Printable View
Racing Point seemed to have focused on qualifying pace rather than race pace. Just one of the indications of how not having Perez in the car has affected the Racing Point weekend.Quote:
Originally Posted by gm99
I felt Verstapenn was cheated out of the win by an unneccesary pitstop. But then again he may have also had puncture if he did not stop.
Hamilton seemed to have indicated that Bottas pushed him hard, which was the reason that they both destroyed their tyres. Mercedes probably did not manage the race well enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by denkimi
Bottas is out of contention now for the title. He would need some DNF or a bad race weekend for Hamilton, to get back into contention. Hamilton is now 30 points ahead. Bottas is only 6 points ahead of Verstapenn.
This weekend was a disaster for Bottas.
And the Mclaren and Renault are probably pretty solid in there too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitrodaze
As Mercedes said, it was actually the Ferrari shenanigans (in terms of their apparent engine improvement) that forced them to work twice as hard to catch up to the Ferrari that has brought about their improved engine performance in 2020. I'd say the car's pace is right about where the ferrari was in the latter half of 2019. Now the mercedes still struggles following cars and in higher ambient temps, which should make some of the upcoming races very interesting. As to RedBull, I think that they are close but seem stuck with a particular overall design philosophy which is holding them back slightly IMO. They need a fundamental shift in their approach because it isn't the honda engine holding them back at this point.
First of all , not to be argumentative , but it was , indeed dangerous .Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitrodaze
And , my issue with it was that he didn't pit , but instead , risked the tire flying to bits and smashing the front wing into a zillion pieces in the final turn on the final lap , with Max 5 or so seconds behind .
Had he gone back to the pits as you suggested is typical and not punishable , I would have no problem with it .
On any other lap in the race , Lewis would never have considered staying out with a blown tire .
Add to it that it's a right turn onto the final straight , which puts the most strain on that front left blown tire .
And then add that Max was on a fastest lap coming up quickly from behind , pushing Lewis .
On Lewis's side is that it was a brave gamble , and it worked out .
But , it would never have been allowed or even attempted on any other lap (that is , passing the pit entrance with an already blown tire)for safety reasons .
Let me make it clear here , that I'm glad he didn't pit , as it harkened back to the days of Gilles running around on three wheels , refusing to concede defeat . I loved it then and I love it now .
But , i'm struggling a little with where the "safe" line is for the stewards .
TBH, I've recently tried to like Lance... at least give him a fair shake. I felt like I disliked him for the wrong reasons. After hammering him for being just a rich kid, with marginal talent, who got a seat only because daddy bought a team for him, seemed like he finally began showing that he actually does have some talent. But this weekend kind of showed that he can't really get it done, unless he has Perez's setup notes to copy. This weekend made me think back to how badly Danica and Marco fell off in performance when Tony Kanaan was no longer there to set their cars up for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by gm99
I, of course, blame Nico's issues on the Mercedes P/U. But Lance doffed his own weekend. I really was hoping that Nico coul dredeem himself. I've been pulling for him since he won the GP2 title.
As for the race overall, I thought that it was quite exciting. Plenty of midfield battles and some great racing (well, everyone except for Goober Grosjean - why is he still in F1???!!!). And my heart stopped at least twice on the last couple of laps. Once because of Clueless Crofty's mistake and again when Lewis' tire really did let go.
What
A
Race!!!
The pits and the finish line are practically next to each other. By reaching the pits entrance, the sensible thing was to cross the finish line rather than go into the pits which would have handed the race to Verstapenn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Also, the tyre did not damage any chassis parts at the point when he arrived at the pit entrance. So it made good sense to finish the race across the finish line.
It was an extraordinary race which we shall be talking about for years to come. And Pirelli make crap racing tyres really WTF, with the safety car for the Kyvat incident which should have increased the tyre life, the tyre disintegrates before the estimated 40 laps tyre lifeline.
It is going to be a three stop strategy next weekend with the even softer Pirelli tyres.
