2016 Canadian Grand Prix - Montreal, Fri 10 – Sun 12 Jun

[digitalrurouni]

My own perspective is that to beat a Mercedes you need to have traffic in front of it and then they can't pass. But Merc seems to bank on the fact that they have 2 very similarly quick drivers with similar driving styles and what i have picked up is their setups are quite similar as well. Sometimes Lewis uses Nico's and vice versa. That gives Mercedes a stable 'platform' to go ahead and develop the car in the direction they have gone (which to me is_ - massively aero dependent couple with a really powerful PU. If people want to beat Mercedes they need to - have Mercedes mess up strategy or qualify in front of Mercedes and exploit Mercedes's bad starts. Dirty air is not a friend to the Mercedes cars.

That said Hamilton drove well and if someone is on the outside of a turn, it's pretty much over for them. I would have thought Nico knew that!

[Andres125sx]

Sheesh... you should know better....
How about we fire every single strategist on the pit wall because every single team yesterday ran a 2 stop race with at least one of their cars thinking that the softs would not last that long.

If they´re failing consistently as Ferrari strategist are doing, then yes, if it´s been a single mistake, then no. Is that that weird to you? Ferrari strategist are failing race after race, for a very long period now. This is not new, with Alonso they lost at least 1, maybe 2 titles because of that, poor strategist. Some seasons after, even after team renovation, they still keep making same mistakes

Mercedes with Hamilton planned a two stopper and switched to a one stopper because they rightly sssumed that was the only way they had a shot of finishing ahead of Vettel.

Because they have good strategist who can read race conditions, unlike Ferrari

I don't know how you came up with the theory that Alonso lost titles because of Ferrari strategy.

Really?

The problem with Alonso and his fans is that evrything right is done by their driver and everything wrong is done by the team.

So you´ve done a study and the conclusion is all Alonso fans are biased...

I'm assuming you're talking about the strategy @ AbuDhabi in 2010 and the strategists couldn't do anything in that situation.

What about not bitting RBR hook and not doing a pit-stop wich was way too early by any standard?

Also, the Mercedes strategists are the same people that botched Lewis' strategy at Monaco 2015 and the same chaps that called their drivers in @ Malaysia 2015.

Agree, that´s the reason I said myself they´ve done some mistakes, just in case you missed that part

My point is that no matter what the Ferrari strategists did yesterday, they would have looked incorrect.

What about not installing SS so the rest of teams can´t deduce they´ll go for a 2 stopper from lap 10?

If you need to do something different, hidding your strategy is basic so your rival can´t react so fast. But if you show your cards from lap 10, you can be sure you´ll never catch your rival off-guard

Lastly, you win and lose as a team! Not because or in spite of one another.

Sure, but we fans love analysing each aspect of F1, don´t we? That´s what I´m doing, and even when in this race I agree the outcome probably would have been the same no matter what Ferrari do, showing your cards so soon in the race IMHO is far from optimal, specially when you have to use S tires like it or not. If they´d have installed S tires on lap 10, Mercedes would have had serious doubts about if they were going for 1 or 2 stops, and that could have helped Seb chances. Instead of that, Mercedes knew for sure from lap 10 Seb had to do a second stop, so Lewis only had to take care of his tires to win the race, driving slowly as he did.

IMO that was a gift from Ferrari to Mercedes

[Schuttelberg]

Really?

Yes, emphatically. In the Alonso/Ferrari relationship, the strategy calls were generally as good as the Red Bull. Ferrari's reliability was always better than that of the Red Bull. The two drivers (Vettel and Alonso) were evenly matched, however I would say Alonso was overall slightly better. The place where they suffered was in season development, a stronger second driver and on a personal note, team morale. As the years went by, 'how do we make Alonso champion?' seemed to overtake the sentiment 'how do we become champions?' Fernando in his own head made himself bigger than the team, ultimately leaving it. I'm not going to debate with you about his driving prowess during his time with Ferrari because that's beyond any question. Team spirit? I think this also has been done to death and you may not want to admit it, but it was not as healthy as it could have been.

So you´ve done a study and the conclusion is all Alonso fans are biased..

