Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Formula 1 2015: Round 7 - Canadian GP

124»

Comments

  • #152
    Ghost Train
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,385 ✭✭✭✭Ghost Train


    Great interview on the red button with mclarens Jonathan Neal.


  • #153
    flazio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,250 ✭✭✭✭flazio


    Very interesting interview with the McLaren ceo on the BBC forum.


  • #154
    _rebelkid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭_rebelkid


    Ghost Train wrote: »
    Great interview on the red button with mclarens Jonathan Neal.

    People always seem to forget that it's a racing team they're talking to. Button was told to save fuel on lap 20. No one could say that's even a little bit ok.


  • #155
    CFlat
    Registered Users Posts: 2,806 ✭✭✭CFlat


    I would imagine Alonso's defection from Ferrari to McLaren is way more upsetting to him then Jenson staying at McLaren. Jenson's options were very limited, with a 'decent' team anyway. Alonso could have 1) stayed at Ferrari, 2) gotten a seat at RB or 3) sat out for a year and taken Rosbergs seat at Merc.

    I wouldn't be surprised to see him call in sick for the next race. I'm joking obviously but one of the best drivers on the grid deserves a better car then that. Disgraceful stuff by McLaren/Honda.


  • #156
    Slutmonkey57b
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,574 ✭✭✭Slutmonkey57b


    CFlat wrote: »
    I would imagine Alonso's defection from Ferrari to McLaren is way more upsetting to him then Jenson staying at McLaren. Jenson's options were very limited, with a 'decent' team anyway. Alonso could have 1) stayed at Ferrari, 2) gotten a seat at RB or 3) sat out for a year and taken Rosbergs seat at Merc.

    I wouldn't be surprised to see him call in sick for the next race. I'm joking obviously but one of the best drivers on the grid deserves a better car then that. Disgraceful stuff by McLaren/Honda.

    Alonso's done that basically every year since 2006 though.

    He destroyed his own year in 2007 when he could/should have won.
    His second stint in Renault was so disastrous their "highlight" was Crashgate.
    His first year in Ferrari was a "look at us throw this championship away", and every subsequent year was "sorry about the car, Fernando".

    He's got an incredible knack for being in the wrong team at the wrong time.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    **** sandwich.


  • #158
    _rebelkid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭_rebelkid


    LIGHTNING wrote: »
    Rosberg is starting to annoy me, what it he at. Just pottling around with the best car on the grid.

    The problem with Rosberg isn't the car, nor is it him.

    He can have full MGU power for 2 laps. There's a switch setting on the steering wheel that puts the car into that map. So he'll do that, and attack Hamilton. The moment he does that, Mercedes are on the radio to Hamilton telling him what Rosberg is doing, and because the cars are the same, Hamilton flicks the same switch to the same setting, for the same 2 laps. And it's the exact same situation when Rosberg is in front. So the car behind has no option other than to hold station until something goes wrong.


  • #159
    AMKC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,297 ✭✭✭✭AMKC
    Ms


    _rebelkid
    Registered User


    Join Date: Mar 2010
    Location: Cork
    Posts: 1,786
    Adverts | Friends
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cookie_Monster
    just saw the bbc intro for the first time in years. Gotta love the Chain and the montage is so much better than Sky
    Sky may have every race live, but the BBC has some of the best editors in the world. Every VT is an art piece.

    +1 The Sky F1 coverage is just so boring there is no feeling or soul to it.

    As for the race it certainly was not the best or most exciting race we have ever seen in Montreal but there was a few good moves and passes just not anything major. I too am bored of all this fuel saving crap. Let them get back to racing to pushing the cars to there limits and not having to worry about saving fuel for feck sake.

    Live long and Prosper

    Peace and long life.



  • #160
    Zcott
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,206 ✭✭✭Zcott


    The only way to stop the fuel saving kind of driving is to have pretty much unlimited fuel...or do a U-turn on the U-turn on the U-turn of refuelling we've had in the last few weeks.


  • #161
    guyfo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 485 ✭✭guyfo


    Zcott wrote: »
    The only way to stop the fuel saving kind of driving is to have pretty much unlimited fuel...or do a U-turn on the U-turn on the U-turn of refuelling we've had in the last few weeks.

