2017 Monaco Grand Prix, Monte Carlo, 26-28 May

[zac510]

I think that if Raikkonen hadn't dropped into the 1:17s then Ferrari would have kept him out there for longer and he'd have won. He lost the race by not being able to keep both Ferraris clear in the lead [with several seconds gap]. His slow pace caused them to pit him to save Vettel and it was fortunate that he was able to save 2nd.

[Big Mangalhit]

Ultimately I think that by looking at the times and gaps (1s first stint with kimi in front; 11s second stint with Vet in front) we can all agree the faster driver won.

Also I am pretty sure if Vettel was in Kimi's car and with Kimi's strategy he would be able to keep the lead and win the race.

[godlameroso]

I guess the harder tire made driving more difficult and brought out the driver's real talent. The difference in lap time at the end is the true difference in skill as Raikkonen was not able to pull away from Vettel in the first half of the race, but Vettel could pull away at will and maintain a gap at the end.

Raikkonen was fast enough on the super soft tire, as the higher grip could mask some of the deficit, and it's not to take away from Raikkonen, as he was fast enough to get pole, and drove a flawless race, it's just that Vettel is that little bit faster.

Amazed at the pace of the Ferrari around here, the race pace is as fast or faster than pole position was in 2015. I still think the Mercedes is too complex for it's own good, where other's are going from simple to complex in a methodical way, Mercedes has gone full tilt, and it's given them a really fast car, at the expense of making it difficult to set up. They're still coming to grips with all the different flow structures, the suspension, how the platform reacts under different loads at different ride heights. The Ferrari engine is still a little slower than the Mercedes, so it makes it even more impressive that they've built such a fast car.

[Phil]

I think the more interesting question is: At the time the pit stops cascaded starting with Vestappen, what was the preferred strategy for the leading Ferrari? Pitting first or second?

Ferrari had two cars and they could have used either to cover off the cars from behind; Either by pitting Vettel first and later Kimi and the other way around. I think just as has been speculated before the race that being the 2nd car to pit would be advantageous. E.g. Vettel pitting first would have resulted in him getting the fresher tires first, but the draw back of that would be getting those harder tires into the right temperature window which might mean he would lose out to the leading car (assuming Kimi still had some performance left in those tires). If he didn't, he would have been screwed either way.

EDIT: Just watched the race again around the pistop window and Kimi just didn't deliver in the crucial phase that mattered, sadly for him. Kimi as the leading car should have been pushing like mad. Why didn't the engineer tell him? Push and then pit (as they usually do?). It just seemed strange... he asked about pitting and suddenly the call came immediately?

[Manoah2u]

Without the prestige and history Monaco is nothing really. It is a tricky track to get the lap right and the absolute track limits make the drivers pay when they get it wrong, but, those good traits on their own don't make a great racing circuit - a good TT circuit for F1 cars, may be.

The track often relies on strategy, attrition, SC & weather for excitement and on track action.

Yesterday's 78 laps of racing produced, I think, 1 on-track pass on merit (may have to recheck that, but, I'm not counting the start and opening lap). That sounds worse, if we consider HAM (a capable racer, among the best out there) started from 13... and it sounds even worse if we consider VER (the wonderkid who is bit of an overtaking specialist according to many) was within DRS range of BOT with better tires (fresh US against used SS) and yet couldn't pass him for 10 laps after SC went in.

So, Monaco, without the heritage, is at the bottom of table when it comes to quality of racing. I'm sure some out there with better knowledge could defend it citing some exceptions from its long history and unforgiving nature of the track, but, that is not the point here - a track that struggles to produce racing on-track can't justify its position in the calendar (even if it is Monaco).

If Monaco has become even tougher to overtake with '17 spec wider cars, then, it solidifies the argument that without some external influence the racing is going to be a procession here in the coming years.

P.S: F1 has never been an overtaking spectacle in the recent times, the rules & tools of racing need to be improved to produce fair racing. But, that doesn't excuse the tracks like these. And this is just my opinion.

To be fair, i think a lot of the boreness was due to missing out some title contender fights.

Hamilton was toasted saturday and had no chance on making an impact during the race. He had to play safe. If Hamilton would have had P3 on qually or P2 (perhaps even P1) it would have been much more interesting, as a lot more was to be gained for Mercedes and more to be lost for Ferrari. After the start, Ferrari really had it in the bag and Vettel was treated a dish of tasty goods. Verstappen and Ricciardo had some cool fights. Some driver's attempts to pass ended in tears, including button's move.

The specific race was relatively boring, yes. But I don't think that's down to Monaco itself or the size of the cars.

Not every race can be fireworks. It wasn't like that ever in the past either.

[zeph]

Did anybody seriously expect Ferrari to let Raikkonen stay ahead of Vettel? VET has a realistic shot at the WDC, and with Hamilton so far back it was a golden opportunity to solidify his lead.

I knew they were always gonna swap places, and to be fair, VET did seem quicker than RAI once he got ahead of him.