I don't blame you for being biased. Even I lean on Vettel in arguments, but I have seen this immense drive in Alonso fans to blame Ferrari for him not becoming a WDC in that tenure. I'm sorry but Alonso is one of the most integral parts of that team and also a reason why they couldn't become champions. The same will apply to Vettel if he fails to do so. Mark my words!

What about not bitting RBR hook and not doing a pit-stop wich was way too early by any standard?

You're wrong again! When Alonso was made to box, Massa already had done so (a ploy by Ferrari to get him ahead of Webber) and the main reason to get him in was because the lap times were fading on the soft tyres. Also, if they didn't pit Alonso, they left him vulnerable to the undercut to Webber who was in a better position compared to Vettel in championship standings. We are all smarter after the event. At the time no one knew the softs would come back to life and it only made sense to cover Webber. Why don't you mention the fact that Alonso lost a place to Button at the start? Aren't his 'flying' starts often mentioned by his fans as part of his prowess?

What about not installing SS so the rest of teams can´t deduce they´ll go for a 2 stopper from lap 10?

If you need to do something different, hidding your strategy is basic so your rival can´t react so fast. But if you show your cards from lap 10, you can be sure you´ll never catch your rival off-guard

While I partly agree, in the colder temperatures and because of the nature of the SF-16H, Ferrari felt that the SS tyres would be easier to get temperature into as well as be quicker in terms of lap time just in case Mercedes went for a one stopper. That's what the data from Friday showed. They simply over estimated the degradation! When Ferrari committed to two stopping, there couldn't have been a better time to get Vettel in. He gained 7.5 seconds as a result of pitting under the VSC, thereby saving more than one third the time of a second stop. A no brainer if you ask me.

, but we fans love analysing each aspect of F1, don´t we? That´s what I´m doing, and even when in this race I agree the outcome probably would have been the same no matter what Ferrari do, showing your cards so soon in the race IMHO is far from optimal, specially when you have to use S tires like it or not. If they´d have installed S tires on lap 10, Mercedes would have had serious doubts about if they were going for 1 or 2 stops, and that could have helped Seb chances. Instead of that, Mercedes knew for sure from lap 10 Seb had to do a second stop, so Lewis only had to take care of his tires to win the race, driving slowly as he did.

Hamilton did a 1:15:8 on 40 lap old tires at the fag end of the race when Vettel was doing 1:16:1's and pushing flat out. I can understand the logic of putting the S instead of the SS, but like I said, Ferrari is a little less adaptable to the harder compound, plus they've been plagued with operating windows in regard to putting heat into the tyres. I will stick to my point that no matter what Vettel/Ferrari did, Hamilton/Mercedes would have done the opposite and passed them in the pits.

So I respect your opinion that you feel Ferrari threw it away, but if you calmly review the race and perhaps refer to live timings from Friday and Sunday, you'll simply conclude that the Mercedes-Hamilton combination was just quick enough to keep Ferrari-Vettel at bay.

[Edax]

I think there should be penalties for stuff like that. The driver on the inside should not be allowed to knock the outside driver off the track and get away with it. On the one hand we says we need to leave space but then when I driver knocks another driver off the track, they say " it wasn't avoidable" Sure it was if he went in slower. It already hard enough to pass without allowing the inside car knock the outside car off the track,

I fail to see where Hamilton didn't leave Rosberg enough space. To me it seems that at the point of contact Rosberg had a lot more real estate to play with than Hamilton.

[Jolle]

I think there should be penalties for stuff like that. The driver on the inside should not be allowed to knock the outside driver off the track and get away with it. On the one hand we says we need to leave space but then when I driver knocks another driver off the track, they say " it wasn't avoidable" Sure it was if he went in slower. It already hard enough to pass without allowing the inside car knock the outside car off the track,

I fail to see where Hamilton didn't leave Rosberg enough space. To me it seems that at the point of contact Rosberg had a lot more real estate to play with than Hamilton.
http://i1246.photobucket.com/albums/gg6 ... pture2.png
http://pmd.foxsports.com.au/images/2016 ... 045609.jpg

First of all, Hamilton was tough.
Second, you shouldn't just watch the stills. Because Rosberg was on the outside before the first turn, the normal line (like Vettel took) was unavailable and the early apex would have no other outcome then to run wide before turn two, and making that corner also less then perfect.

