2013 Malaysian GP - Sepang

[Nando]

I tried to say what I'm about to say before, but I don't think it came out right.

Regarding Rosberg on Hamilton.

If Lewis had been told to drive a certain way by his engineers (as they all are) that ultimately meant he was in fuel saving from lap 25, and meant that Nico would be allowed breeze past him in the later stages, is that not giving Nico position by team orders of a different kind?

Those orders being whoever made the call to short fuel and the call for Lewis to drive in a way which meant he didn't have enough left in the tank at the end of the race?

That being the case, can we use the word "deserving" to say that Nico deserved third? Does having more fuel in your car mean you deserve the position over a team mate who qualified better and drove as needed (when able to) in order to maintain their position?

My take on it is that Mercedes wanted to pay back the fact that they gambled with the fuel to Hamilton by letting him keep the 3rd place looking at the fact that he was ahead for the whole race, he was the one overcutting Vettel (if it was Hamilton exiting the pits)
And without his little blunder in the pits he probably could have challenged Webber there for a while.

Rosberg was behind the whole race and was only relevant to Hamilton when he started saving fuel, he came too late to the party imo.

[turbof1]

I still think it's a combination of both: maintain position, turn engine down. If anything it is just like a police code.

[mohsdad]

It seemed like MW's race was in question when Seb was calling to get MW moved out of the way when he was over a second behind? Maybe RB used the multi 21 to get Seb the chance to pass?

[performergr]

Hi guys.I notice, Vettel do a braketest to Alonso...

onboard video from vettel's start?

[myurr]

Hi guys.I notice, Vettel do a braketest to Alonso...

onboard video from vettel's start?

Davidson's comment was that Vettel was very slow on the apex and that caught Alonso out, but that this was Vettel's right. I think he was just trying to make sure he got the best exit possible compared to the cars around him so that they wouldn't have a run at him into turn 4.

[aral]

I still think it's a combination of both: maintain position, turn engine down. If anything it is just like a police code.

Earlier in the race, plain english was used to tell Vettel to maintain a gap/position. No need for any code. Merc also used plain english. So the question is, WAS Vettel actually told to maintain position? So far, there is nothing to say he was.

Also, if Webbers engine was "turned down" as claimed, how could he manage to fight Vettel and stay within a few seconds of him.

Only telemetry holds the answer, anything else is pure speculation.

PS. Should all this not be in race thread?

[WhiteBlue]

Contrary to myurr's criticism I have not claimed to state facts and I'm not alone with many of my opinion points. There is a bunch of people out there who share my views. Beside that the reliability of the Renault engines is simply proven by examining the facts. Since Seb blew an engine in Korea 2010 I cannot think of an outright failure of the core engine which wasn't caused by a failing ancillary bit. Red Bull have no point to stand on if they claim the needed to save engines. That is a nice to have but should not get in the way of respecting both their racing drivers and their right to race each others if they are careful enough not to collide.

To prevent any escalation (and sorry if I've already caused offense), let's just focus on the engine reliability. That they've not had any units blow up since Korea 2010 isn't in an of itself proof that they don't need to protect their engines. It merely shows that at the very least they have thus far done a very good job of protecting them. It is a fact that at every single race there will have been a period where they have turned the engines down from their qualifying settings. If you can show me any evidence to the contrary then I'd be very interested to see it.

That in and of itself should be proof that they do need to protect their engines and that they've done a good job so far - and any additional margin that means they can push in another race when challenged by another team would be far more welcome to the team than a scrap between their drivers.

My friend that is a rubbish argument in my view. With this circular logic you can prove anything or nothing. We should not waste our time with this. There is no development of the V8 engines and they are very unlikely to have any reliability problems in the last 17 races they are going to be used. We need to wait for next year to have a proper knife edge situation with engine development and some proper drama that would justify teams orders for engine saving. This obviously is my own humble opinion and you are free to think differently.

[Juzh]

I tried to say what I'm about to say before, but I don't think it came out right.

Regarding Rosberg on Hamilton.

If Lewis had been told to drive a certain way by his engineers (as they all are) that ultimately meant he was in fuel saving from lap 25, and meant that Nico would be allowed breeze past him in the later stages, is that not giving Nico position by team orders of a different kind?

Those orders being whoever made the call to short fuel and the call for Lewis to drive in a way which meant he didn't have enough left in the tank at the end of the race?

That being the case, can we use the word "deserving" to say that Nico deserved third? Does having more fuel in your car mean you deserve the position over a team mate who qualified better and drove as needed (when able to) in order to maintain their position?

