no big donkeys today :)
Printable View
no big donkeys today :)
Stewards - I think they were looking for something to do, to be honest.
van der Garde should have got a drive-through (as a maximum) and neither of the others warranted a drive-through at all.
Plenty of people making little mistakes, but mostly getting punished worse than they deserved... does that make the stewards the donkeys?
Donkey of the race is Pirelli, durable tires result in domination and boring races. Easily the most boring race of the year.
the crowd for whistling at our vett (or was it at eddie?) :p
No donkeys this time. But thumbs down for the stewards for Sutil's punishment, also for all the guys who cruised on one pit stop.
Ted Kravitz said that the clash with Webber demonstrates that you should pass the Dutchman on the left hand side. :p
Ferrari for having such poor traction out of slow corners :confused: ;) :angryfire :beer: :wave:
agreed Geido
and a tiny bit to sutil for not mivng over and getting the just drive thru
other than that, no real donkey's of the race
Damon for suggesting Ham might have tagged Alo's rear tyre deliberately :andrea:
I'm still at a loss for why sutil got a penalty. also, alonso passed someone under yellow it looked like, on the NBC feed anyway.
1. van donkey
2. stewards if they don't give Fernando a penalty (if the above is true.)
3. inbred retards at the podium ceremony.
Man, i noticed that as well. Still managed a fast lap at 1:16.2 (just barely blipped by Webber)of the race.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alca-Tazizzle
I suppose that Singapore is the only other track where slow corner traction is important?
I enjoyed this race alot. Funny how people differ.Quote:
Originally Posted by DexDexter
I thought Van der Garde's penalty was harsh, Webber came from a long way back and I dont think the Caterham driver knew he was there. He ran a little deep into the hairpin and Webber stuck his nose there too quickly and spun him off.
I think both were to blame.
As for his next incident, Hulkenberg pulled across to early after lapped VDG.
Sutil held Hamilton and Alonso up for nearly a lap, so was a bit silly, especially as he was running alone.
Other than those, I cant see too much Donkey worthy
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveaki13
i suspect it has little to do with the actual race. You can't take anyone serious who says something like that after Monaco and Barcelona. just the qualifying session was better/more interesting than those entire race weekends-- added together.
Two donkeys for me - van der Gaarde. We've seen backmarkers resolving blue flags better than that. Second one - Pirelli. One tyre compound goes 60 laps on paul's FI, the other compound barely survives a dozen laps. It's all too artificial and manipulative.
Well as I said everyone is entitled to there view, but after Barcelona where people said there were too many stops, and Monaco where no one pushed until Lap 35. Now they are saying we need more stops to spice it up again??? I mean WTF? What do people want?
Just 500 passes a race. No matter how they are achieved
Its meant to be drivers pushing hard (which from what I saw they were) and racing with the best driver winning (which he did).
People defended (Bottas & Rosberg for example, people attacked (Alonso & Massa for example), people tried different strategies (di Resta & Button- which worked better for Paul).
All these three things are all I require to enjoy a motor RACE. As opposed to an "entertainment passing fest"
Still there you go
I still have to give McLaren donkey of the race. It takes an incredible amount of ineptitude to do what they have managed, go from being the fastest car on the grid last year to now being slower than the Force India. Mighty stuff from the Macs. They are my donkey team of the year.
Yer.
Martin Whitmarsh stated on Sky that they told Jenson to be very cautious on his second stint on his one stopper, but after the race found the tyres were fine and he could have pushed much harder.
That is pointless to find you had so much performance left. Just let the driver judge. What a waste.
Mclaren really suck lately
I don't think that Mclaren's performance or lack thereof is a major surprize though. There were three teams, who opted to scrap last year's fairly good designs - McLaren, Williams and Sauber. And all three of them are appealingly slow this year. Sauber had a car that scored podiums, Williams even won a race and McLaren was the fastest car for most parts of last season. Why in the name of all that's holy did they abandon these cars and go for clean-sheet design in a transition year?? That's three major brainfarts there...
Appealing to you perhaps ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by dj_bytedisaster
But the fact that all three of them made the same choice suggests it was probably a reasonable decision at the time.
It was actually meant to be 'appallingly'. Darn spellchecker...Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyL
Yep, that's how it goes. I just don't enjoy races where the leader just disappears into the distance from lap 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by steveaki13
I don't know, after some 30 years of F1, I'd like to think I've seen enough races to form a reasonably objective opinion on whether a race is exciting or not. Vettel was never challenged, just cruised onto a victory. Boring stuff IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by vhatever
I don't know, after some 30 years of F1, I'd like to think I've seen enough races to form a reasonably objective opinion on whether a race is exciting or not. Vettel was never challenged, just cruised onto a victory. Boring stuff IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by vhatever
But after some 30 years of F1, you should also know that you can't reduce a race to just its winner. Alonso's drive from 6th to 2nd alone was better than most we've seen so far this year. Aren't you mixing up boring and disappointing here?Quote:
Originally Posted by DexDexter
The Williams car was a donkey. Even after starting from second row, Bottas couldn't it even into a humble P10.
