the way and the easiest way to achieve that was pitting him. That’s the main reason Hamilton was pitted because I don’t think Bottas would have been able to pass him and they didn’t what to issue the team order. Or if Bottas was able to pass it would have been risky at least. Pitting Hamilton solved all there headaches.

It was telling when Hamilton said just before his 2nd stop “tell me what I need to do to win this race” and he was met with silence.

It will be interesting to look over the times post race. The numbers don’t lie. It would also be interesting to know when Lewis switched from 1 to 2 stops.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 10:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 8314
Location: Mumbai, India
BMWSauber84 wrote:
So the Racing Point protest regarding Renault is regarding a "pre-set lap distance-dependent brake bias adjustment system"... Obviously.


It means instead of drivers manually adjusting the brake bias, it was being done by the computer / ECU. The decision of this won't be reached before Wednesday though.

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 10:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 4:09 pm
Posts: 4517
Location: LONDON...!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0G4-Vp2TS0

Go to 50 seconds and watch through to 1m 16sec.

Just look at the size of the debris that could have smashed into Hamilton's head.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 11:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:15 am
Posts: 2337
Clarky wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0G4-Vp2TS0

Go to 50 seconds and watch through to 1m 16sec.

Just look at the size of the debris that could have smashed into Hamilton's head.

With an object that size and the halo there, i think that would have been pretty unlikely that it would have a direct or heavy impact luckily.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:04 pm
Posts: 65
"Wolf said it himself, Hamilton wasn’t allowed to win this race so they needed him out the way and the easiest way to achieve that was pitting him. "

I'd like to understand why Hamilton was designated NOT to win this race (or any race).

The new graphics package showed Hamilton's medium tires were at 70% just before he was called in to box. At that point, he was 8 seconds in the lead over Bottas. He was holding Bottas at bay, and Vettel was not a factor to pass Bottas.

Hamilton could have coasted to the win, yet was called in, which placed him behind Vettel with no chance to get by given the short DRS zone on the front straight.

Did Hamilton do something to anger the team, or was this silliness just a PC bone to throw at Bottas? It stinks. Let them race. This business of the teams orchestrating results is BS.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:58 pm
Posts: 218
.

According to a post on another board ;

"rule (36.13) is that on any driver who "a) Moved before the start signal is given, such judgement being made by an FIA approved and supplied transponder fitted to each car", ....a penalty is applied."

Vettel moved before the start signal was given. Therefore he was due a penalty. But the stewards came up with a novel explanation that "Vettel wasn't moving as the lights went out". That's not what the rule says. The stewards literally invented a new rule to get Ferrari off the hook.

What use are stewards ?

.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 3:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7986
Greenman wrote:
.

According to a post on another board ;

"rule (36.13) is that on any driver who "a) Moved before the start signal is given, such judgement being made by an FIA approved and supplied transponder fitted to each car", ....a penalty is applied."

Vettel moved before the start signal was given. Therefore he was due a penalty. But the stewards came up with a novel explanation that "Vettel wasn't moving as the lights went out". That's not what the rule says. The stewards literally invented a new rule to get Ferrari off the hook.

What use are stewards ?

.

The rule says that judgement will be made by the transponder fitted to the car and the FIA said that the movement was within tolerance of the jump start system.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 3:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:58 pm
Posts: 218
.

The oft stated tolerance of the jump start system is that drivers may not start within so many thousandths of a second AFTER the lights change (to cover minimum human reaction times) - Vettel moved BEFORE the lights were out, so that explanation is rubbish.

.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 3:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7986
Greenman wrote:
.

The oft stated tolerance of the jump start system is that drivers may not start within so many thousandths of a second AFTER the lights change (to cover minimum human reaction times) - Vettel moved BEFORE the lights were out, so that explanation is rubbish.

.

I dont think they're talking about the timing of when the movement happened, that was clearly before the lights went out, but the amount that he moved wasnt enough to trip the system and be declared a false start.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 3:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:58 pm
Posts: 218
.

Oh ! Where did that come from ? Can't see it in the rules.

.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 4:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:15 am
Posts: 2337
DFWdude wrote:
"Wolf said it himself, Hamilton wasn’t allowed to win this race so they needed him out the way and the easiest way to achieve that was pitting him. "

I'd like to understand why Hamilton was designated NOT to win this race (or any race).