- the stewards don't see the problem
- Lauda thought is was fair
- even Berger, Nico's interim manager stated "it was Lewis his corner"
- in 2014 Lewis tried the same move in turn 1, backed off for turn 2 because there is no room....

[Andres125sx]

Really?

Yes, emphatically. In the Alonso/Ferrari relationship, the strategy calls were generally as good as the Red Bull. Ferrari's reliability was always better than that of the Red Bull. The two drivers (Vettel and Alonso) were evenly matched, however I would say Alonso was overall slightly better. The place where they suffered was in season development, a stronger second driver and on a personal note, team morale. As the years went by, 'how do we make Alonso champion?' seemed to overtake the sentiment 'how do we become champions?'

What is the difference? Massa obviously couldn´t fight for anything, he was consistently half a second slower and very far for the title fight

Team spirit? I think this also has been done to death and you may not want to admit it, but it was not as healthy as it could have been.

It was for at least the first three and a half seasons. After loosing two titles so painfully the relationship turned south, agree, but reading this sort of arguments I always wonder what where you (or anyone stating this) watching in 2010, 2011, 2012 and first half of 2013. The whole team was delighted with him, and he continously cheered both the race team and factory team

But if you loose two titles, and then the car becomes 3th-4th car in the grid, that simply was too frustrating for Alonso. Can you blame him for that?

I'm sorry but Alonso is one of the most integral parts of that team and also a reason why they couldn't become champions.

Me, like many more people including non Alonso supporters, think it´s the other way around, ferrari only fought for titles thanks to Alonso, as RBR was a far superior car wich made look Vettel faultless even when he was not

Even Hamilton agree with this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motors ... ettel.html

“Fernando, for me, is more accurate. He hits all the apexes. Sebastian misses four apexes on a single lap and still goes quickest. He goes off and he still goes quickest. And I think ‘Holy crap, I couldn’t do that lap even if I was on the limit’. His car is just that far ahead of everyone else’s.

Specially 2012 was so awesome I can´t understand how someone can say he was responsible for not becoming champions. Without Alonso they would have never been title contenders. Just take a look at Massa perfomance those seasons.

You're wrong again! When Alonso was made to box, Massa already had done so (a ploy by Ferrari to get him ahead of Webber) and the main reason to get him in was because the lap times were fading on the soft tyres. Also, if they didn't pit Alonso, they left him vulnerable to the undercut to Webber who was in a better position compared to Vettel in championship standings. We are all smarter after the event. At the time no one knew the softs would come back to life and it only made sense to cover Webber.

Maybe you´re right but think about this, how many times did Ferrari win a strategy battle and how many times they lose it in past 5-10 seasons?

It cannot be a coincidence, their strategy decisions are more often wrong than correct

Why don't you mention the fact that Alonso lost a place to Button at the start? Aren't his 'flying' starts often mentioned by his fans as part of his prowess? .

Yes, but if he sometime can´t make one of those great starts, that cannot be considered a mistake. It was not a bad start, but Button made it better. Also, even after loosing that position, they still were on a position good enough to win the title.

They simply over estimated the degradation!

And that was his mistake. Mercedes didnt and won the race. Ok they were leading, but Ferrari made it too easy for Mercedes showing their strategy so soon

When it´s a strategic battle, showing your cards is a gift to your rival

[giantfan10]

Turn about is fair play:

“Vettel, for me, is more accurate. He hits all the apexes. Hamilton misses four apexes on a single lap and still goes quickest. He goes off and he still goes quickest. And I think ‘Holy crap, I couldn’t do that lap even if I was on the limit’. His car is just that far ahead of everyone else’s.

[Jolle]

Turn about is fair play:

“Vettel, for me, is more accurate. He hits all the apexes. Hamilton misses four apexes on a single lap and still goes quickest. He goes off and he still goes quickest. And I think ‘Holy crap, I couldn’t do that lap even if I was on the limit’. His car is just that far ahead of everyone else’s.

Funny, in his RedBull days that was the general opinion about Vettel (missing the apexes and stuff)

[Chuckjr]

Turn about is fair play:

“Vettel, for me, is more accurate. He hits all the apexes. Hamilton misses four apexes on a single lap and still goes quickest. He goes off and he still goes quickest. And I think ‘Holy crap, I couldn’t do that lap even if I was on the limit’. His car is just that far ahead of everyone else’s.