    Or make a rule that all cars must start with 100kg of fuel on board?


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    _rebelkid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭_rebelkid


    guyfo wrote: »
    Or make a rule that all cars must start with 100kg of fuel on board?

    Mercedes were well into 97KG used today. They're the most efficient on fuel, and even they were tight. Limit needs to be 120-130kg to give enough of a performance margin to everyone else. But saying that, you then run into tyre performance limits. It would half solve the fuel saving, but add more problems to the already severe tyre management.


  • #163
    CFlat
    Registered Users Posts: 2,806 ✭✭✭CFlat


    Deleted User wrote: »
    **** sandwich.

    A sh1t sandwich is a way of delivering bad news.

    Firstly with a bit of good news, followed by bad news, then good news. Hence, sandwich.


  • #164
    AMKC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,297 ✭✭✭✭AMKC
    Ms


    _rebelkid wrote: »
    Mercedes were well into 97KG used today. They're the most efficient on fuel, and even they were tight. Limit needs to be 120-130kg to give enough of a performance margin to everyone else. But saying that, you then run into tyre performance limits. It would half solve the fuel saving, but add more problems to the already severe tyre management.

    Thats a great idea you should text it into the BBC or Sky at the next race. Am sure Pirelli could upgrade the tire performance a bit to make them last a little longer or the same as now but with the new fuel limit and extra weight of the cars taking into account. The cars might have to get a little bigger do as the fuel tanks would have to be a bit bigger hopefully it would not add too much more weight to the cars do.
    Maybe that relatively simple idea might solve the current problems and there would be no need for the drastic changes they are talking about for 2017. Just make the cars a bit noisier as well and it would be much better.

    Live long and Prosper

    Peace and long life.



  • #165
    Zcott
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,206 ✭✭✭Zcott


    Even if you raise the fuel limit, engine manufacturers will build engines to use the full amount of fuel. That's the thing with a fuel limit.


  • #166
    Donnelly117
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,509 ✭✭✭Donnelly117


    _rebelkid wrote: »
    The problem with Rosberg isn't the car, nor is it him.

    He can have full MGU power for 2 laps. There's a switch setting on the steering wheel that puts the car into that map. So he'll do that, and attack Hamilton. The moment he does that, Mercedes are on the radio to Hamilton telling him what Rosberg is doing, and because the cars are the same, Hamilton flicks the same switch to the same setting, for the same 2 laps. And it's the exact same situation when Rosberg is in front. So the car behind has no option other than to hold station until something goes wrong.

    Ever think Hamilton is just faster?


  • #167
    _rebelkid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭_rebelkid


    AMKC wrote: »
    Thats a great idea you should text it into the BBC or Sky at the next race. Am sure Pirelli could upgrade the tire performance a bit to make them last a little longer or the same as now but with the new fuel limit and extra weight of the cars taking into account. The cars might have to get a little bigger do as the fuel tanks would have to be a bit bigger hopefully it would not add too much more weight to the cars do.
    Maybe that relatively simple idea might solve the current problems and there would be no need for the drastic changes they are talking about for 2017. Just make the cars a bit noisier as well and it would be much better.

    I'm not sure it would work, but it seemed a simple enough fix.

    Like, at most, the V8 engines were using 160kg in the most demanding races. They seemed to run fine between 120 and 140, and even ventured into the 100kg realm. So with the notion of "cost saving" long gone from the current formula, taking away the stifling pressure of only 100kg of fuel should go some way improving the racing.

    The flow rate limit would remain unchanged, although with the plans for 2017, that'll have to go. That is what's keeping the engines in a sub 11k power band. Put in more fuel, mandate more air, and you've got the 1000hp the FIA want.

    I think the current tyre specification would probably be ok. Look at Massa, he made the Supersoft last half the race. Pirelli have moved from the high grip, high wear tyres they had in 2011-2013, to high grip, medium-low wear tyres this year. It's what they're supposed to do, but it's adversely affecting the sport, and is exacerbated by the PU formula.


  • #168
    _rebelkid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭_rebelkid


    Donnelly117 wrote: »
    Ever think Hamilton is just faster?

