Formula 1 2019

[298]

1 hour ago, royaloak said:

If they were driving too slowly why didnt ALL the other cars overtake them?

 

Also Lewis bleating on about 'They kept us behind them', uh why didnt YOU overtake them then!

Always somebody elses fault.

 

I'm not defending Hamilton any more than the FIA defend Ferrari, but the ”normal" convention on a warm up lap seems to be not to overtake- a car might start weaving to warm it's tyres up and everyone's goal is to get to the start line with the car in optimum condition before the end of the session. There is little point in crawling round unless you've got an alterior motive for doing so.....

 

One solution might be to disallow obvious slipstreaming so everyone is on an equal footing, although you could argue that having both cars in the top ten is aspirational.

[Jol Wilkinson]

1 hour ago, royaloak said:

If they were driving too slowly why didnt ALL the other cars overtake them?

 

Also Lewis bleating on about 'They kept us behind them', uh why didnt YOU overtake them then!

Always somebody elses fault.

From the tv coverage, it didn't look like that there was much opportunity to do so, they were bunched so closely together. But then, it's always easier to know what to do watching from the sidelines.

[Andrew P]

Great Race today, and again the right result even though I'm a Lewis fan.

 

As for Q3, how about making it compulsory that the Cars have to leave the Pit Lane 3 minutes before the Red Lights?

[Kingzance]

2 minutes ago, Andrew P said:

As for Q3, how about making it compulsory that the Cars have to leave the Pit Lane 3 minutes before the Red Lights?

You would have to set different times for different lengths / average speeds of circuits - that gets even more complicated. To my mind, the Team Principles need to get a grip of their drivers - the farce that Q3 was yesterday doesn't do the teams or the sport any good. The TPs have the power to penalise their drivers after all!

[57xx]

11 hours ago, RedgateModels said:

He did exceed track limits on his fastest time though, so shouldn't really be complaining.... 

 

8 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

Many of us believe he did exceed track limits. But if you were a steward and wanted to leave Italy in one piece would you have had him disqualified? 

 

4 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

It can't help that the Ferrari International Assistance organisation took sides with his team mate either.

 

Indeed, some very dubious stewarding this weekend, clearly turning a blind eye to the home team's indiscretions both with the track limit and Leclerc in the race.

Edited September 8, 2019 by 57xx

[Kingzance]

2 minutes ago, 57xx said:

 

 

 

Indeed, some very dubious stewarding today, clearly turning a blind eye to the home team's indiscretions both with the track limit and Leclerc in the race.

Despite the undoubted supremacy of the silver team over the past few years, it must be remembered that Ferrari is a very dominant team historically and I believe have been instrumental in applying vetos in negotiations with those seeking to lower team costs or get more teams on the grid of F1. Rightly or wrongly, F1 needs Ferrari and both they and the FIA know it.

[Jonboy]

I thought the drivers all set a time at the start of q3, so don’t see a problem with the games they used to collectively shoot themselves in the foot with personally.

[njee20]

3 hours ago, royaloak said:

If they were driving too slowly why didnt ALL the other cars overtake them?

 

Also Lewis bleating on about 'They kept us behind them', uh why didnt YOU overtake them then!

Always somebody elses fault.

A bit harsh, he was clearly trying, running way off line to try and get through. 

 

Im not sure I buy that F1 “needs” Ferrari. It was disappointing the level of inconsistency in the stewarding today. After a black and white flag any subsequent transgression should be investigated and most likely acted on. It makes a mockery of the black and white flag really (if anyone even heeds it). 

 

Still, strong driving by Leclerc, and no one wants to races decided by penalties . 

[PaulRhB]

F1 has at least continued to provide excitement for 4 races in a row. Stewarding was questionable but after previous losses Hamilton wasn’t that upset and said I’ll know in future, ie don’t expect quarter next time  Kinda evens the field after his engine gave away what should have been his first win to Hamilton. 

Lewis also said he wouldn’t have given way if he wasn’t protecting his championship position, he’s seen Vettel throw it away with the red mist and he knows next year number 7 is within his grasp and Leclerc and Verstappen are his biggest threats to that  

[royaloak]

2 hours ago, 298 said:

 

I'm not defending Hamilton any more than the FIA defend Ferrari, but the ”normal" convention on a warm up lap seems to be not to overtake- a car might start weaving to warm it's tyres up and everyone's goal is to get to the start line with the car in optimum condition before the end of the session. There is little point in crawling round unless you've got an alterior motive for doing so.....