The new graphics package showed Hamilton's medium tires were at 70% just before he was called in to box. At that point, he was 8 seconds in the lead over Bottas. He was holding Bottas at bay, and Vettel was not a factor to pass Bottas.

Hamilton could have coasted to the win, yet was called in, which placed him behind Vettel with no chance to get by given the short DRS zone on the front straight.

Did Hamilton do something to anger the team, or was this silliness just a PC bone to throw at Bottas? It stinks. Let them race. This business of the teams orchestrating results is BS.

These graphics are so inaccurate. When Hamilton was apparently at 70% of whatever that means, Hamilton said "the tires are dropping off". It was right as he pulled in that he said this. I really doubt that he will have made it to the end without struggling.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 4:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:15 am
Posts: 2337
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Greenman wrote:
.

The oft stated tolerance of the jump start system is that drivers may not start within so many thousandths of a second AFTER the lights change (to cover minimum human reaction times) - Vettel moved BEFORE the lights were out, so that explanation is rubbish.

.

I dont think they're talking about the timing of when the movement happened, that was clearly before the lights went out, but the amount that he moved wasnt enough to trip the system and be declared a false start.

The position Vettel was in when the lights went out was obviously within the allowed limits. He did move before they went out, but I don't think this is against the rules. He was smart enough to realise that he had done this so quickly that he didn't go that bit too far. In the end, it hardly cost him anything compared to other drivers jump starting and messing up totally in the past. Plus as he was within the limits, he got no penalty.

I often notice drivers like Verstappen often park at very odd angles in his box before the race. They often don't look right and likely will be right on the absolute limit. Most other drivers look like they park inside their box, rather than have the wheels touching the paint. Vettel may have moved forward a bit, but not enough to trigger a penalty.

I think it is understandable why he got away with it this race and Kimi got one last time out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 4:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 8314
Location: Mumbai, India
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Greenman wrote:
.

The oft stated tolerance of the jump start system is that drivers may not start within so many thousandths of a second AFTER the lights change (to cover minimum human reaction times) - Vettel moved BEFORE the lights were out, so that explanation is rubbish.

.

I dont think they're talking about the timing of when the movement happened, that was clearly before the lights went out, but the amount that he moved wasnt enough to trip the system and be declared a false start.


Just a few races back, Raikkonen did the same thing but was penalized!

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 4:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 17014
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
DFWdude wrote:
"Wolf said it himself, Hamilton wasn’t allowed to win this race so they needed him out the way and the easiest way to achieve that was pitting him. "

I'd like to understand why Hamilton was designated NOT to win this race (or any race).

The new graphics package showed Hamilton's medium tires were at 70% just before he was called in to box. At that point, he was 8 seconds in the lead over Bottas. He was holding Bottas at bay, and Vettel was not a factor to pass Bottas.

Hamilton could have coasted to the win, yet was called in, which placed him behind Vettel with no chance to get by given the short DRS zone on the front straight.

Did Hamilton do something to anger the team, or was this silliness just a PC bone to throw at Bottas? It stinks. Let them race. This business of the teams orchestrating results is BS.

These graphics are so inaccurate. When Hamilton was apparently at 70% of whatever that means, Hamilton said "the tires are dropping off". It was right as he pulled in that he said this. I really doubt that he will have made it to the end without struggling.


Trouble is without context we don't know what dropping off means... To me it means they have past their peak and are just starting to lose performance. 70% would be about right for that.

Looking at how the fields race panned out it seems pretty clear Hamilton would have comfortably beaten Vettel had he not pitted. I wouldn't even say Bottas catching was a sure thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7986
Greenman wrote:
.

Oh ! Where did that come from ? Can't see it in the rules.

.

Rules state:
Quote:
Moved before the start signal is given, such judgement being made by an FIA approved and supplied transponder fitted to each car", ....a penalty is applied."


FIA statement on why Vettel wasnt penalised:
Quote:
“While the video shows some movement [from Vettel’s car] that movement was within the acceptable tolerance of the F1 jump start system.”

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/vett ... s/4557197/

So while we all saw that he moved before the lights went out, there is clearly a tolerance built in to the sensor and his movement did not exceed it.


Last edited by Black_Flag_11 on Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7986
UnlikeUday wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Greenman wrote:
.