    He's faster on the Saturday, and with how Mercedes operates, that's where it counts.


  • #169
    _rebelkid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭_rebelkid


    Zcott wrote: »
    Even if you raise the fuel limit, engine manufacturers will build engines to use the full amount of fuel. That's the thing with a fuel limit.

    That's one of the problems with 2017. If we up the fuel limit, but keep the flow limit, it may sort out the fuel saving problems, but it's not going to give the 1000hp the FIA want.


  • #170
    Infoanon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,705 ✭✭✭Infoanon


    guyfo wrote: »
    Or make a rule that all cars must start with 100kg of fuel on board?

    Exactly - most teams start the race with less than the 100kg,it would not be a huge surprise to find cars were fuelled <100kg on the basis of the high probability of a safety car in Canada


  • #171
    antodeco
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,585 ✭✭✭✭antodeco


    Or have a double fuel tank. The second tank has a set volume which they can use for "challenge mode". Basically, they increase the amount of fuel available for short bursts when they are challenging for a position. Maybe give the equivalent of 5 laps. They can activate it like DRS, except anywhere on the track.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Myrddin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    "Lift and coast"
    "Fuel critical"
    "We need some fuel saving"

    What a godawful showing by F1 yesterday, again. This season is a shocker. If it wasn't for Vettel & Massa, it would have had all the appeal of watching paint drying. I believe Hamilton was showing his management skills the whole race, almost toying Rosberg keeping the gap to just outside the DRS window. Rosberg has been very, very poor this season & shows none of the hunger that made last year interesting. Put Button, Alonso, Vettel, Bottas, or quite a few other names in that second Merc & we'd have a totally different season on our hands. Rosberg is a clear no.2 now in my eyes, & is exactly the way it was with Webber in 2011 after being pipped for the title in 2010 by Vettel...Webber never came back after that, & Rosberg looks to be following suit. Yeah he was closer today, but again, take away the brake/fuel management & it would have been another +/-20 second gap, like we seen in Monaco a few weeks ago.

    Kimi - Kimi is a spent force. It's over for him now, & I'd imagine this will be his last season in F1. What the hell was he at in the race? Threw away a podium, his team mate who started near the back got to with 7/8 seconds of him, despite a slow stop...not looking good for the 2007 champion.

    I don't imagine Alonso's comments will have gone down well at all at all with McLaren, especially Ron. This gamble on Honda, just hasn't paid off. We're not a million miles away form being half way through the season, & where are McLaren? Double DNF's, mired in retirements/tech problems through practice sessions, the car is guzzling fuel, fuel saving & not even half way through races, dog slow...& showing no real signs of any meaningful progress. Yes they've points, but even Maurussia can manage that in Monaco so it's hardly representative. I thought there was a glimmer of hope for them when I see Alonso doing well in Quali, but race day was the true reflection. They'd have been better off staying as a Merc customer team...this Honda thing has done more damage than good.

    Vettel & Massa were the highlight of the day. Reverse grids ftw!


  • #173
    zombieHanalei
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭zombieHanalei


    _rebelkid wrote: »
    He's faster on the Saturday, and with how Mercedes operates, that's where it counts.
    How about last season so when Rosberg had the edge in qualifying? And in two and a half seasons as teammates, Hamilton has proven on average to be faster on the Sunday, and that's where it really counts.


  • #174
    Myrddin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    ^^ Nico's mojo is gone, he was by far the better qualifier last year of the two, but his pole to win conversion rate was very poor. It looks like he's psychologically beaten already this season


  • #175
    Infoanon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,705 ✭✭✭Infoanon


    Myrddin wrote: »

    Kimi - Kimi is a spent force. It's over for him now, & I'd imagine this will be his last season in F1. What the hell was he at in the race? Threw away a podium,

    The spin was not Kimis fault but rather an engine mapping system issue.


  • #176
    Myrddin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    Infoanon wrote: »
    The spin was not Kimis fault but rather an engine mapping system issue.

    Did that affect him for the whole race? Vettel made some serious ground on Kimi over the course of the race...


  • #177
    Infoanon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,705 ✭✭✭Infoanon


    Myrddin wrote: »
    Did that affect him for the whole race? Vettel made some serious ground on Kimi over the course of the race...