 

One solution might be to disallow obvious slipstreaming so everyone is on an equal footing, although you could argue that having both cars in the top ten is aspirational.

But this wasnt a warm up lap it was qualifying.

[RJS1977]

35 minutes ago, royaloak said:

But this wasnt a warm up lap it was qualifying.

 

I think 298 meant an 'out lap'...

 

Nobody overtakes on a warm up lap because they're all in the correct order to start with.

 

But I agree that the way cars were often two or more abreast in that lap and being driven erratically, it would be very difficult to pass someone - it looked as if Lewis nearly went into the back of a slower driver at one point.

[RJS1977]

1 hour ago, njee20 said:

 

 

Still, strong driving by Leclerc, and no one wants to races decided by penalties . 

 

I'd rather see a race decided by consistently applied penalties than one where the stewards appear to be treating a team/driver with undue leniency.

 

The best way to avoid a race decided by penalties is for drivers not to force each other off the track or cut corners...

[Pete the Elaner]

9 hours ago, Kingzance said:

Rightly or wrongly, F1 needs Ferrari and both they and the FIA know it.

Why? I have seen/heard this argument many times but never heard anyone justify it.

What have Ferrari done which is so important that F1 must keep them at all costs?

During the 60s & 70s, Lotus pushed the boundaries further than anyone. They stopped being innovative when Colin Chapman died & now the team has gone altogether. Even the last team to race as Lotus just used the name.

F1 managed to cope quite well & it would also do so if Ferrari was not a competing team.

[Pete the Elaner]

6 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

I'd rather see a race decided by consistently applied penalties than one where the stewards appear to be treating a team/driver with undue leniency.

 

The best way to avoid a race decided by penalties is for drivers not to force each other off the track or cut corners...

I think the Stewards were reasonable yesterday.

I don't think Vettel or Stroll could argue about their penalties for re-entering the track in a dangerous manner. Vettel actually hit Stroll, damaging his car & if that had not happened, Stroll would not have left the track in the first place, so I can understand a difference in their penalties.

Albon left the track to complete his pass. They took a long time to decide on this one though.

Alfa made a stupid mistake with Raikkonen's tyres. The only issue I had with this is that they took so long to notice or decide it. The stewards are supposed to have 'all the data'. There was no grey area with this; he started on the wrong tyres. The offence was committed as soon as the lights went out so they should have been able to apply the penalty before the 1st lap was complete, or at least after they had watched the footage from the usual 1st lap incidents.

 

When LeClerc missed a corner, the small run-off area he took was slower than staying on track, which resulted in Hamilton closing right up. The off-track route should have been slower & therefore punishment enough. If it wasn't then the run off area should have been modified to make it slower.

This allowed Hamilton to close until he got squeezed off the track. As they approached the corner, I knew this was going to happen. Either this was ok...or it wasn't. It was Hamilton's best opportunity to pass so a black/white flag was meaningless.

 

 

Once Hamilton's tyres went off, I felt Mercedes should have brought him in straight away. He was never going to hold of Bottas & Ricciardo was 34 seconds further back. I felt Hamilton could have got some softer tyres & had a chance to hunt down LeClerc the way he did Verstappen earlier in the season (Hungary?). He would not have lost anything but would have gained the fastest lap & may have caught right up.....but then it was mentioned that he had no new soft tyres left, so I understand why they didn't do this.

[Kingzance]

29 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

Why? I have seen/heard this argument many times but never heard anyone justify it.

What have Ferrari done which is so important that F1 must keep them at all costs?

During the 60s & 70s, Lotus pushed the boundaries further than anyone. They stopped being innovative when Colin Chapman died & now the team has gone altogether. Even the last team to race as Lotus just used the name.

F1 managed to cope quite well & it would also do so if Ferrari was not a competing team.

Like most sports, F1 relies on having a core of supporters and in this case it is a global core. Year in and year out around the world you can see how many followers there are of the Prancing Horse. That support frequently runs from one generation to the next. Apart from Maclaren, is there another F1 team who was racing under the same name and organisational place in that formula in the 1960’s? Williams didn’t arrive until the 70’s, Mercedes had many years out of the sport and where now are Ford or Toyota? Although I am not a Ferrari supporter, their enduring presence has been something of a spine around which the formula and many teams have waxed and waned.

[Hobby]

Sorry, but I don't agree. To say what you have would indicate that one team is greater than the sport itself. It's not. There should be no preferential treatment of any team. As has been previously pointed out Lotus have contributed more to the sport than Ferrari in technical terms but there was no special treatment for them when they "died". I hate this perception by some people that a sport is dependant on one team and will somehow collapse if that team folds, it won't if the sport is strong enough and F1 is. All teams should win or fail on their own merits, not historical ones and it's about time F1 changed so that was the case instead of special payments to one team over the rest.