[maxxer]

Looks like the chicanes were to tight for these big cars , maybe they could relax a little on that. also i didnt see any car actually going into 8th gear on this track or maybe some in the tunnel did ?
Seems 8 gears are abit too much on such a track ? Anyway they did make a mess of the whole presentation with the 1 minutes silence and the interviews. Then the whole sky team standing in the way all of the time while they try to pack things, Race is over everyone is packing up , but sky is still trying to make tv lol

[PlatinumZealot]

- So team orders came in the form of a pitstop switch. Told ya.

- Another chapter in the epic '17 championship battle.

- Hamilton's car fixed itself mid-race. It will make excuses making harder .

Different tyres. And he was still slow as molasses.

[PlatinumZealot]

Discussion is going a lot better, guys. Keep that up.

Okay then..

This feels very...

Where are the cameras?

Is this a reality show?

[mani517]

@zac510, I beg to differ. Car design didn't take a step backward -- it just never took a step in the right direction in recent past. I feel the wider cars and increased mechanical grip were a good couple of steps, but, they are pretty much undone by the aero sensitivity of the cars. So, while I acknowledge the shortcomings of the cars, I'm merely stating the shortcomings of this track.

The same wider aero sensitive cars raced close in the last few races -- not hundreds in number, but, there were some quality passes. The F1 world (even drivers and team) acknowledge passing is pretty much impossible in Monaco, so, my argument isn't baseless.

Monaco has failed (bar some exceptions in its long history) to offer fair racing opportunities, VER vs BOT yesterday was a good example. We saw that US was considerably superior to SS, we also saw that RedBull was a match for Mercedes, but, in spite of tailing BOT's gearbox for few laps VER can't find a way to pass. In my view, equally competitive car, better tires, DRS proximity (not one, but, all 3 together) favored VER and yet he couldn't find a way past BOT. Now, if we need to push the argument we can say VER simply wasn't on top his game yesterday, but, 78 laps and 1 overtake isn't a stat that helps.

"Don't shoot the messenger" -- you see circuit as a messenger for shortcomings of the car, but, I see the cars as messengers for the shortcomings of the circuit. In my view, both are fair arguments, so, blindly defending the circuit (just because of its status and history) doesn't seem fair.

I agree with all of your points. I stated that there's never a single reason why we have a bad race, it's always a collusion of several factors (like a plane crash) and we are each just stating two of the main factors that made yesteday's Monaco race a bit boring.

However the reason why I defend Monaco is that I think it's important to have a diverse range of tracks - some that are tight and twisty (Monaco, Hungary), some that are flat out (Canada, Monza) that highlight different strengths and weaknesses of cars and drivers. If the tracks were homogenous then the car designs would be even more convergent (like a spec-series) and the best execution would win more often.

If Brawn and his team get the aerodynamic/following cars part right, Monaco will really come back to be a valuable race IMO, because of its unique technical and driver challenge. I hope we don't lose that!

I'm sure I would love a Monaco where overtaking is tough, but, possible. With the current cars, it is bordering the impossible territory for various reasons.

I understand your point of view and respect it. But, Monaco will become a bit more relevant in my book when cars can find a way to pass on track more often. Hopefully, Brawn and co can do something about it, as you mentioned.

Cheers!

[mani517]

Without the prestige and history Monaco is nothing really. It is a tricky track to get the lap right and the absolute track limits make the drivers pay when they get it wrong, but, those good traits on their own don't make a great racing circuit - a good TT circuit for F1 cars, may be.

The track often relies on strategy, attrition, SC & weather for excitement and on track action.

Yesterday's 78 laps of racing produced, I think, 1 on-track pass on merit (may have to recheck that, but, I'm not counting the start and opening lap). That sounds worse, if we consider HAM (a capable racer, among the best out there) started from 13... and it sounds even worse if we consider VER (the wonderkid who is bit of an overtaking specialist according to many) was within DRS range of BOT with better tires (fresh US against used SS) and yet couldn't pass him for 10 laps after SC went in.

So, Monaco, without the heritage, is at the bottom of table when it comes to quality of racing. I'm sure some out there with better knowledge could defend it citing some exceptions from its long history and unforgiving nature of the track, but, that is not the point here - a track that struggles to produce racing on-track can't justify its position in the calendar (even if it is Monaco).

If Monaco has become even tougher to overtake with '17 spec wider cars, then, it solidifies the argument that without some external influence the racing is going to be a procession here in the coming years.

P.S: F1 has never been an overtaking spectacle in the recent times, the rules & tools of racing need to be improved to produce fair racing. But, that doesn't excuse the tracks like these. And this is just my opinion.

To be fair, i think a lot of the boreness was due to missing out some title contender fights.

Hamilton was toasted saturday and had no chance on making an impact during the race. He had to play safe. If Hamilton would have had P3 on qually or P2 (perhaps even P1) it would have been much more interesting, as a lot more was to be gained for Mercedes and more to be lost for Ferrari. After the start, Ferrari really had it in the bag and Vettel was treated a dish of tasty goods. Verstappen and Ricciardo had some cool fights. Some driver's attempts to pass ended in tears, including button's move.

The specific race was relatively boring, yes. But I don't think that's down to Monaco itself or the size of the cars.

Not every race can be fireworks. It wasn't like that ever in the past either.

I agree, not every race can be fireworks. But, to me, even an avg. race should show some on-track battles - front-runners or not. I would gladly accept a good scrape in the mid-field or at the back.

In my view, we shouldn't become tolerant to processional races just because the track demands more from the driver. The track delivers exceptionally in couple of areas, but, that can't become an excuse for below par performance elsewhere.

[henra]

The critical laps around Ferrari's pit-stops
Lap Raikkonen Vettel
30 1:17.105 1:16.636
31 1:17.074 1:17.166
32 1:17.663 1:17.052
33 1:17.034 1:17.188
34 1:34.039 (in-lap) 1:16.592
35 1:19.518 (out-lap) 1:16.446
36 1:16.114 1:16.264
37 1:16.133 1:15.587
38 1:15.606 1:15.238
39 1:15.527 1:32.673 (in-lap)
40 1:17.709 1:18.650 (out-lap)

The lap times of Kimi improved by 1,5s on the SS. Which kind of puts to rest the assumption that the new SS was the slower tyre for him. Seb was simply much faster than Kimi in the Race (for whatever reason). Had it been reverse Seb would have done an undercut on him and everyone would also have screamed and shouted: 'Team Order', 'Unfair', etc.. pp.
Kind of Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Would have loved to see Kimi win but somehow he lost his qualifying mojo in the race.

[munudeges]

EDIT: Just watched the race again around the pistop window and Kimi just didn't deliver in the crucial phase that mattered, sadly for him. Kimi as the leading car should have been pushing like mad. Why didn't the engineer tell him? Push and then pit (as they usually do?). It just seemed strange... he asked about pitting and suddenly the call came immediately?

I think that says it all. From what I remember Raikkonen didn't even seem to know he was coming in, and seemed surprised. All they had to do was find a few tenths of a second, which is all he would have needed. For all the talk of 'Vettel was faster' he just managed to come out ahead. Like Hamilton said, if you have a team working for you there's no way you can lose track position like that.

However, given that this is the one talking point of that 'race' tells you the new owners and Ross Brawn have their work very much cut out. I hardly think this would have gained Formula 1 any fans.

[djos]

I can understand why some folks don't love Monaco, qually is absolutely the best part but I personally do enjoy the race strategy as well despite the "racing" being fairly processional.

I think this years race was worse than normal for overtaking simply because the yellow sausage curve at the swimming pool chicane, (after the tunnel), strongly discouraged overtaking due to the 100% likelyhood of ripping your floor to shreds. In previous years drivers would overtake through there with only their left side wheels still on the track. Admittedly this was barely legal, but this year it was not an option at all.

[Artur Craft]

Perez so close to Schumacher's lap record. With refuelling these cars would be much faster.

The previous lap record was from Hamilton(2016) and that was like a high 1.16(I think). The current layout is faster(the Swimming Pool Complex is more opened now?).

As all other tracks have already showed, the current cars cannot touch the lap records and that wouldn't happen even with refueling. I don't understand this argument, really. Perez did those times with fresh Ultra Softs with very low fuel onboard. What's different to a 2004-2008 race condition?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8k-D9-AZoo

You can see on this video that a 1994 Benetton have superior cornering than a 2017 Ferrari as the lap used on there is quite far from the pole of that year. These 2017 tyres are too slow/hard. The 2010 Bridgestones had about the same durablity but offered more grip despite being narrower(weren't troublesome to heat).

SS tire was quite a bit slower at first and US could last whole race (and also traffic made undercut worse/riskier).

all tyres can always last the whole race. The important thing is how quick they can go. The reason Ricciardo passed BOT and VER is because they got stuck on traffic. Kimi was lapping at 1.17.0 on his old US. After the pit, he was doing 1.15.5 on new SS. So, the degradation of the US was of 2.5s(as a new US would be capable of ~1.14.5)

I only checked the forum now and I was surprised to see the amount of moderating. Seriously people, wtf? I really didn't think people would give work to mods on such race where not many controvertial things happened.What nobody talked about due to all the KimixVettel pitstop thing, is how slow the W08 was on the SS.

Mercedes car is far from being as dominant as it was in the years where it's PU was head and sholders better. Now their car is slower than Ferrari on all kinds of corners and Red Bull seems faster too but Renault is rubbish and make them look far worse than what they really are(RB will be far again on Canada, Baku....).

On a track where power is not be all and end all of racing, mercedes suddenly became only the 3rd fastest race car. Just gonna leave that here.

As always, you notice the very important things that most people seems too miss.

@mani517, what race did you watch? Maybe I massively missed a second pit from VER but, afaik, he had the same SS tyres as BOT. RB just seemed much faster on that compound.