Funny, in his RedBull days that was the general opinion about Vettel (missing the apexes and stuff)

Which renders how dominant that Red Bull was...and yet the Merc has been even more dominating. The car has been untouchable since start of 2014. Bring on 2017 and hope for some kind of competition at the sharp end. [-o<

[Andres125sx]

Turn about is fair play:

“Vettel, for me, is more accurate. He hits all the apexes. Hamilton misses four apexes on a single lap and still goes quickest. He goes off and he still goes quickest. And I think ‘Holy crap, I couldn’t do that lap even if I was on the limit’. His car is just that far ahead of everyone else’s.

Funny, in his RedBull days that was the general opinion about Vettel (missing the apexes and stuff)

Because that´s something Lewis said in RBR era about Alonso (more accurate) and Vettel (missing apex), and Giantfan10 manipulated, wich IMHO should be banned

The real quote is on my previous post, with the original link

[Vasconia]

Vettel looked untouchable with those RBs as Hamilton looks with such a dominant car. Its more interesting to watch how they behaved in 2014(Vettel) or 2011(Hamilton). They didnt look so good, uh?

[Andres125sx]

To put a bit more perspective, Alonso starting grid position average in those seasons was around 5th. You can say Alonso has never been the best in qualifying and I´ll agree, but not to the point of dropping to third line in the grid. That speak itself about what was Ferrari perfomance those seasons, even if you argue that car was better in race than qualifying, I´ve never seen any other driver fighting for a title from those grid positions. Then you get problems like Suzuka contact with Kimi, and some people will say that was Alonso mistake. Well, it was, but that´s what happens when you have to start from third line. Vettel never had that sort of problems, like Hamilton now

Even Ferrari said Alonso usually outperformed their most optimistic simulations. Again you can argue Ferrari simulations are useless, but they are all indicatives pointing to the same direction, Alonso made it awesome those seasons, so IMHO it´s not fair claiming he was responsible for not winning the title.

But this OT has gone way too far, so this will be my last post at the regard, sorry for derailing the thread

[giantfan10]

My post had nothing to do with vettel and everything to do with x driver complaining about dominant car then 3 years later he is in a more dominant car basking in his so called greatness.... i was pointing out the hypocrisy

[TAG]

These race threads are sometimes painful to go through. I happened to be at the GP this weekend so still catching up on all the online stuff, compounded by the fact that I had to wait for a race repeat since the actual race on NBC was preempted by the Orlando shooting coverage.

That being said sometimes people get so caught up in defending the driver they love or attacking the driver they love to hate and miss the actual performance. The race as a whole was a bit dull by Canada standards, but the crowd really was into it, completely behind Verstappen when he was being pushed by Nico. Regardless of what you think of the guy, Hamilton put in a master class in controlling the race from the front and the Ferrari struggled to get 3/4 of the life on the tires that Mercedes was getting.

The turn one stuff, it's racing it wasn't even (rightfully so) looked at by the stewards and it's stuff we see all the time, nothing wrong for making drivers accountable for their bad judgement and all of the drivers do it or have done it, some learn, others don't. This was the same deal as Australia at the beginning of the season, so if you give you need to be able to take and as a fan enjoy the sport for what it is or walk away for a while, instead of having a propensity for negativity that seems to follow some members. At least there's been more consistency in the race stewarding this year, unlike other seasons.

Anyway, here are some of the random pictures I took over the weekend, enjoy.





McLarend doing some testing in FP1, note the flo-vis around the rear





Then going over to get the race floor for FP2!



Favorite shot of the weekend, this if FP1, full grandstands are nice to see.



The Red Bull car has really good presence live, TV does not do it justice.







Rosberg/Verstappen battle, the crowd was going wild and very much behind the young whippersnapper.



Pretty damn fine drive from Carlos Sainz.

[Chuckjr]

My post had nothing to do with vettel and everything to do with x driver complaining about dominant car then 3 years later he is in a more dominant car basking in his so called greatness.... i was pointing out the hypocrisy

Exactly exactly exactly.
+10 giantfan10
=D> =D> =D>