    That says more about Ferraris pace compared to the rest of the field, same goes for Massa's progress through the field - Kimi was racing for 3rd in full knowledge that the Ferrari could not compete with the Mercedes, without the spin he would have been 3rd.


  • #178
    Myrddin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    Infoanon wrote: »
    That says more about Ferraris pace compared to the rest of the field, same goes for Massa's progress through the field - Kimi was racing for 3rd in full knowledge that the Ferrari could not compete with the Mercedes, without the spin he would have been 3rd.

    But should Kimi not have been able to keep a representative gap to the sister car? If a car at the back catches up to a car near the front, the one at the back has gone faster no?


  • #179
    Jordan 199
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,033 ✭✭✭✭Jordan 199


    Following the crap race that we saw yesterday, I don't think I'll bother watching the Austrian GP. And that's not an easy thing for me to say.


  • #180
    Infoanon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,705 ✭✭✭Infoanon


    Myrddin wrote: »
    But should Kimi not have been able to keep a representative gap to the sister car? If a car at the back catches up to a car near the front, the one at the back has gone faster no?

    That's assuming that the race is a sprint which it is certainly not and hasn't been for a few seasons


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    _rebelkid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭_rebelkid


    Infoanon wrote: »
    The spin was not Kimis fault but rather an engine mapping system issue.

    He was fairly apologetic post race about it to the team. Looks like he didn't change map, so he had too much MGU-K power selected.


  • #182
    jasonb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,336 ✭✭✭jasonb


    Was any explanation given for the lack of Nico's 'attack'? We had a couple of radio messages mentioning that Nico would be in a position to attack later in the race, but then nothing happened? Were those messages being transmitted just to get our hopes up? :)

    Definitely a boring race, it seems like the Mercs are almost taking it easy at the front, protecting their tyres/brakes/fuel 'cos they know they have enough over all the other cars that they can do this.

    It's got to the stage now that whenever anyone seems to be losing time to someone behind them, it's because they've deliberately slowed a little to protect some aspect of the car, and then they can speed up again when needed. I remember watching F1 back in the 90s; when someone start to catch someone ahead of them, you got a real thrill, knowing that something was wrong with the lead car (a fault, or tyres dropping off or something) and that there could be a real chance of a battle. Now when I hear that someone is being caught, I know it's probably not going to happen, and they'll speed up again if needed.

    Vettel going up the places so well should have been excellent, but it's really more about how much better the Ferrari is, rather than how much better Vettel is (and that's no offence to Vettel).

    It's just all so predictable really, you need a major event like the crash/pit lane mess up in Monaco to alter a race...

    J.


  • #183
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,522 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    jasonb wrote: »
    Was any explanation given for the lack of Nico's 'attack'? We had a couple of radio messages mentioning that Nico would be in a position to attack later in the race, but then nothing happened? Were those messages being transmitted just to get our hopes up? :)
    .

    I reckon it was to try and keep him happy but merc just kept them coming, either brakes are too hot or save more fuel, right to the end of the race.
    Team orders without being obvious about it I reckon.


  • #184
    _rebelkid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭_rebelkid


    jasonb wrote: »
    Was any explanation given for the lack of Nico's 'attack'? We had a couple of radio messages mentioning that Nico would be in a position to attack later in the race, but then nothing happened? Were those messages being transmitted just to get our hopes up? :)

    J.

    I mentioned it earlier, but basically, both Mercedes have an "Attack Map"; they can have absolute full power for 2 laps, then they go back to normal. So when Nico yesterday turned on that map, Mercedes were straight onto Lewis telling him Nico was on it, so Lewis did the same. So when Nico pushed, Hamilton did too. Same car, same power, same gap.

    That and Nico had some brake temperature issues.


  • #185
    jasonb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,336 ✭✭✭jasonb


    _rebelkid wrote: »
    I mentioned it earlier, but basically, both Mercedes have an "Attack Map"; they can have absolute full power for 2 laps, then they go back to normal. So when Nico yesterday turned on that map, Mercedes were straight onto Lewis telling him Nico was on it, so Lewis did the same. So when Nico pushed, Hamilton did too. Same car, same power, same gap.

