2017 Chinese Grand Prix - Shanghai 07-09 April

[ENGINE TUNER]

Before the Gio crash Vet was pitstop corrected ahead of Ham. It was pure luck, that the Bulls and Mercs got the free pitstop.
Interesting is the race to the SC pitstop: I was wondering about the speed especially Ham and Ver took. Good use of the rules?

Pitstop corrected? Whatever, VET was behind several other cars than HAM and would have been fallen further behind.

If the SC was pure luck than what was the VSC?

[FrukostScones]

so ALO broke the car because couldn't let go as some people speculate , the driveshaft sheered off becuase of his tring not to be overtaking shenigans? McLaren failed the "curb test" (the real one) ...?

[ENGINE TUNER]

so ALO broke the car because couldn't let go?

Seem like ALO had 2 left side wheels off and mashed the power peddle and spun the left rear hard while the right rear was on dry tarmac and may have killed the driveshaft.

[Godius]

Bottas spun whilst warming his tyres up. That's surly a rookie mistake, Bottas isn't a rookie.

On Sky they showed that Verstappen nearly did the same thing as Bottas, he just managed to save it: https://streamable.com/am88e

[Restomaniac]

Bottas spun whilst warming his tyres up. That's surly a rookie mistake, Bottas isn't a rookie.

On Sky they showed that Verstappen nearly did the same thing as Bottas, he just managed to save it: https://streamable.com/am88e

True but Verstappen is a far more inexperinced driver. Bottas should know better.
Infact it wasn't shown during the race and I was at a loss as to how he managed it DURING the SC.
When I saw it I just shook my head.

[basti313]

Ps: The safety car didnt put them behind RedBull. It was their own pitting under VSC that set them back while the Bulls stayed out.

??? So the Bulls didn't need to pit?
Nonsense...

The only nonsense here is suggesting that the safety car put RedBull ahead of Ferrari.

Again: Ferrari pitted under the VSC which put them BEHIND RedBull. At that point, RedBull had track position as a result of staying out. Fact. Indisputable.

If there were no crash and no resulting safety car, the RedBulls had still been ahead and it is anyones guess if the Ferrari on slicks would have had the pace to overtake cars on inters on that damp/wet track.

Bear in mind, inters = quicker in the corners and damp patches, slicks quicker on the dry parts. Also assuming any car on slick tires attempting an overtake would have to go off line to pass and on to the damp parts makes me think that attempting passes would be difficult.

Yes, over the course of 5-10 laps, the inters would have died eventually and normal pit stops more costly, so in this hypothetical scenario, i would have expected Ferrari to get past the Bulls (assuming no crashes or loss of control), but not into the lead.

The wrong assumption is, that the Inters were still competitive. Vet put 1sec in the one free sector on Ham. within one lap the Soft would have been easily 3sec faster than the Inters, because it had more grip in the corners at that point.
I see your point with overtaking, but the stops of the rest would have happened in the next 2-3 laps. The only question was if Vet could make up the 3sec gap to Ham or not.

[basti313]

Why wasn't Vettel punished for being half out of the box? Usually there were penalties for way smaller deviations from the proper starting position...

There is a clear rule. Vettel was close to breaking that rule, but had right enough of the car (1/2) in the starting box. This was often discussed last year with Ham starting not straight. Here Vet seemed to try to avoid the rubber lines.

[marvin78]

Charly Whiting explicitly allowed such things in several drivers meetings. Wurz said that on ORF.

[Phil]

And yet some drivers literally binned it at much lower speeds during the safety car. The 1 second in a sector is irrelevant without knowing the circumstance. Did the Sauber crash impact Hamiltons time earlier? In which sector was Seb when the VSC was released being half a lap down the order? How would have the traffic impacted him if he had been genuinly faster?

And btw; it was only one sector. A slick tire would always be quicker during certain stages but slower where it is damp. What exactly are you arguing here? Onr sector is not the entire lap and every lap.

[Jester Maroc]

Ricciardo is mediocre btw.