The oft stated tolerance of the jump start system is that drivers may not start within so many thousandths of a second AFTER the lights change (to cover minimum human reaction times) - Vettel moved BEFORE the lights were out, so that explanation is rubbish.

.

I dont think they're talking about the timing of when the movement happened, that was clearly before the lights went out, but the amount that he moved wasnt enough to trip the system and be declared a false start.


Just a few races back, Raikkonen did the same thing but was penalized!

Presumably he moved more than the tolerable amount and so the sensor registered a false start. Would be interesting to compare the videos though to see if he does clearly move more than Vettel.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:15 am
Posts: 2337
UnlikeUday wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Greenman wrote:
.

The oft stated tolerance of the jump start system is that drivers may not start within so many thousandths of a second AFTER the lights change (to cover minimum human reaction times) - Vettel moved BEFORE the lights were out, so that explanation is rubbish.

.

I dont think they're talking about the timing of when the movement happened, that was clearly before the lights went out, but the amount that he moved wasnt enough to trip the system and be declared a false start.


Just a few races back, Raikkonen did the same thing but was penalized!


Kimi did a jump start last time out and it was totally different...

Vettel moved a tiny tiny fraction and was still within hit starting box and didn't trigger the sensors. He moved before the lights went out, but stopped in time to avoid going beyond the limit. Kimi started well before they went out and moved significantly further forward.

These are 2 very different situations. Kimi was rightly penalised for this and it is understandable why Vettel wasn't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2356
Greenman wrote:
.

Oh ! Where did that come from ? Can't see it in the rules.

.


It's the special "we don't want to penalize Vettel" explanation. :lol: See Monza qualifying ...

The motto of FIA stewarding: hang the small teams (Sauber, Haas, etc), but let the big teams do what they want ...
;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:58 pm
Posts: 218
Black_Flag_11 wrote:

So while we all saw that he moved before the lights went out, there is clearly a tolerance built in to the sensor and his movement did not exceed it.



EXCEPT that there is NOTHING in the rules about any such "tolerance" - it is only in the imagination of the stewards !

Unless, of course, if you can find some indication of such a thing in the rules.

Making up rules seems very odd.

.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6977
I just watched this race again for a second time with a keen focus on that last part of the race where they decided to pit Hamilton a second time and I am fairly certain that Mercedes cost Hamilton a win. It's kind of shocking to be honest. There were only 10 laps to go when they called him back into the pits and there was no sign of any drop off in performance from his tires. Bottas still had a big gap to make up and the gap to Seb was massive and still getting bigger every lap. At the very least, they cost Hamilton 2nd place but, honestly, I've never seen anything from Bottas to suggest that he was up to running Lewis down on track and overtaking him at a circuit where passing is quite difficult. For my money; this was a race where Mercedes handed the win to Valteri. I'm assuming this is some form of internal politics manifesting itself. Perhaps some notion that Valteri was owed one...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7986
Greenman wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:

So while we all saw that he moved before the lights went out, there is clearly a tolerance built in to the sensor and his movement did not exceed it.



EXCEPT that there is NOTHING in the rules about any such "tolerance" - it is only in the imagination of the stewards !

Unless, of course, if you can find some indication of such a thing in the rules.

Making up rules seems very odd.

.

No the rules say it will be judged by the sensor, we know from the stewards comments that the sensor has a built in tolerance.

Vettel did not exceed the tolerance and therefore per the sensor no false start was recorded.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2356
sandman1347 wrote:
I just watched this race again for a second time with a keen focus on that last part of the race where they decided to pit Hamilton a second time and I am fairly certain that Mercedes cost Hamilton a win. It's kind of shocking to be honest. There were only 10 laps to go when they called him back into the pits and there was no sign of any drop off in performance from his tires. Bottas still had a big gap to make up and the gap to Seb was massive and still getting bigger every lap. At the very least, they cost Hamilton 2nd place but, honestly, I've never seen anything from Bottas to suggest that he was up to running Lewis down on track and overtaking him at a circuit where passing is quite difficult. For my money; this was a race where Mercedes handed the win to Valteri. I'm assuming this is some form of internal politics manifesting itself. Perhaps some notion that Valteri was owed one...


While I agree with most you wrote, I think we have to consider that Bottas was not pushing and closing in on Hamilton because Mercedes told him Hamilton would pit a second time (so there was no need to push).