    That and Nico had some brake temperature issues.

    Not much point having it for 2 laps, is there? I mean, Nico was what, 1.5 second or so behind for most of the race. He wasn't going to get that in 2 laps, and even if he caught up, he'd then have to turn it off before getting past him. I presume Merc are working on that 'attack map' lasting for longer than 2 laps by the end of the season?

    And another question - does Lewis' race engineer tell him Nico's in attack mode because he notices the faster times he's suddenly posting, or does he actually know when Nico changes the map itself? If the latter, and both sides of the garage have that much info about the other side, then really it is team orders, and who's going to win for them is decided in qualifying or after the first couple of corners in the race...

    J.


  • #186
    _rebelkid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭_rebelkid


    jasonb wrote: »
    Not much point having it for 2 laps, is there? I mean, Nico was what, 1.5 second or so behind for most of the race. He wasn't going to get that in 2 laps, and even if he caught up, he'd then have to turn it off before getting past him. I presume Merc are working on that 'attack map' lasting for longer than 2 laps by the end of the season?

    And another question - does Lewis' race engineer tell him Nico's in attack mode because he notices the faster times he's suddenly posting, or does he actually know when Nico changes the map itself? If the latter, and both sides of the garage have that much info about the other side, then really it is team orders, and who's going to win for them is decided in qualifying or after the first couple of corners in the race...

    J.


    They will be working on it now seeing as Rosberg wasn't happy about it, but it guaranteed them a 1-2, which is their first priority.

    The Team know. Like McLaren, Mercedes share data between the garages. So Lewis' team know what Nico's doing, and vice versa. So when either driver switches engine map, the other does the same. That came from an argument last year when Nico used a fast map when both cars were supposed to be on a standard map. Lewis did the same in the next race, and Mercedes weren't happy. So now both cars are on the same maps, nearly all of the time.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    death1234567
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,335 ✭✭✭death1234567


    Jordan 191 wrote: »
    Following the crap race that we saw yesterday, I don't think I'll bother watching the Austrian GP. And that's not an easy thing for me to say.
    You did well to last this long. F1 has been broken for a long, long time.


  • #188
    jasonb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,336 ✭✭✭jasonb


    _rebelkid wrote: »
    They will be working on it now seeing as Rosberg wasn't happy about it, but it guaranteed them a 1-2, which is their first priority.

    The Team know. Like McLaren, Mercedes share data between the garages. So Lewis' team know what Nico's doing, and vice versa. So when either driver switches engine map, the other does the same. That came from an argument last year when Nico used a fast map when both cars were supposed to be on a standard map. Lewis did the same in the next race, and Mercedes weren't happy. So now both cars are on the same maps, nearly all of the time.

    Wow... Talk about almost removing the driver from the equation. They weren't happy with their drivers making decisions like that on their own? Isn't that what they're meant to be in the car for? It definitely feels to me, who's back watching F1 after a 10-15 year gap or so, that it's all very 'controlled' now, with very little leeway for anything unpredictable to happen (and I'm not talking about crashes).

    J.


  • #189
    _rebelkid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭_rebelkid


    jasonb wrote: »
    Wow... Talk about almost removing the driver from the equation. They weren't happy with their drivers making decisions like that on their own? Isn't that what they're meant to be in the car for? It definitely feels to me, who's back watching F1 after a 10-15 year gap or so, that it's all very 'controlled' now, with very little leeway for anything unpredictable to happen (and I'm not talking about crashes).

    J.

    The driver still get a say. The drivers decide when they wants to attack, or how +/- they can go on strategy (eg, Bottas told the team he could go +5 on his first stint, which was pretty impressive). The team still rely on the driver for car performance updates, and to actually drive the car as best as they can. The problem that we have now, is that best isn't necessarily fast.


  • #190
    jasonb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,336 ✭✭✭jasonb


    _rebelkid wrote: »
    The driver still get a say. The drivers decide when they wants to attack, or how +/- they can go on strategy (eg, Bottas told the team he could go +5 on his first stint, which was pretty impressive). The team still rely on the driver for car performance updates, and to actually drive the car as best as they can. The problem that we have now, is that best isn't necessarily fast.