VDG was slow, but that's not new.
Sutil's spin disappointed as I had high expectations after Monaco. He did save the car and bounce back into the points, which was impressive. I don't think he deserved the penalty though. I don't know what the formal rules say, but the blue flag should not mean roll over and die. The driver, as long as he is not blocking and not moving his car in anticipation of the follower, should be allowed to drive full throttle and take the usual racing line. It should be the following driver's worry to find a way around the lap car.
Webber - regardless of his coming together with VDG he never once looked like podium material whilst team mate Vettel was as per usual pi**ing all over the opposition.
Why do some people insist Webber is an under rated driver?
No I know its not ideal and we would all rather see a battle all race, but we know this happens sometimes but it doesnt mean the whole race is poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by DexDexter
Also it was a great drive by Vettel and great drives regardless of how easy they look are impressive and enjoyable.
I dont think he deserved a penalty either, but I think the rules say that as a backmarker you cannot pass more than 3 or 4 blue flags.Quote:
Originally Posted by zako85
I think he recieved blue flags at every marshall post for almost a lap and thus must have passed more than that.
I think its harsh, but thats why he was given a penalty. Why he was given a drive thru and VDG a stop Go. I am not sure.
If it was for the contact with Webber (which personally I think Webber has a major share of the blame) it should have been stated so by Race Control. As it was he got exactly the same infringement on Screen. "Ignoring the Blue Flags".
Thus the penalty should be the same.
Mark Webber.
The Red Bull was the fastest car out there (which he proved) and yet Seb got pole and won the race. Webber with the fastest car could only manage fourth; with three former champions ahead of him... :P
I'd say more than Mark, Red Bull deserves a permanent donkey, really. It's been known for at least three years now, that the driving styles of Webber and Vettel are extremely different. Last season was all the proof you needed. In the early season the car (with less rear downforce) fit Mark's style and he was way more comfortable in the car than Vettel, hence his two wins to Vettel's one at Bahrain. Once the Newey gang had clawed back the loss of rear downforce from the nixed trick diffusor, the car was to Vettel's liking and Mark dropped back as if he was dragging an anchor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Why RB insist on keeping this particular combo is a mystery to me. Bot Vettel and Webber seem unable to adapt to the car if it doesn't fit their preference. So they are always going to have one driver, who underperforms and given the fact, who's been bringing home the bacon in the last years, I doubt they're going to adapt the car to Mark.
Usually I do not think about donkeys, but watching the race this time one driver stood out very clearly to me. Not only did van der Garde lack pace, but also got involved in several embarrassing incidents in what was otherwise quite a clean race with little attrition. Only 3 retirements - one was vdG, other was the driver he took out as a backmarker (Hulk).
Perhaps he was that in Williams and also early Red Bull years. But now he is in a slow decline mode and indeed not really underrated any more. Same with Massa.Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
I agree about the lack of pace, that was poor he was 3 laps down when he retired.Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
A question though. Did you not feel Hulkenberg turned into VDG to early when retaking the racing line? Just a thought. VDG obviously eased up on the straight, and Hulkenberg went past and instead of taking the inside line, he tried to pull over onto the normal line where VDG still was.
What do you think?
I see, where you are coming from. But the difference was that vd Garde was a lapped driver and Hülkenberg fully expected him to simply brake earlier. I mean usually, when we see drivers getting lapped, they really ease off the throttle enough to let the driver fully in front before the braking zone and not get your nose in there.Quote:
Originally Posted by steveaki13
When drivers race for position, then you have an argument that a car wasn't a car length ahead and should have taken this into account. But a good lapped driver takes into account that he has no claim to "race for track position" and makes it comfortable for the guys to get ahead. It was not like Hulk made a last-gasp dive, which came as a surprise to vd Garde. The Dutchman must have seen the German behind him and considered letting him past already in the beginning of the long straight.
Having drivers with different preferences is an eternal problem for F1 teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by dj_bytedisaster
Kubica and Heidfeld were different. Heidfeld shone in 2007, Kubica in 2008. In both years the other driver's potential wasn't properly fulfilled.
Trulli and Ralf Schumacher were different. Too often only one of them was on pace, while the other struggling. It was too visible even in car design. Once they designed a front suspension suitable to Ralf, Jarno lost his magnificent pace.
Fisichella could never properly adapt to the car in which Alonso stood out.
F1 teams want two competitive drivers even if they have different styles. It is a compromise, but they think it is a better compromise than having a lesser even if somewhat similar driver to the lead driver. Because the lesser driver would still throw it away and not perform, while the quality driver is able to adapt at least to some extent to deliver at least solid results.
Thats true. I just felt Hulkenberg should have kept his wits about him and knowing he was passing so late into the corner, just left a bit more space.Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
If he had passed earlier on the straight then he would be entitled to move across back onto the racing line and not expect VDG to be there, but as it was so late you can never be sure whether he would still be there or he might make an error.
I just think Nico was a bit careless.
Anyway VDG was very poor this race. Just an observation