Are talking about the same Ricciardo who schooled Vettel in 2014? Ricciardo is doing a great job IMO and might have been able to pass Verstappen had there been a couple more laps left in the race.

[ENGINE TUNER]

OP thinks refuelling is the solution, another nonsense that can't die after 'durable tyres will help overtaking' and 'pushing 100% 1 stoppers are exciting'. I watched the second half only, except for Grosjean's overtakes nothing interesting. Is the first part worth watching? Probably will anyway.

Verstappen - what a whiner, begging for FIA's help again . Look, if the FIA hadn't gifted you position with bogus penalties, maybe you wouldn't have to deal with Grosjean in the first place. Brawn or Ecclestone, no difference, the same corrupted clique ruining this sport, stole some points from Haas and helped marketing chosen ones. Ricciardo is mediocre btw.

Are talking about the same Ricciardo who schooled Vettel in 2014? Ricciardo is doing a great job IMO and might have been able to pass Verstappen had there been a couple more laps left in the race.

RIC was compromised by the team not changing his tires the first time thru the pit lane

[f1316]

I think today showed a slight pace advantage for the Mercedes that continued into the race; I don't believe - in these conditions at least - that the Ferrari was the better race car, in fact I think there was probably a tenth or two advantage to the Mercedes. Given it's a front limited circuit, given the cool conditions, this may well explain the difference in how the cars were treating their tyres vs Melbourne.

On the SC debate: Vettel was 17 secs off the lead before Giovanazzi's accident; that's not enough for Lewis to pit and retain the lead. Regardless though, it was a gamble to pit early and it didn't pay off - that's just the way it is; luck/bad luck is all irrelevant.

[Phil]

F1316, correct, but it would have been sensless to pit at that point, or else they would have pitted under the VSC already. That 17 second gap would have extended as a result of traffic and pacing of the cars. One would also ask how much risk the drivers on slicks would be willing to take vs those on inters with more confidence over the entirety of a lap.

[basti313]

And yet some drivers literally binned it at much lower speeds during the safety car. The 1 second in a sector is irrelevant without knowing the circumstance. Did the Sauber crash impact Hamiltons time earlier? In which sector was Seb when the VSC was released being half a lap down the order? How would have the traffic impacted him if he had been genuinly faster?

S1 was more or less equal, S2 was much faster by Vet. The gap was not big, the stop under VSC cost much less than usual. Both had a clear S2 and at the end of the lap (20sec before Gio crashed), Vet hat a 17.896sec gap to Ham, 8sec clear air in front with all 5 cars in front at more or less equal pace.

And btw; it was only one sector. A slick tire would always be quicker during certain stages but slower where it is damp. What exactly are you arguing here? Onr sector is not the entire lap and every lap.

You are right, S2 was much faster, while the last corner was wet, so S3 was not faster. But the track was drying quickly. We were right at the crossover, the whole field changed to slicks one lap later when the SC was deployed (ok, easy call...).
My argument is: Without the SC this would have been hell of a good strategy move by Ferrari. Vet would have ended easily 5 or more seconds ahead of Ham. There is no way to deny that, all 5 cars ahead would have needed to pit soon without any chance for Ham to open the gap.

[ferkan]

I think today showed a slight pace advantage for the Mercedes that continued into the race; I don't believe - in these conditions at least - that the Ferrari was the better race car, in fact I think there was probably a tenth or two advantage to the Mercedes. Given it's a front limited circuit, given the cool conditions, this may well explain the difference in how the cars were treating their tyres vs Melbourne.

On the SC debate: Vettel was 17 secs off the lead before Giovanazzi's accident; that's not enough for Lewis to pit and retain the lead. Regardless though, it was a gamble to pit early and it didn't pay off - that's just the way it is; luck/bad luck is all irrelevant.

Exactly 0.030s per lap in last stint between Vettel and Bottas with Ham further behind. Mercs on new S, Vet on used. I think it was extremely close. Hard to judge when Vettel was stuck behind train. He was 6.3s behind by the end, got out with 10.6s deficit.