    I get your point (and I appreciate you taking the time to explain all this) but I don't see the advantage of a driver deciding when to 'attack' if his team are going to tell the other driver that he is doing it. Basically all the driver is doing there is deciding when both cars are going to go a little quicker for a couple of laps.

    The idea of one driver knowing exactly what another driver is doing during a race, even two drivers on the same team, just immediately makes the race more 'controlled'. You said that there was an argument last year 'cos Nico was using a fast map when both cars were *supposed* be on a 'normal' map. A driver shouldn't start a race knowing what another driver's engine mapping is!

    Maybe I'm just being naïve, but it just isn't racing anymore, is it?

    J.


  • #191
    _rebelkid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭_rebelkid


    jasonb wrote: »
    I get your point (and I appreciate you taking the time to explain all this) but I don't see the advantage of a driver deciding when to 'attack' if his team are going to tell the other driver that he is doing it. Basically all the driver is doing there is deciding when both cars are going to go a little quicker for a couple of laps.

    The idea of one driver knowing exactly what another driver is doing during a race, even two drivers on the same team, just immediately makes the race more 'controlled'. You said that there was an argument last year 'cos Nico was using a fast map when both cars were *supposed* be on a 'normal' map. A driver shouldn't start a race knowing what another driver's engine mapping is!

    Maybe I'm just being naïve, but it just isn't racing anymore, is it?

    J.

    They shouldn't, but as far as I can see, that's how Mercedes are operating. Much like Red Bull and Multi-21. The teams have to get 2 cars home, and in high standings, so the backroom strategy teams, and the strategists back at the factory, are working as hard as they can to make that happen. Same up and down the paddock. So when you have cars as temperamental as this years, what was a desire to have 2 cars finish high up, is now an absolute necessity, to the point where teams are foregoing racing, and making it all about management.

    That's how the Mid fields were caught out yesterday. As with most races, they count on a safety car to make a strategy work. So in a place like Canada, where the chances are incredibly high, an SC strategy would be a likely option to go with. But it never came, and people were caught out. McLaren were fuel saving 30 minutes in, Force India were fuel critical for a time, Sauber almost ran out (though Ericsson stopped after the race for a different problem). All of these teams were banking on a safety car to make a fast strategy work. It's one of the biggest problems in the current formula.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Infoanon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,705 ✭✭✭Infoanon


    _rebelkid wrote: »
    He was fairly apologetic post race about it to the team. Looks like he didn't change map, so he had too much MGU-K power selected.

    Link?, everything I have read has it as a Ferrari problem


  • #193
    _rebelkid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭_rebelkid


    Infoanon wrote: »
    Link?, everything I have read has it as a Ferrari problem

    It was what I heard on the pit lane channel post race. They may have told him a wrong map or something, but he was quite apologetic about it.


  • #194
    Frank Bullitt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,891 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    Watched the highlights of this here in Canada. Its one of the few races that is aired live at a reasonable time, and I just wasn't bother with it at all. Im glad I went out on my motorbike instead.

    I said at the start of the season after the first race, that the title was already wrapped up for Hamilton and Merc. Credit to them, they are optimizing the rules on the PU side of things incredibly well, and its integration with the chassis is simply incredible. Marry that with reliability and a driver in Hamilton who is in the prime of his life right now, we are basically just watching the best of the rest.

    2012 was the last time I was genuinely excited by watching F1, and seeing what F1 is like now, it feels like it was a completely different age of the sport.

    A friend from work was actually at this race, and he said it was...ok! He was in the grandstand and it was only OK!!!!! I'm not sure at all what the numbers are now for people watching F1 at home, and attendance at the gate. I know the British GP is almost sold out, but thats the only one I have heard of.

    Not sure what to make of it all, what is the direction of the sport? Cars are slower and quieter so the show overall is poorer IMO. Like was mentioned before in here, you hear "save fuel" "lift and coast" "fuel saving map", as soon as you hear that all you are watching is a car aiming to hit numbers for engineers.

    That's not racing to me.