But Mercedes gifted P2 to Vettel, yes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:56 pm
Posts: 900
Greenman wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:

So while we all saw that he moved before the lights went out, there is clearly a tolerance built in to the sensor and his movement did not exceed it.



EXCEPT that there is NOTHING in the rules about any such "tolerance" - it is only in the imagination of the stewards !

Unless, of course, if you can find some indication of such a thing in the rules.

Making up rules seems very odd.

.


From the FIA rules:

36.13 Either of the penalties under Articles 38.3c) or d) will be imposed on any driver who is judged
to have :
a) Moved before the start signal is given, such judgement being made by an FIA approved
and supplied transponder fitted to each car
, or ;


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6977
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
I just watched this race again for a second time with a keen focus on that last part of the race where they decided to pit Hamilton a second time and I am fairly certain that Mercedes cost Hamilton a win. It's kind of shocking to be honest. There were only 10 laps to go when they called him back into the pits and there was no sign of any drop off in performance from his tires. Bottas still had a big gap to make up and the gap to Seb was massive and still getting bigger every lap. At the very least, they cost Hamilton 2nd place but, honestly, I've never seen anything from Bottas to suggest that he was up to running Lewis down on track and overtaking him at a circuit where passing is quite difficult. For my money; this was a race where Mercedes handed the win to Valteri. I'm assuming this is some form of internal politics manifesting itself. Perhaps some notion that Valteri was owed one...


While I agree with most you wrote, I think we have to consider that Bottas was not pushing and closing in on Hamilton because Mercedes told him Hamilton would pit a second time (so there was no need to push).

But Mercedes gifted P2 to Vettel, yes.

When has Bottas ever overtaken Hamilton on track? We've seen Lewis pass Valteri several times but when has Valteri ever done the same to Lewis? I can think of a couple of times when Lewis passed Valteri and Valteri came right back at him immediately (like Silverstone this year) but I cannot think of a single example of Valteri simply catching and passing Lewis on track. With 10 laps to go, Lewis was 7.5 seconds in front of Valteri. He had a bunch of lapped cars to get through in that moment but then Valteri would eventually have to go through that traffic himself. I honestly think it's very unlikely that Valteri would have won the race had Lewis stayed out. Closing down that gap and getting through all that traffic would have taken a lot of life out of Valteri's soft tires. Ultimately, I think the one-stop strategy was just the better strategy. The Medium tire was just the better tire for the race. I think that, if Valteri did manage to catch Lewis, it would have been with just a lap or two left to go and without the necessary tire advantage to make an overtake.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:56 pm
Posts: 900
sandman1347 wrote:
With 10 laps to go, Lewis was 7.5 seconds in front of Valteri. He had a bunch of lapped cars to get through in that moment but then Valteri would eventually have to go through that traffic himself. I honestly think it's very unlikely that Valteri would have won the race had Lewis stayed out. Closing down that gap and getting through all that traffic would have taken a lot of life out of Valteri's soft tires. Ultimately, I think the one-stop strategy was just the better strategy. The Medium tire was just the better tire for the race. I think that, if Valteri did manage to catch Lewis, it would have been with just a lap or two left to go and without the necessary tire advantage to make an overtake.


It's quite clear that Hamilton would have won the race if it not for team orders. I think it had a lot to do with the fact that Vatltteri said after Singapore, where he was told to slow down, that Mercedes would do the same thing if situations were reversed. They did that here and nothing was lost. Both championships are still in the bag.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:15 am
Posts: 2337
sandman1347 wrote:
I just watched this race again for a second time with a keen focus on that last part of the race where they decided to pit Hamilton a second time and I am fairly certain that Mercedes cost Hamilton a win. It's kind of shocking to be honest. There were only 10 laps to go when they called him back into the pits and there was no sign of any drop off in performance from his tires. Bottas still had a big gap to make up and the gap to Seb was massive and still getting bigger every lap. At the very least, they cost Hamilton 2nd place but, honestly, I've never seen anything from Bottas to suggest that he was up to running Lewis down on track and overtaking him at a circuit where passing is quite difficult. For my money; this was a race where Mercedes handed the win to Valteri. I'm assuming this is some form of internal politics manifesting itself. Perhaps some notion that Valteri was owed one...