Absolutely, Redbull changed something on the chassis and since then it has dropped its performance. It clearly is not an engine issue. And it would be the beginning of a seperation if Redbull makes the mistake of blaming Honda for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by truefan72
At this moment I need to retract my previous criticism of Pirelli as the evidence is mounting that the tire failures were caused by debris:
- Horner has come out saying that Verstappen's hard front left tire had "50 little cuts" in it: https://www.motorsportweek.com/2020/...0-little-cuts/
- Albert Fabrega, journalist, claims to have found a piece of metal in the racing line after the race: https://mobile.twitter.com/AlbertFab...60595171115010
Hopefully this will be it and we'll be able to have our next race without tire dramas now.
I'm in the same boat with you on Stroll.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
On pure talent and merit, he probably should be toiling away somewhere in the top 15 in GP2 but somehow has managed to get an F1 ride now for a 4th year.
I really struggle to respect his racing, but recently felt that his 3+ years of experience probably has given him some kind of an improvement in his race craft worthy of my tepid acknowledgment.
Then came this weekend and it was a bit embarrassing. He really drove a stinker of a race.
Then to make matters worse, How they blew it on the other car not being able to start is beyond comprehension. It is either gross incompetence or the fluke of the century.
Hulkenberg's pace was excusable due to the circumstances of his drive, not to mention a severely compromised cockpit setup for him. And despite that he quickly came to grips with the car I'm glad he got that shot and i was beyond disappointed that the he didn't even make it to the starting grid. (almost like team stroll was afraid of being embarrassed by Hulkenberg)
I honestly feel like if they had temporarily bumped Russell up into that seat for the next 2 races, he would have given them a podium. If you had put DeVries in that seat, i would have expected probably a top 5 finish same with wherlein. This racing point car should legitimately be fighting with the Red Bulls and Ferrari's. It reminds me of toyota in 2009. A superb car let down by average drivers, dubious race strategies, and mechanical blunders. This car should be 2nd or 3rd in the WCC standings and include a driver in the top 5. I wonder how much (poor) influence stroll and his dad have on strategy and the overall decisions this team is able to take. As of right now, it's not working and I fear they are throwing away an amazing opportunity to be at the very top end of the grid.
I'm starting to revert back to my previous opinion of stroll, but would love to be proved wrong.
Pirelli tyres are not so crap after all. This leads us to wonder if Silverstone needs more marshalls as it took a long time for them to remove Kyvat's Alpha Tauri. The track cleaning effort was very light as well it appeared.Quote:
Originally Posted by N4D13
Stroll qualified well but his race pace was poor. That was due to the poor race setup of the car which suggests that Perez's inputs has been crucial to the team. Also that Stroll has not mastered the art of setting up an F1 car. But given a well setup car, he has performed really well in past races, with one podium last season and two solid forth to show that he certainly has talent, l think he just needs to build up his maturity around car setup.Quote:
Originally Posted by truefan72
I subscribe to the fact that Racing Point is not fully capitalizing on the true performance of their 2020 car. Can we fairly put Racing Point's poor showing at Silverstone down to Stroll per ce? I think this weekend exposes a gap in the engineer crew. In the absence of Perez, they ought to have enough engineers present to setup the car for its optimum performance. Lance is the one that stands out in this poor showing because he is the visible one in the car.
The racing point simply had poor race pace due to poor race setup. This may be because the team were knocked of balance due to Perez's COVID test failure since they had to scramble to find a replacement, hence were slightly distracted
I think Lance's poor race was due to the car rather than his personal afforts.
Holy crap , dude .Quote:
Originally Posted by truefan72
One mediocre race and he's firmly under the bus .
We have no idea at all why he was slower than we expected , and without the Hulk involved , we have nothing to compare him with .
And , to suggest they sabotaged the Hulk to make the boy look better somehow , is waaaaaaaay beyond the pale .
By the way , they get the engine and transmission from Merc , and it was apparently a bolt that broke inside , jamming the drive line , so it wouldn't start . Bad bolt , or bad torque setting , but it seems that it was on Merc's end , not theirs .
Perhaps you'd like to speculate that Merc doesn't want them too close , so gives them the cheap bolts ?