    *EDIT
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formulaone/article-2934850/Formula-One-suffers-global-drop-TV-figures-five-cent-fans-turn-Britain-despite-Lewis-Hamilton-s-title-win.html

    This is what I kinda expected, granted its from earlier this year, but I can't imagine there has been a huge turnaround.


  • #195
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,522 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    I guarantee that figure is even higher now considering the bore every race now is.
    It's barely even racing anymore, more a case of who can manage to go the least slow for fuel and tyre preservation purposes.


  • #196
    Jordan 199
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,033 ✭✭✭✭Jordan 199


    Gintonious wrote: »
    2012 was the last time I was genuinely excited by watching F1, and seeing what F1 is like now, it feels like it was a completely different age of the sport.

    2012 season was excellent. Seven different winners in the first seven races :eek: :D


  • #197
    Cool_CM
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,990 ✭✭✭Cool_CM


    Autosport wrote: »
    Poor Jensen :( memories of 2011 come to mind and what a race he had

    Went back and found the old race thread for that, great read if you have the time, shows how far we have/haven't come since then!

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056293134


  • #198
    challengemaster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,930 ✭✭✭✭challengemaster


    _rebelkid wrote: »
    It was what I heard on the pit lane channel post race. They may have told him a wrong map or something, but he was quite apologetic about it.

    http://kimiraikkonenspace.com/2015/06/10/technical-problem-cause-of-raikkonens-canada-spin/
    Under pressure Ferrari driver Kimi Raikkonen is hoping to win at least one grand prix in 2015, and admits that if he retires from the sport he is unlikely to visit the F1 paddock ever again.

    After boss Maurizio Arrivabene gave the Finn qualifying homework to do after Monaco, Raikkonen duly lined up third on the grid in Montreal.

    But at the same time, Ferrari teammate Sebastian Vettel suffered technical problems and also a further grid demotion for a red flag infraction in practice.

    And then in the race, Raikkonen angered Arrivabene by spinning and “throwing away” a podium. Only later did Arrivabene acknowledge that a technical issue contributed to the spin.

    “Everything indicates that a technical problem was the cause, as we saw from the data that the throttle behaved in a brutal way,” Arrivabene is quoted by Speed Week. “Kimi’s race pace was good.”


  • #199
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    I guarantee that figure is even higher now considering the bore every race now is.
    It's barely even racing anymore, more a case of who can manage to go the least slow for fuel and tyre preservation purposes.
    But F1 always had tyre and fuel saving, it's just now fuel saving has become a major part of the racing and there's no alternative. The option to save fuel and run longer should always be there but there should be an option to drive flat out, it just needs some negative side effect so teams can make the choice whether they go flat out and suffer the consequences or conserve fuel for a fight at the end. I suppose bringing fueling back into pit stops would bring in that choice.

    Teams are always going to put in as little fuel as they can though, there's always going to be fuel saving.


  • #200
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,522 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    ScumLord wrote: »
    Teams are always going to put in as little fuel as they can though, there's always going to be fuel saving.

    not if they had to put in the 100kg now, or certainly far less of it going on.


  • #201
    _rebelkid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭_rebelkid


    ScumLord wrote: »
    But F1 always had tyre and fuel saving, it's just now fuel saving has become a major part of the racing and there's no alternative. The option to save fuel and run longer should always be there but there should be an option to drive flat out, it just needs some negative side effect so teams can make the choice whether they go flat out and suffer the consequences or conserve fuel for a fight at the end. I suppose bringing fueling back into pit stops would bring in that choice.

    Teams are always going to put in as little fuel as they can though, there's always going to be fuel saving.

    I think the difference with this year is that the teams are no longer racing "around" the fuel saving, but have literally made the racing fuel saving.

    I'm still not sold on refuelling as solving the problem. We had refuelling up to the start of 2010, and most races were as boring as this season. 2010 was a little more exciting with the new jeopardy of full tanks, and the gradual performance gain towards the end as the fuel came off, but wasn't a stellar season as a whole. I think the changes in 2011 were almost perfect. We had temperamental tyres, KERS, DRS and a sh*t ton of overtaking. DRS overtakes aren't themselves exciting, but it planted 2 cars right next to each other, and the excitement grew from there.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement