Lewis Hamilton has won his home race, the British Grand Prix at Silverstone for the 6th time in his career. Valtteri Bottas ended up a disappointed second, followed by Charles Leclerc in third.
Then you'll need to ask Bottas and his race engineers, it was their callispano6 wrote: ↑15 Jul 2019, 09:34It's not about the two stops, it's about what tire was used for the 2nd stint.Just_a_fan wrote: ↑15 Jul 2019, 09:32Read zibby's post above viewtopic.php?p=847929#p847929 . The team decided both drivers should do two stops as that's what Pirelli were recommending. Hamilton knew he could make one stop work so he decided to try it out and see. If it didn't work then he still had the option to get a third set of tyres to the end. So Hamilton made the strategy call and then made it work. That's what champions do.ispano6 wrote: ↑15 Jul 2019, 09:24You still don't get it. It's not about the 1 stopper or 2 stopper, it's the fact the team decided to "split" strategies when both could have gone med-hard and raced to the end. Splitting strategies unnecessarily forced one of the two to decide to go med-med which automatically guarantees you have to 2 stop to change to a different compound. But we now know Hamilton had the strategy in mind like a few here did. It was a no-brainer and Bottas' side of the garage got duped into the inferior strategy.
It will be nice for FIA be consistent and get this things sorted, because on one side they are all about driver safety and add the halo on the cars and on the other side they let this little things slide and there are no rule to force driver coming in if there is a safety risk, or nothing to punish driver when they knowingly drive "unsafe" cars. And this is not only about VER and his seat, HAM also undid his seatbelt on the inlap. I remember him do that before in the past and GRO question it to Charlie in a driver's briefing. I wander how protected a driver is without the seatbelt in an incident like the one between Vettel and Stroll from 2017 that happened on the inlap.Restomaniac wrote: ↑15 Jul 2019, 12:59Sounds like he’s been smart thenturbof1 wrote: ↑15 Jul 2019, 12:41He was clever not to mention it during the raceRestomaniac wrote: ↑15 Jul 2019, 11:49He did yes. He said he was amazed he could bring such a damaged car home.
That was excellent, thanks!Titchener wrote: ↑15 Jul 2019, 13:25Excuse the poor filming technique but I thought some may appreciate a view of the cars going round Stowe, this is the first lap.
Honestly, the TV slows the cars down so much.
https://youtu.be/oUrMWsefn-U
I don't think you can blame the FIA here; how are they to know the seat is dislodged/unsafe if RBR or Max don't make the information public?amr wrote: ↑15 Jul 2019, 14:10It will be nice for FIA be consistent and get this things sorted, because on one side they are all about driver safety and add the halo on the cars and on the other side they let this little things slide and there are no rule to force driver coming in if there is a safety risk, or nothing to punish driver when they knowingly drive "unsafe" cars. And this is not only about VER and his seat, HAM also undid his seatbelt on the inlap. I remember him do that before in the past and GRO question it to Charlie in a driver's briefing. I wander how protected a driver is without the seatbelt in an incident like the one between Vettel and Stroll from 2017 that happened on the inlap.
With clear defined rules in place and penalties for braking them, the team/driver would not withhold information. FIA inspects the car afterwards anyway. I don't find it unreasonable to be disqualified if you drive with a car that is not protecting you. This situations are really rare so if it happens is bad luck and you have to stop. Also it goes against all the drive safe and don't drink and drive campaigns if the race winner drives without seatbelt. Don't get me wrong, I don't want HAM to be punished now, but I would like to have rules and penalities to prevent that in the future.zac510 wrote: ↑15 Jul 2019, 14:32I don't think you can blame the FIA here; how are they to know the seat is dislodged/unsafe if RBR or Max don't make the information public?amr wrote: ↑15 Jul 2019, 14:10It will be nice for FIA be consistent and get this things sorted, because on one side they are all about driver safety and add the halo on the cars and on the other side they let this little things slide and there are no rule to force driver coming in if there is a safety risk, or nothing to punish driver when they knowingly drive "unsafe" cars. And this is not only about VER and his seat, HAM also undid his seatbelt on the inlap. I remember him do that before in the past and GRO question it to Charlie in a driver's briefing. I wander how protected a driver is without the seatbelt in an incident like the one between Vettel and Stroll from 2017 that happened on the inlap.
It did occur to me that the FIA might want to know a bit more information and whether they endangered the driver's safety by keeping him out on the track and withholding safety information. Perhaps they can slap RBR with a fine for not resolving the issue and putting the driver in danger.
Hamilton didn't have a set of new Mediums, Bottas did. As far as pace, you'd think that if Bottas was on a two stopper with the fastest compounds available to him he'd have pushed the tires not worrying about their life. It was Hamilton's decision to change strategy. Bottas was driving well, certainly well enough to keep Lewis behind, I think the decision to change to a one stopper was made by Lewis the minute he got confirmation that Bottas had put on a second set of Mediums. Lewis at that point knew he could make the one stop work, and did. SC or not, that race was over then and there.turbof1 wrote: ↑15 Jul 2019, 11:00Well, maybe. You have of course arguments in favour of that, the excellent average pace and lifespan Hamilton was somehow able to extract out of those tyres and the track position.Just_a_fan wrote: ↑15 Jul 2019, 10:48turbo, I disagree about the safety car luck. I thought that too at the time, but even if there was no safety car, Hamilton's call to go one stop instead of two gave him the win. Bottas was always going to have to pit again and lose 20seconds on track. So even though Bottas would have been ahead after Hamilton's stop, Bottas had to stop again and Hamilton had only to stay within a few seconds of him to take the win after Bottas's second stop.
It was the choice of risking the one stop that won the race. That needed skill to make work - skill in keeping the first set of tyres alive longer, and then the skill to make the hards go longer than was predicted by Pirelli.
Hamilton made his luck and the safety car wasn't part of it.
However, Bottas' strategy was screwed the moment the SC went out. We just can't know if Bottas had more pace to play with, when he would have went in and how quick he'd be closing the gap towards Hamilton after the second stop. Instead, he dropped behind Hamilton while without a SC he would have stayed in front after Hamilton's change of tyres. We can argue that Bottas would then have stopped earlier and probably went for the hard tyres instead (can anyone confirm he still had a set of those left?). He definitely would have been faster, but we don't know by how much because again the SC threw that out of the window, instead having to settle for an attempt for the fastest lap (and I think he royally screwed that one up).
In the end, we don't really know how the race would have played out. There's certainly a case to be made for Hamilton winning the race anyway. However, nobody will disagree it at the very least gave him a healthy margin.
It is basically luck. But you can argue if that luck played a role at all
That entire video is absolutely wrecked by the voice over. I don't understand why they have an incessant need to dub the obvious on a video that is meant to be an audio and video experience (driving skill and car sounds). They could have just left the voice over as text in the description. But no. Must ruin the experience.djones wrote: ↑15 Jul 2019, 15:07Has anybody found an on-board of Hamiltons fastest lap?
I think that would be really interesting to see.
EDIT....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAhS8tQ3XA8
If we are to take Andrew Benson's word for it the decision was made before the raceTAG wrote: ↑15 Jul 2019, 15:16Hamilton didn't have a set of new Mediums, Bottas did. As far as pace, you'd think that if Bottas was on a two stopper with the fastest compounds available to him he'd have pushed the tires not worrying about their life. It was Hamilton's decision to change strategy. Bottas was driving well, certainly well enough to keep Lewis behind, I think the decision to change to a one stopper was made by Lewis the minute he got confirmation that Bottas had put on a second set of Mediums. Lewis at that point knew he could make the one stop work, and did. SC or not, that race was over then and there.turbof1 wrote: ↑15 Jul 2019, 11:00Well, maybe. You have of course arguments in favour of that, the excellent average pace and lifespan Hamilton was somehow able to extract out of those tyres and the track position.Just_a_fan wrote: ↑15 Jul 2019, 10:48turbo, I disagree about the safety car luck. I thought that too at the time, but even if there was no safety car, Hamilton's call to go one stop instead of two gave him the win. Bottas was always going to have to pit again and lose 20seconds on track. So even though Bottas would have been ahead after Hamilton's stop, Bottas had to stop again and Hamilton had only to stay within a few seconds of him to take the win after Bottas's second stop.
It was the choice of risking the one stop that won the race. That needed skill to make work - skill in keeping the first set of tyres alive longer, and then the skill to make the hards go longer than was predicted by Pirelli.
Hamilton made his luck and the safety car wasn't part of it.
However, Bottas' strategy was screwed the moment the SC went out. We just can't know if Bottas had more pace to play with, when he would have went in and how quick he'd be closing the gap towards Hamilton after the second stop. Instead, he dropped behind Hamilton while without a SC he would have stayed in front after Hamilton's change of tyres. We can argue that Bottas would then have stopped earlier and probably went for the hard tyres instead (can anyone confirm he still had a set of those left?). He definitely would have been faster, but we don't know by how much because again the SC threw that out of the window, instead having to settle for an attempt for the fastest lap (and I think he royally screwed that one up).
In the end, we don't really know how the race would have played out. There's certainly a case to be made for Hamilton winning the race anyway. However, nobody will disagree it at the very least gave him a healthy margin.
It is basically luck. But you can argue if that luck played a role at all