[PaulRhB]

Ferrari simply bring a brand presence that fulfils an impression of quality. While they may not be essential to the racing they are to the marketing of it to tv and other sponsors. It’s history and impression of quality they add to the technology of F1. 

It wont fold without them but it makes marketing it much easier and Liberty paid for F1 partly because of that. 

Edited September 9, 2019 by PaulRhB

[Oldddudders]

In the history of modern F1, I think Cooper is quite important. Their placing of the engine behind the driver in the late '50s was a trend no-one has ignored since. Sure, Auto-Union had done it in the '30s, but cars were very different then.

 

The fact that I have cats called Cooper and Lola, as well as their late brother Chevron, reveals nothing about my interests!

[Hobby]

So stop the subsidy then if they are not that important.

[woodenhead]

I was reading a BBC article last night and it was about Alonso appearing to be trying to engineer himself a place back in a top F1 seat - either Red Bull or Ferrari.

 

There was discussion of Vettel going back to Red Bull but he apparently has no performance clauses he can use as a get out of his last year.

 

Then I began to wonder, what if if a driver got so bad that his team would pay him to leave........

[Jol Wilkinson]

Now Ferrari have a new star, SB will probably have to adopt the second driver role and behave as Kimi did last year. Unless that is,  he can turn things around in the last seven races and overtake Leclerc's points haul significantly (even if he doesn't win a race). However, such a emotional organisation as Ferrari may simply concentrate on CL's side of the garage, see SB as a lost cause and a parting of the ways will follow. The next two or three races will probably define SB's future.

 

 

[Andrew P]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

I was reading a BBC article last night and it was about Alonso appearing to be trying to engineer himself a place back in a top F1 seat - either Red Bull or Ferrari.

 

There was discussion of Vettel going back to Red Bull but he apparently has no performance clauses he can use as a get out of his last year.

 

Then I began to wonder, what if if a driver got so bad that his team would pay him to leave........

I saw the same thing, plus another that said Alonso had slagged off the Honda Engine so much that Red Bull would not want him.

 

I still think it's Seb last season, mind you, I thought that last year and was proved wrong.

[Oldddudders]

22 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

Many of us believe he did exceed track limits. But if you were a steward and wanted to leave Italy in one piece would you have had him disqualified? 

Toto, referring to Leclerc almost nudging Lewis out of the way, obviously agrees with me. 

 

"The racing was very hard, maybe over the line," he continued, "and Lewis, I think, was instrumental in not making it an incident.

"But at the end of the day, what do you do? You give a leading Ferrari in Monza a five-second penalty? Out of the question, because then we need a police escort out of here."

 

Mind you, nothing new under the sun, as they say. I was at Brands for the '76 GP, and after a major shunt at the start, James Hunt was penalised for having cut through to regain the pits, rather than complete a lap under red flag. He was going to be disqualified, but the crowd turned ugly, so he was reinstated and won. And then had the win disallowed a couple of months later. But it isn't just Latins who felt things deeply. 

[RedgateModels]

2 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Toto, referring to Leclerc almost nudging Lewis out of the way, obviously agrees with me. 

 

"The racing was very hard, maybe over the line," he continued, "and Lewis, I think, was instrumental in not making it an incident.

"But at the end of the day, what do you do? You give a leading Ferrari in Monza a five-second penalty? Out of the question, because then we need a police escort out of here."

 

Mind you, nothing new under the sun, as they say. I was at Brands for the '76 GP, and after a major shunt at the start, James Hunt was penalised for having cut through to regain the pits, rather than complete a lap under red flag. He was going to be disqualified, but the crowd turned ugly, so he was reinstated and won. And then had the win disallowed a couple of months later. But it isn't just Latins who felt things deeply. 

 

I think if Lewis was not so far ahead then Toto would consider an appeal too, but being magnanimous in defeat probably suits him in this case.

[Sidecar Racer]

22 minutes ago, Andrew P said:

I saw the same thing, plus another that said Alonso had slagged off the Honda Engine so much that Red Bull would not want him.

 

 

I think Honda had a say in that too .

 

After their fractious time together at McLaren, the Japanese manufacturer blocked Alonso from driving an Indycar with one of its engines in it, so are hardly likely to welcome him into an F1 car fitted with one.

Edited September 9, 2019 by Sidecar Racer
Added quote