Your last words there : "I'm starting to revert back to my previous opinion of stroll, but would love to be proved wrong."
I don't believe you .
I have a hard time criticizing Pirelli at all , as they are still creating tires to a spec they were asked for .Quote:
Originally Posted by N4D13
Part of the game is changing tires when it is best to do so .
That would generally be before they go pop .
You might get a puncture from debris , which is unlucky , but all those tires that did pop were visibly ragged .
Bottas complained for quite a few laps of vibration before his tire went south , and nobody is suggesting he hit any debris .
But , it's not Pirelli's fault at all .
Teams and drivers make those calls .
And they went too far , literally .
Once they take delivery , the only thing the tire company has any say in is tire pressures , which the teams would also stretch the limits of , if they were allowed .
As it turned out , it should have been a two-stop race for Merc , and the next race will likely be three .
It will be interesting , and different from the last race because of the different compounds , but it won't be something to beat Pirelli up for .
I think they reduced the number of marshalls due to covid-19Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitrodaze
Also if it was debris, it was probably from where the Kimi incident happened.
Yes I think Kimi's wing was responsible for late race debris. Also Ocon brought up an interesting point:Quote:
Originally Posted by truefan72
I can see how this combination could be quite hard on tires!Quote:
There is a new thing out of Turn 13; Maggots, Becketts, Chapel, this combination of corners. At the right-hander, Turn 13 exit, now there is no kerb anymore. Which there was before. So you run in the dirt and then you go on to the kerb, and that could also damage your tyres.
In case there is any doubt as to the cause of Kvyat's crash:
https://streamable.com/pvsn5e
:angel:
Not at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
I've praised him when he has performed well and if you go through some of my posts from earlier you would see that to be true.
Even his Baku podium was well deserved and i praised him highly for it.
Being able to understand your car and extract the best from it is also part of a driver ability.
I'm not saying to outdrive it or exceed it's abilities, but to at the very least allow it to perform at its baseline level, and i'm afraid that Stroll doesn't have that ability yet. Or better yet, never really had to work at it for a number of reasons. Absolutely true that not everything is down to his fault (and the hulk car mishap was more tongue and cheek) and as i've said, serious 2009 toyota vibes. It took the entire team underperforming for them to squander that season.
Yeah, Kvyatt was way too hard on himself about that incident.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tazio
Dangerous stuff
Glad he walked away from it unscathed.
I didn't think it was his fault, glad to be proven correct. The next race is going to be interesting with softer tyres. I wonder who thought that one up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tazio
It was a rotten race for Bottas, Vettel, Albon, Sainz, Kyvat and Magnussen
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/15...-tyre-failures
So essentially Pirelli are saying that this happened because of the super long stints + extreme demands on the front left tires + higher cornering speeds this year. No mention of debris after all.
Yep , use them too long and they go pop .Quote:
Originally Posted by N4D13
Not Pirelli's fault .
Run what you brung .
I kind of find that debris cutting the tyres and causing them to fail to be an acceptable excuse. As those were the hardest [white walled C1] tyres that burst on the Mercedes, they should have survived the 40 laps long stints, especially since there were safety car moments in the long stints; where they were driving slow. Pirrelli already knew of the extreme demands that the 2020 cars were going to load on the tyres and the potential corrnering speeds at Silverstone, since the beginning of last year.Quote:
Originally Posted by N4D13
I am understanding their excuses to mean they did not design the tyres to match the operational conditions correctly. Crap tyres basically!
There seem to be a confrontation of intentions here. Pirelli seem to want the teams to operate their cars within a confined tyre operatiional windows. The teams clearly want to operate their cars to the maximum limits stated by Pirelli for their tyres. It seems the tyres demand of the Silverstone track has exposed that the tyres were short of their prescribed maximum limits. Mercedes obviously planned the tyre use to the very limit of the tyre maximum life of 40 laps. Even so, it does not explain Kyvat's rear tyre failure.
No they are not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
What they need to make is tyres that get gradually slower as they wear down. Tyres that you have to change because they get too slow, that make you lose 5 seconds a lap if they are completely worn.
They are not supposed to make tyres that keep the pace and then suddenly explode.
Pirelli has been the tyre supplier for 10 years now and they still suck as bad as in the beginning. They still suddenly fall of the clip without much warning.
Apparantly they just can't make the tyres formula one demands.
Yes , they are .Quote:
Originally Posted by denkimi
Bottas was complaining for a number of laps of vibrations , and you could see the graining very clearly on his and a number of others tires .
This was clearly a sign they were in need of changing .
It was not sudden at all , except for the final moment of deflation .
Imagine trying to predict how long a given tire will last .
First , you've got , say , a Williams car and a Merc works car .
Are they going to use those tires at the same rate ?
Add in the drivers , who have their different styles of driving , and you may have seemingly identical cars using the skins at very different rates .
Then there's different set-ups for differing strategies , and it all makes for and almost impossible task to predict longevity .
There are so many variables involved , you can bet the farm that nobody is taking a forty lap predicted life as gospel , but rather as a very rough estimate .
They will last that long , without abuse .
Abuse them , and they will pop .
Road cars are built so that the brakes start to squeal if the brake pads are wearing too thin. If F1 teams can't interpret vibrations and graining as signs of tire wear, maybe the FIA needs to get Perelli to make squealling tires. Mind you, then the teams would start asking "What is the maximum number of laps that the tires can squeal before they go pop?" Then they would proceed to gamble and go Max + 1 or Max + 2.........
You don't understand what i'm trying to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Tyres should not explode before they have become so slow you are forced to change them anyway. They should not be only a little slower and then suddenly collapse, they should get gradually slower, a second per 10 laps or so.
That way you can use them for as long as you want, but after 40 laps you will be 4 seconds a lap slower than someone with new tyres.
Pirelli's f1 are the only tyres i know of that behave like that. Michelin's or bridgestone's didn't behaved like that.
Pirelli's rally tyres also act normal as they should. Push them too far and you will start driving on ice. They will not explode, you will just lose massive amounts of time.
The teams asked Pirelli of what the maximun life of each tyres was and they responded with 40 laps for the hard C1 tyres. Meaning if you do not exceed 40 laps, the tyre will not explode. We could have concluded that the Mercedes car was too hard on its tyres but the same happened to Sainz in a Mclaren. The Mclaren uses a Mercedes engine but loads the tyres differently to the Petronas Mercedes car. Hence, we cannot blame the cars but clearly the tyres.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
It just doesn't look good having tyres brust during the race in this way. And it also is not acceptable to blame the teams for the tyres bursting. Especially as they followed the tyre operational specifications.
The interesting thing about the puncture was that the tyres did not wear down to the canvas before it failed. The failure seem to start to manifest in the tyre walls which quickly delaminated the tyres surface from the side wall. Hence the characteristics of the failure is not one the teams would normally expect as all tyre sensors would be indicating that there was enough rubber to get the car home to the finish line.
This is looking like a Pirelli short coming and they may not be able to talk themselves out of this one.
Apparently, Hamilton did 143 mph on three tyres to keep Verstapenn at bay. He was lucky as the other tyre was clearly starting to fragment. It could have also failed at the speed he was doing if his tyre troubles had started earlier in the lap than it did.
What a crazy end to what seemed like an ordinary race.
Bagwan is right. Pirelli are asked to make junk tyres. How the teams use them is up to them. They're meant to be made to suit a particular car. The teams make adjustment in their car to make best use of the tyres. That's how it's supposed to be.
For the races he doens't win, I thought that was Bottas' best one. Normally when he's behind Hamilton from the beginning, he slowly fades away. But there was a sustained stint behind Hamilton. It was pretty good. Hopefully he can do it more often.
Hello Journeyman, as usual, l don't agree with you on this one. Nobody asked Pirelli to make junk tryes, they are just junk. The general expectation was for the tyres to be consistently good for a prescribed number of laps before degradation and consequential failure. The general complaints are that they are not even reaching their specified maximum limits before they fail.Quote:
Originally Posted by journeyman racer
I think what it means now is that the tyres are good for 90% of the prescribed maximum number of laps specified by Pirelli. If Pirelli say 40laps is the maximum for a particular tyre, that would translate to realistically 36 laps max before the tyres becomes unpredictable.
