Nick didn't look too happy .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

You shouldn't take fastest laps all too seriously.

DC had 7th fastest lap and the Toyotas were no where and yet they got solid results because they called the strategy right and the drivers made the most of it.

Nick shouldn't have much too complaints regarding strategy because Kubica was lighter and was one of the first to pit, Nick was fuelled longer and could play with the strategy.

To give Nick a very slight benefit of doubt he wasn't on the best of 1 stoppers because he had to pit on lap 29, the Toyotas got as far as lap 39. Ideally you want to do a shorter last stint, not the other way round but there were SC periods.

Nick messed up. He has no one else to blame but himself, IMO.

---

As Ioan asked , what exactly did Nick mess up ?

He was clearly upset at having his strategy CHANGED .
He went to lap 29 , which by your own admission , is not the best of one-stoppers , where they had the option to fuel him for the rest of the race , or stay with the two stop .

They chose the latter , even though it crippled Heidfeld .
He was heavy , and , even though they knew he would be compromised by running the options for the whole stint , they did it .

Part of that 2 seconds was fuel , and part was tires .
Neither would have hampered his progress , had they left him with his original plan .
In fact , given that nobody corrected my assertion that he had second fastest lap , I will say that he was the likely one to win .

Mario terminated that possibility .

Mario seemingly still needs to justify his choice of Kubica over Villeneuve .
That's the only reason I can think of to kill one of his driver's chances .

Nick didn't mess up, he isn't as good as RK. IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F1boat

Nick didn't mess up, he isn't as good as RK. IMO.

---

Maybe that's true , boat , but we never got to see that contest .
That's what I'm on about , and why I believe Nick was upset .

We were deprived of a really close contest between two drivers in identical cars on the same strategy .

One got the pole because of his strategy , and the other , in the lead , turning the second fastest lap of the race , was forced , apparently against his wishes , to apopt a strategy that compromised his race .

It was only a difference of 2 points , both being brought home for the same team , so no real advantage to the team other than to have Robert a further two points ahead in the WDC .


It sucks to be Nick , so close and yet so far .

I think that Alonso was the reason for the strategy change, not some evil conspiracy.

after watching the race again, I must saythat I find BMW's race strategy eith Nikc Heidefeld very curious. Wothout going out and saying that teamorders were in play, I do beleive that the preferential treatments was given to RK.

IMO he's the #1 at BMW now and I can't really take issue with that as he's leading the WDC. but I do think that purposfully changing Nicks strategy around to his detriment and to the benefit of his teammate is not the way I envisioned BMW and thiesen to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F1boat

Nick didn't mess up, he isn't as good as RK. IMO.

---

That's what I meant. Nick messed up on not getting the win.

As I said, Nick was the last of the 2 stoppers so because he had more fuel they could play with the strategy because of the SC.

He shouldn't have thrown a fit criticising the strategy, surely you make the most of what's given, whatever the circumstances? Why did Nick slow down after being overtaken by Kubica?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

We were deprived of a really close contest between two drivers in identical cars on the same strategy.

---

Why should they both be on the same strategy? BMW had to cover their bases for possible eventualities because a SC period was likely to ruin the original race strategy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

One got the pole because of his strategy , and the other , in the lead , turning the second fastest lap of the race

---

Oh please, second fastest lap is next to meaningless.

Kubica admitted he had to do 7 consecutive qualy laps at the end of his race stint and yet he's classified 4th fastest race lap. For all I know 'Quick-Nick' wouldn't be able to replicate that kind of feat.

Thinking back to Melbourne, Nick messed up there as well because he never made the effort to challenge Hamilton on restarts.

Nick is becoming less favourable by the minute. When it comes to the crunch, the more I see him as a chump.

If there is favouritism then you can see why because Kubica earnt it all year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

That's what I meant. Nick messed up on not getting the win.

As I said, Nick was the last of the 2 stoppers so because he had more fuel they could play with the strategy because of the SC.

He shouldn't have thrown a fit criticising the strategy, surely you make the most of what's given, whatever the circumstances? Why did Nick slow down after being overtaken by Kubica?



Why should they both be on the same strategy? BMW had to cover their bases for possible eventualities because a SC period was likely to ruin the original race strategy.



Oh please, second fastest lap is next to meaningless.

Kubica admitted he had to do 7 consecutive qualy laps at the end of his race stint and yet he's classified 4th fastest race lap. For all I know 'Quick-Nick' wouldn't be able to replicate that kind of feat.

Thinking back to Melbourne, Nick messed up there as well because he never made the effort to challenge Hamilton on restarts.

Nick is becoming less favourable by the minute. When it comes to the crunch, the more I see him as a chump.

If there is favouritism then you can see why because Kubica earnt it all year.

---

It is clear you don't believe in Nick , and believe strongly that Kubica is better .

None of Robert's "7 qualifying laps" were as fast as Nick's fastest , so I'm not sure how you extrapolate that into Nick not being "able to replicate that kind of feat" .

Nick has had a hard time warming the tires , whereas Robert , more aggressive in cornering , gets them to temperature sooner , a common condition in pitlane this year .
He has , as a result , has fuelled heavy for final quals , giving him an advantage , should the safety car come out , and the advantage of running light after everyone else pits .

Nick lead , and had a great chance at the podium , but only if he could run lighter , two-stopping the second half .

Once they fuelled him heavy , and he knew he had to nurse the soft tires to make them last half the race , he knew his only option to help the team was to salvage second . That , he did .

He's starting to know how Jacques felt .

Heidfeld quite obviously played the team game when he put up no resistance to Kubica's pass. It would have been to Heidfeld's advantage to keep Kubica behind him for as long as possible, thus negating Kubica's advantage of a lighter car. But would it have been to BMW's advantage?

Heidfeld's rather disappointed face says that though he played the team game he only did it under instruction and it was an instruction he didn't seem to like.

This is the problem with the whole issue of team orders. Teams should either designate a No.1 and a No.2 so that everybody knows where they stand or they should have equal No.1s in fact as well as name. When you let your drivers believe that they are equal you better back that up in deed. Just ask McLaren what happens when you say one thing and do another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wedge

That's what I meant. Nick messed up on not getting the win.

---

To win against your team's wishes is not a possibility in F1!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

Mario seemingly still needs to justify his choice of Kubica over Villeneuve .That's the only reason I can think of to kill one of his driver's chances .

---

I was wondering whats the big interest about Heidfeld suddenly when all can see that Kubica has been easily the quicker guy (this year atleast)...but then I read the name JV and all is clear.