But Bottas said after the race that once he knew Hamilton was pitting again, he was only pushing hard when he needed to. Otherwise he implied he was just controlling his pace which was all he needed to do. Given his tyre advantage over Hamilton doing a 1 stop, if he had tried harder, he surely would have caught up as he would have needed to. But yes, getting past we don't know. But still, if Hamilton beat him down to strategy that isn't exactly Hamilton winning down to his own performance.

I don't see how they could have exactly handed the win to Bottas anyway. What they did is allowed him to win the race he would have won if the strategies were the same. If Hamilton had the one stop strategy, the victory would have been given to him effectively.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 7:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:14 am
Posts: 1757
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
I just watched this race again for a second time with a keen focus on that last part of the race where they decided to pit Hamilton a second time and I am fairly certain that Mercedes cost Hamilton a win. It's kind of shocking to be honest. There were only 10 laps to go when they called him back into the pits and there was no sign of any drop off in performance from his tires. Bottas still had a big gap to make up and the gap to Seb was massive and still getting bigger every lap. At the very least, they cost Hamilton 2nd place but, honestly, I've never seen anything from Bottas to suggest that he was up to running Lewis down on track and overtaking him at a circuit where passing is quite difficult. For my money; this was a race where Mercedes handed the win to Valteri. I'm assuming this is some form of internal politics manifesting itself. Perhaps some notion that Valteri was owed one...


But Bottas said after the race that once he knew Hamilton was pitting again, he was only pushing hard when he needed to. Otherwise he implied he was just controlling his pace which was all he needed to do. Given his tyre advantage over Hamilton doing a 1 stop, if he had tried harder, he surely would have caught up as he would have needed to. But yes, getting past we don't know. But still, if Hamilton beat him down to strategy that isn't exactly Hamilton winning down to his own performance.

I don't see how they could have exactly handed the win to Bottas anyway. What they did is allowed him to win the race he would have won if the strategies were the same. If Hamilton had the one stop strategy, the victory would have been given to him effectively.


Regardless of your strategy, you have to make it work. That goes for Hamilton, Bottas and anyone else. Not everyone would have been able to make a one stop work today.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 7:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6977
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
I just watched this race again for a second time with a keen focus on that last part of the race where they decided to pit Hamilton a second time and I am fairly certain that Mercedes cost Hamilton a win. It's kind of shocking to be honest. There were only 10 laps to go when they called him back into the pits and there was no sign of any drop off in performance from his tires. Bottas still had a big gap to make up and the gap to Seb was massive and still getting bigger every lap. At the very least, they cost Hamilton 2nd place but, honestly, I've never seen anything from Bottas to suggest that he was up to running Lewis down on track and overtaking him at a circuit where passing is quite difficult. For my money; this was a race where Mercedes handed the win to Valteri. I'm assuming this is some form of internal politics manifesting itself. Perhaps some notion that Valteri was owed one...


But Bottas said after the race that once he knew Hamilton was pitting again, he was only pushing hard when he needed to. Otherwise he implied he was just controlling his pace which was all he needed to do. Given his tyre advantage over Hamilton doing a 1 stop, if he had tried harder, he surely would have caught up as he would have needed to. But yes, getting past we don't know. But still, if Hamilton beat him down to strategy that isn't exactly Hamilton winning down to his own performance.

I don't see how they could have exactly handed the win to Bottas anyway. What they did is allowed him to win the race he would have won if the strategies were the same. If Hamilton had the one stop strategy, the victory would have been given to him effectively.

I mostly agree with you. I think Valteri did the better job this weekend and a Hamilton win would have been fortunate and purely down to having the better strategy. That said; that's what was about to happen but Mercedes intervened.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:58 pm
Posts: 218
Black_Flag_11 wrote:

No the rules say it will be judged by the sensor, we know from the stewards comments that the sensor has a built in tolerance.

Vettel did not exceed the tolerance and therefore per the sensor no false start was recorded.



.

No, "we" don't know that, we only know of a claim from the stewards, and the reality of the TV pictures.

.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7986
Greenman wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:

No the rules say it will be judged by the sensor, we know from the stewards comments that the sensor has a built in tolerance.

Vettel did not exceed the tolerance and therefore per the sensor no false start was recorded.



.

No, "we" don't know that, we only know of a claim from the stewards, and the reality of the TV pictures.

.

Huh? Are you being deliberately obtuse here because I dont see how I could explain it any better.

The rules clearly say the sensor in the car determines whether a false start has occurred and the FIA have explained that the sensor did not register a false start for Vettel because there is a tolerance built in which he was within.