When you compare the Pirelli tyres to the Bridgestone tyres of old, the Pirelli tyres are comparatively quite below optimum.
It's also fair to point out that these tyres were developed for older, slower cars and that cornering speeds have increased significantly over the last couple of years. And it was the teams that rejected a move to a newer, stiffer tyre as it felt quitr differently, so this is kind of on their plate as well.
On top of that, there was the kerb change at Becketts, which seems to have been causing the cuts on the tyre surfaces and heavily increased tyre loads.
Ultimately the responsibility is on Pirelli to produce a better product, there's no question on that. But we need to note that in this situation there are a lot of mitigating factors.
So , if they had predicted a longevity of 36 laps , would you be happy ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitrodaze
So , on the new tarmac at the track making it harder to predict , and with the recently discovered "cutting curbing" to add to the points I cited in my earlier post , could it be considered hard to predict ?
I would imagine the teams looking at the tires and making judgments , much like yourself , about the real characteristics of the tires .
And , I'm sure Pirelli learned more as well .
By the way , they weren't asked for "junk" tires , as you guys put it .
They were given specific mandates to produce exactly what we have .
I don't agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by journeyman racer
This was just another controlled race for mercedes. They drive fast a the start or restart for 5 to 7 laps until they have a 10 second lead, and then they just adjust their pace to match that of the number 3 of the race.
Hamilton could go a lot faster, bottas could go a lot faster. They both just have orders not to. Except from qualifying, we can't tell anything about the true speed of the mercedes cars.
Assuming the tyres does not pop before 36 laps, yes l and everyone else would be happy. Their 36 laps probably mean 32 laps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
There were talks about the kerbs at Beckett but there was no evidence that it was responsible for the tyre failures. You seem to find everyone else to blame for this, the teams, the track, maybe we should blame sky as well. It is what it is!
They haven't been asked to produce a tyre that does not meet their own clear stipulation to the teams regarding the maximum number of laps that a tyre should be run. If Pilrelli say 40 laps max for the hardest C1 tyre, that is what the teams reasonably expect the maximum life of the tyres to be. Not 37 laps. This is F1 the most technologically advanced racing platform in the world. If Pirelli say 40, then that is everyone's expectation.
That said, Silverston need more marshalls to do a proper clean up in the event of a crash. We cannot rule out cuts to the tyres being contributory to the tyre failure. Silverstone has always been very hard on tyres, Pirelli know that full well. Thats why they do tyre test at various tracks.
Those Petronas Mercedes cars are super fast! They are making Redbull and Ferrari look very ordinary. Both have been outdone on the chassis and engine front. 30 minutes lead puts Mercedes in a different formula, lets call it Formula Zero!Quote:
Originally Posted by denkimi
Regarding Kyvat's accident, this is what Pirelli had to say:
Quote:
Statement on Kvyat incident, British GP: a mechanical issue led to the inside of the wheel rim overheating, burning the bead of the tyre. So the bead was no longer able to seal the tyre onto the rim. This caused the deflation, with the tyre itself playing no part in the cause.
Did any team reach 40 laps on those tires ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitrodaze
Hello. Good day to you, sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nitrodaze
Personally, having a definite expectation of tyre life is too much to ask for by the teams. I've watched a Frank Dernie interview on YT. He was saying that the two hardest parts to get right in an F1 car are aero and tyres. This is obviously the case atm.
I think you'll find there's been a directive to have substandard tyres in F1 rules to manufacture the spectacle of the 2010 Canadian GP. A race where people seemed to enjoy the race with a tyres less suitable for the conditions causing a fluctuation of performance. It's why there's the rule of having to use two compounds.
They could make a tyre to perform sufficiently for a whole race. But the FIA/F1/teams/fans aren't interested in that.
How do you interpret the competitive situation between Hamilton and Bottas if the bolded is the case?Quote:
Originally Posted by denkimi
That's the point, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan