Formula 1 2019

[njee20]

[RJS1977]

I have to say ten seconds seems quite a lenient penalty for allowing a piece to break off and hit another car - a few inches to one side and it could have passed underneath Lewis's Halo....

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

Which still leaves us with the question of why Leclerc wasn't ahead of Vettel into the first corner, following the latter's starting fumble. Did he have traction difficulties getting away from the line on the very clean track surface? All rather odd, the front row getting cleanly passed by Bottas, and Verstappen alongside a front row starter from the third row so early. Unfortunate that, the racing among the eventual podium drivers was essentially all done in the first twenty seconds or so.

 

The rain certainly played a part in this race, even though it was dry on race day. The track surface condition rather left the teams guessing on tyre life was my impression, with all the implications for race strategy. This is one for the post race analyst with the full race day data to chew over, to work out the details.

 

26 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

His pit crew told him (Leclerc) several times to pit. What more can they do?...

Present the evidence that will help him learn from the experience. Yes, pitting for damage is immediately bad in terms of track position, but you definitely lost a place by not following team direction due to the penalties incurred. With the car definitely capable of overtaking all but Mercedes when  in optimum condition, it was all to your advantage to have the car worked on at the end of the first lap and thus have the maximum number of laps to work your recovery. The sixth achieved on track would have been his, and he might have overtaken Sainz had he had more time in a repaired car; and had there been a safety car at some opportune moment, the podium might have been possible.

[njee20]

I missed he'd been served a penalty. I've seen glaciers move quicker than FIA stewards.

[Oldddudders]

Lewis was critical of Mercedes's strategy. If he had got off the line as well as Bottas did, there would have been no problem, would there?

[Jol Wilkinson]

The right hand side of the grid did seem a bit slow away, whereas the left hand side cars, except SV, appeared to get away better.

[Pete the Elaner]

38 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Lewis was critical of Mercedes's strategy. If he had got off the line as well as Bottas did, there would have been no problem, would there?

It is so easy to be critical with hindsight, but nobody knows exactly when the tyre performance will drop off & how much time they will lose when it does.

I thought he could manage on his 2nd set of tyres, but if the team had tried this & it was wrong, then he would have lost lots of time & still had to pit for tyres.

It would also have raised the question of "If the team thought 1 stop was quicker then why did they rob Bottas of the victory by stopping him twice?"

 

Mercedes stopped both drivers a second time because they felt it was the safer option with the information they had available.

They were also missing data from 2 sessions which were cancelled due to the weather.

[Oldddudders]

6 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

It is so easy to be critical with hindsight, but nobody knows exactly when the tyre performance will drop off & how much time they will lose when it does.

I thought he could manage on his 2nd set of tyres, but if the team had tried this & it was wrong, then he would have lost lots of time & still had to pit for tyres.

It would also have raised the question of "If the team thought 1 stop was quicker then why did they rob Bottas of the victory by stopping him twice?"

 

Mercedes stopped both drivers a second time because they felt it was the safer option with the information they had available.

They were also missing data from 2 sessions which were cancelled due to the weather.

All true. But my point was that Lewis's race was compromised from the start - because Bottas did it better. I take Jol's point about the right hand side of the grid, but whingeing when your team-mate simply did it better and then capitalised is ungracious. 

[Hobby]

On the basis that the car in front of him had a duff start and therefore he got a flyer, then yes, Bottas did it better. I have no doubt however that had the two drivers been the other way round you'd have said the same about Hamilton! Botas got lucky with Vettel's poor start and capitalised on it, Hamilton wasn't as lucky with the car in front of him which seemed to be going for banger racing and then shedding bits of itself all over him. Hamilton was lucky that he didn't have any damage from those bits. I was surprised that the only penalty was a time one for Leclerc, that doesn't give a tough enough message in my view. That end piece of the front wing could have done some serious damage to Hamilton...

 

 

Would agree about C4s highlights. very poor, The first half was a complete waste of time. They are also sorely missing the likes of DC, Eddie, etc. I take it Hamilton never spoke to anyone after the race either, as he never appeared! Strange behaviour on the podium as well by all of them, very subdued by all three drivers and I wonder why Hamilton refused to put on the Pirelli baseball cap, he picked it up towards the end as if to put it on then seemed to change his mind and threw it back down...

 

A weird day all round, most unlike the normal fare from Japan.

[GeoffAlan]

When the loose bits came off Leclerc's car it removed Hamilton's right mirror!

 

Had it hit the cockpit of car 44 we could have had a tragedy. AND the FIA penalised Leclerc a few seconds , unbelievable.

 

Meanwhile Mercedes have sewn up both championships, it only remains to be seen if Bottas can take 16 points of Lewis in each race.

[Hobby]

Deleted.

Edited October 14, 2019 by Hobby

[Hobby]

Deleted.

Edited October 14, 2019 by Hobby

[Steadfast]

Just caught up with the highlights on all 4. Not sure what to make of it, lots of whining drivers on the radios (not sure how it benefited them in most cases), not a lot of action on track really and a foregone conclusion in the constructors race.

Maybe it seemed particularly poor after I'd spent all weekend at Brands Hatch for the touring cars with lots of close racing, championships that went right down to the wire, capped off by a win for Plato. JP's back on form, bring on 2020!

 

Jo

[Gareth Collier]

2 hours ago, Steadfast said:

 

Maybe it seemed particularly poor after I'd spent all weekend at Brands Hatch for the touring cars with lots of close racing, championships that went right down to the wire, capped off by a win for Plato. JP's back on form, bring on 2020!

 

I only watched it on TV but what a finish to the season with Cammish having it in the bag with 2 laps to go and Turkington starting 25th and seemingly out of it!

[RJS1977]

5 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

Mercedes stopped both drivers a second time because they felt it was the safer option with the information they had available.

 

 

Given that the fourth place car was something like 44 seconds behind Lewis at the end of the race, there was no danger of Lewis finishing lower than third (unless of course he failed to finish at all), so I think Mercedes could have afforded to keep him out longer on the mediums (which he was happy on by then) and pit him later if necessary.

 

As to "If they thought 1 stop was quicker, why stop Bottas twice"? Quite simply, Mercedes weren't sure which strategy was quicker so they split strategies between the two drivers.

 

I have a suspicion that Mercedes could see Lewis was closing on Bottas and dropped him back to prevent any chance of a collision between them which would have prevented them from winning the Constructor's championship in Japan.

[37114]

6 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

The right hand side of the grid did seem a bit slow away, whereas the left hand side cars, except SV, appeared to get away better.

The right hand side of the grid at Suzuka has always been slower, it was this that caused the Senna and Prost collision after Senna complained to the FISA President that pole should be on the racing line (despite the fact it was always on the right of the track at presvious Suzuka races). The request was refused infuriating Senna who vowed he would crash into Prose if he was leading at the first corner.

 

 

[Steadfast]

5 hours ago, Gareth Collier said:

I only watched it on TV but what a finish to the season with Cammish having it in the bag with 2 laps to go and Turkington starting 25th and seemingly out of it!

I've not watched the TV coverage yet but from what I read online this morning sounds like Cammish's brakes let go. His fronts were certainly glowing a lot brighter than anyone elses.

We had grandstand seats at Hailwood's yesterday, but for race two I went for a wander, and ended up with a prime view of Turkington's spin at Graham Hill. Sadly meant I missed the action at Druids, but sort of caught it on the big screen.

Once I went back to the seats, got a good view of the coming together in Paddock Hill in the last Porsche race. Sun was out by now and all.

 

Jo

[Hobby]

Oh dear the rot has started, stupid aerofoils have appeared... And those ones are really stupid looking things! I only hope they don't start appearing on the road going cars that racing is supposed to be representing...

 

 

 

One comment to those who keep comparing F1 with the BTCC: 

 

It's not comparable!!

 

I can understand you liking/watching BTCC, like I watch Stox, but neither of them are anything like F1. Perhaps the solution (based on your comments) for F1 to be brought into line with BTCC and to race over 24 laps and add weights to the winners of the previous race and change the grid to even things out.... But then it wouldn't be F1 would it?!

 

Plenty of people watch 24hr events like Le Mans, personally, like F1, I find that watching it live is like watching paint dry, but I wouldn't try to change it simply because i don't like it. I'll simply watch the highlights. F1's definitely not perfect, but I'd debate it ever was, even in the "golden era" of the '50s and '60s there were a few teams which could compete and win and about 20 other cars with not a cat in hell's chance... Nothing's changed.

Edited October 15, 2019 by Hobby

[RJS1977]

I think the biggest changes from past eras are increased reliability of the cars and better road holding. It's quite rare to see a car spin off during a race these days (at least, not one of the leaders) - Vettel in Canada is the last one I can think of - and how many times in the past did cars give up with just a couple of laps to go (often when Murray had just said what a worthy winner they were...)?

 

In the past it wasn't unknown for insufficient cars to finish a race to fill all the points positions, and I can remember some races where drivers who had retired 20 or so laps earlier came back out because enough other cars had retired that there were still points available!

[woodenhead]

Am I correct in thinking in the past when they had a spare car they could swap to it during the race if the first car was retired or was it purely before the start they could swap.

 

I do remember they used to set it up for one driver and if it was the other car that failed the mechanics had to quickly swap seats and pedals about.

[Hobby]

Not sure if it was during the race, but they could swap cars within the team, so if the top drivers' car failed during the race they could turf the second driver out of their car and use that for the rest of the race.

[Smiffy2]

Car changes during the race - I don't think so, but driver changes were acceptable in the fifties. 

[didcot]

There used to be a spare, usually set up for the fastest driver.  If said driver crashed on the first lap and the race was red flagged, technically he could jump into the spare for the restart. The regulations in force at the time stated that should any race be stopped within the first two laps, the start would be null and void, and a full restart over the original distance would take place. Think Belgium 1998. Most teams had damaged cars, some both cars, so at the restart they could only run the one spare.

[RJS1977]

Yes, there was at one time a third car that could be used as a replacement if a car was damaged in practice/quali or a crash at the start necessitated a restart. More often than not it seemed to be set up for the wrong driver!

 

And Smiffy is correct - driver changes were allowed in the 1950s, hence the 1957 British Grand Prix being shared between Stirling Moss and Tony Brooks.

 

Had in-race driver changes/spare car changes been allowed in more recent times, the 1994 World Championship could have turned out differently....

Edited October 17, 2019 by RJS1977

[mozzer models]

14 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Am I correct in thinking in the past when they had a spare car they could swap to it during the race if the first car was retired or was it purely before the start they could swap.

 

I do remember they used to set it up for one driver and if it was the other car that failed the mechanics had to quickly swap seats and pedals about.

in the past yes but now they can not have a 3rd car ready to go team take spare chassis & have to build up a 3rd car if one of the other 2 is damaged