It's really that simple.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2356
sandman1347 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
I just watched this race again for a second time with a keen focus on that last part of the race where they decided to pit Hamilton a second time and I am fairly certain that Mercedes cost Hamilton a win. It's kind of shocking to be honest. There were only 10 laps to go when they called him back into the pits and there was no sign of any drop off in performance from his tires. Bottas still had a big gap to make up and the gap to Seb was massive and still getting bigger every lap. At the very least, they cost Hamilton 2nd place but, honestly, I've never seen anything from Bottas to suggest that he was up to running Lewis down on track and overtaking him at a circuit where passing is quite difficult. For my money; this was a race where Mercedes handed the win to Valteri. I'm assuming this is some form of internal politics manifesting itself. Perhaps some notion that Valteri was owed one...


While I agree with most you wrote, I think we have to consider that Bottas was not pushing and closing in on Hamilton because Mercedes told him Hamilton would pit a second time (so there was no need to push).

But Mercedes gifted P2 to Vettel, yes.

When has Bottas ever overtaken Hamilton on track? We've seen Lewis pass Valteri several times but when has Valteri ever done the same to Lewis? I can think of a couple of times when Lewis passed Valteri and Valteri came right back at him immediately (like Silverstone this year) but I cannot think of a single example of Valteri simply catching and passing Lewis on track. With 10 laps to go, Lewis was 7.5 seconds in front of Valteri. He had a bunch of lapped cars to get through in that moment but then Valteri would eventually have to go through that traffic himself. I honestly think it's very unlikely that Valteri would have won the race had Lewis stayed out. Closing down that gap and getting through all that traffic would have taken a lot of life out of Valteri's soft tires. Ultimately, I think the one-stop strategy was just the better strategy. The Medium tire was just the better tire for the race. I think that, if Valteri did manage to catch Lewis, it would have been with just a lap or two left to go and without the necessary tire advantage to make an overtake.


The 7.5 seconds is obviously due to Bottas not pushing on new tyres, being told Hamilton would stop again. Otherwise, he might have been on his heels by that time already.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 10:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 1399
Location: Kansas
A number of folks here have suggested that a one stop for Lewis Hamilton would have gotten him the win. I personally don't see that. To me that would have ended with Lewis SEVERELY holding up Valtteri by driving a very wide car and pushing Valtteri back into within striking distance of Sebastian Vettel with the Ferrari's superior straight line speed. It could have easily ended up 1.Hamilton 2.Vettel 3. Bottas as Sebastian passed an impeded Valtteri with DRS.

If Lewis let Valtteri by He might have held off Sebastian and may have produced a Merc 1-2 but Seb also could have got him. Certainly there was no real downside to letting Lewis try a one stop after his pitstop.

I would have liked to see what Lewis could have done with a one stopper but I don't think it would have been a better race than the one we saw.

_________________
Mission WinLater


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 11:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 827
Johnson wrote:

Put it this way...

If Bottas was in a Ferrari today and running 8 seconds behind Hamilton in a Mercedes. Exact same scenario otherwise. Do you really think Mercedes pit Hamilton for a second stop and put him 3rd? No chance I’d say.

Wolf said it himself, Hamilton wasn’t allowed to win this race so they needed him out the way and the easiest way to achieve that was pitting him. That’s the main reason Hamilton was pitted because I don’t think Bottas would have been able to pass him and they didn’t what to issue the team order. Or if Bottas was able to pass it would have been risky at least. Pitting Hamilton solved all there headaches.

It was telling when Hamilton said just before his 2nd stop “tell me what I need to do to win this race” and he was met with silence.

It will be interesting to look over the times post race. The numbers don’t lie. It would also be interesting to know when Lewis switched from 1 to 2 stops.


The other rubbish thing about Hamilton not being allowed to win today and Bottas being allowed to, shows that Mercedes are not really letting these two race it out for the WDC, it is all contrived. Yes Hamilton would win the WDC anyway but it shows Mercedes' true mindset with regards to Bottas and Hamilton where they don't see those two as truly competing equally for the WDC with equal chances and no meddling from the team, unlike in the Nico and Lewis days where they did try to be fair.


Last edited by F1 Racer on Sun Oct 13, 2019 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 11:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 827
sandman1347 wrote:
I just watched this race again for a second time with a keen focus on that last part of the race where they decided to pit Hamilton a second time and I am fairly certain that Mercedes cost Hamilton a win. It's kind of shocking to be honest. There were only 10 laps to go when they called him back into the pits and there was no sign of any drop off in performance from his tires. Bottas still had a big gap to make up and the gap to Seb was massive and still getting bigger every lap. At the very least, they cost Hamilton 2nd place but, honestly, I've never seen anything from Bottas to suggest that he was up to running Lewis down on track and overtaking him at a circuit where passing is quite difficult. For my money; this was a race where Mercedes handed the win to Valteri. I'm assuming this is some form of internal politics manifesting itself. Perhaps some notion that Valteri was owed one...


Yeah, but you could also say that they cost VB a win by pitting him a second time when he may have not needed to as his tyres were only a few laps older than Hamilton's and as long as they didn't go off the cliff like Max's tyres in Hungary, then he wins still.

Therefore with this rationale, pitting LH for a second time, (or more sensibly getting him to move over instead of pitting so that he still beats Vettel), was fair as they got Bottas to pit a second time that was potentially unecessary.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 7778
Location: Michigan, USA
Lost in all these other controversies...

How is it possible that Albon can absolutely plow into the side of Norris with a move that wasn't even close to being on and not receive so much as the vaunted warning flag? Why does Leclerc get a penalty for contact with Verstappen and Albon doesn't get one for taking Norris out?

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 4:09 pm
Posts: 4517
Location: LONDON...!
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Greenman wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:

So while we all saw that he moved before the lights went out, there is clearly a tolerance built in to the sensor and his movement did not exceed it.



EXCEPT that there is NOTHING in the rules about any such "tolerance" - it is only in the imagination of the stewards !

Unless, of course, if you can find some indication of such a thing in the rules.

Making up rules seems very odd.

.

No the rules say it will be judged by the sensor, we know from the stewards comments that the sensor has a built in tolerance.

Vettel did not exceed the tolerance and therefore per the sensor no false start was recorded.

To many grey areas within the written rules. This particular rule can be written as simple as they come.

Any driver judged to have moved before the lights go out will receive a penalty.

That simple.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 2276
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Exediron wrote:
Lost in all these other controversies...

How is it possible that Albon can absolutely plow into the side of Norris with a move that wasn't even close to being on and not receive so much as the vaunted warning flag? Why does Leclerc get a penalty for contact with Verstappen and Albon doesn't get one for taking Norris out?


Image
This/isthe/Japenese/flag/&i'm/jokingly/accusing/theFIA/ofpandering/tonationalistic/pressure

;)

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner (After Abu Dhabi - 19) - 138 & counting.( Last win, Lotus, 17/3/13)

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 360 trophies available, 26 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 17014
Exediron wrote:
Lost in all these other controversies...

How is it possible that Albon can absolutely plow into the side of Norris with a move that wasn't even close to being on and not receive so much as the vaunted warning flag? Why does Leclerc get a penalty for contact with Verstappen and Albon doesn't get one for taking Norris out?


He didn't plough into the side of Norris. They banged front wheels. I don't think it was that bad. He beat Norris to the apex and made the corner so it was definitely on. It just looked bad because it was late.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 10057
Exediron wrote:
Lost in all these other controversies...

How is it possible that Albon can absolutely plow into the side of Norris with a move that wasn't even close to being on and not receive so much as the vaunted warning flag? Why does Leclerc get a penalty for contact with Verstappen and Albon doesn't get one for taking Norris out?

Good question. Sadly the outcomes of the incidents usually have a big impact on the penalties, instead of solely the transgression itself. Had Norris spun or worse we'd probably have seen a penalty IMO.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:00 pm
Posts: 67
Exediron wrote:
Lost in all these other controversies...

How is it possible that Albon can absolutely plow into the side of Norris with a move that wasn't even close to being on and not receive so much as the vaunted warning flag? Why does Leclerc get a penalty for contact with Verstappen and Albon doesn't get one for taking Norris out?


I thought about that and concluded that if Leclerc got 5 seconds and two points, Albon couldn’t have been given a time penalty as Leclerc’s collision with Max seemed worse. He should definitely have got a flag though.

From a Red Bull perspective, it kind of evens out. Leclerc’s penalty for causing a collision with Max in some ways seems too lenient, but Alex escaped any.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests


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

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