My take on it is that Mercedes wanted to pay back the fact that they gambled with the fuel to Hamilton by letting him keep the 3rd place looking at the fact that he was ahead for the whole race, he was the one overcutting Vettel (if it was Hamilton exiting the pits)
And without his little blunder in the pits he probably could have challenged Webber there for a while.

Rosberg was behind the whole race and was only relevant to Hamilton when he started saving fuel, he came too late to the party imo.

Overcut is when you stay out longer if you think you are faster even on used tyres than the guy in front of you who just pitted; undercut is when you pit a lap or two earlier to gain lap time with fresher tyres than the guy in front of you still out on the track on worn rubber.

Regarding fuel issue. I think hamilton was faster than rosberg in the begining because he was lighter on fuel (obviously) and because he was on rich most of the time until 25th lap just to be able to follow RBs. If he was lets say 5kilos underfueled that means around 0,2s a lap (? - not sure). Nico meanwhile played the long game and was able to catch hamilton in the end. If both mercs where not as aggressively fueled, I don't belive they'd be able to follow RBs in the first place, so it kinda evens out in the end. Just my theory.

[myurr]

My friend that is a rubbish argument in my view. With this circular logic you can prove anything or nothing. We should not waste our time with this. There is no development of the V8 engines and they are very unlikely to have any reliability problems in the last 17 races they are going to be used. We need to wait for next year to have a proper knife edge situation with engine development and some proper drama that would justify teams orders for engine saving. This obviously is my own humble opinion and you are free to think differently.

There's nothing circular about saying "the teams currently save their engines in every single race whenever they can, therefore saving engine life is necessary".

It seems a little silly to me to say that "the teams currently save their engines in every single race whenever they can, but because they haven't had an engine failure for a couple of years the teams are stupid and this engine saving is unnecessary. They should run at full power all the time." As you say you are entitled to your opinion on this, but equally I feel entitled to challenge that opinion.

[ForMuLaOne]

http://www.sport.de/medien/2d0e7-16370a ... ieden.html

Team Radio Red Bull and Mercedes (english). Note Brawn. He IS a teamleader...

[Nando]

Overcut is when you stay out longer if you think you are faster even on used tyres than the guy in front of you who just pitted; undercut is when you pit a lap or two earlier to gain lap time with fresher tyres than the guy in front of you still out on the track on worn rubber.

Yes i know that. Hamilton comes out of pits = overcut Vettel since Vettel must have pitted earlier otherwise Hamilton would be far and away into the lead.

"he was the one overcutting Vettel (if it was Hamilton exiting the pits)"

[pocketmoon]

Rosberg was behind the whole race and was only relevant to Hamilton when he started saving fuel, he came too late to the party imo.

Tough one. Both Merc and RBR were carrying heavy concerns about tyre deg but in Mercs case Nico had show some killer pace in Q2 and was faster than Lewis in stints 2 & 3. I think it's a shame we will never know how close Nico could have got if unleashed from behind Hamilton. Hamilton's epic fuel saving (he says the most extreme he's ever had to do!) was made to cripple both silver arrows. After 3 years of under-performing Mercedes as a team made, imo, a sensible if uninspired decision.

[Nando]

Yea i think that if Red Bull had started showing real signs of being in trouble they would have sent Rosberg to go after them but it really seemed like Red Bull would have responded easily if ROS had started to up his pace.

He should have had that third place though but i´m sure there´s more opportunities for him in the upcoming races.
Very strong driver and with Hamilton who we know is legit it only raises his own stocks quite a lot.

[Juzh]

Overcut is when you stay out longer if you think you are faster even on used tyres than the guy in front of you who just pitted; undercut is when you pit a lap or two earlier to gain lap time with fresher tyres than the guy in front of you still out on the track on worn rubber.

Yes i know that. Hamilton comes out of pits = overcut Vettel since Vettel must have pitted earlier otherwise Hamilton would be far and away into the lead.

"he was the one overcutting Vettel (if it was Hamilton exiting the pits)"

I just wathced it again. It was the other way around. Hamilton pits, next lap webber pits and next lap vettel pits. Vettel comes out behind hamilton. So hamilton undercut vettel. Had webber not been so slow before those pit stops this might not have happened at all. And thats the point vettel was trying to make on the radio.

[ForMuLaOne]

To me, the design of F1 rules shows it`s weaknesses more and more. Remember the Bridgestone tires which had to last for the whole race? Teams should be allowed to use as many tires of that kind as needed. Just PUSHING to the limit, no need to concern about durability. Same with refueling. What a funny thing that F1 cars need to save fuel. Average Lap times are 5-7 seconds slower than Q3 times. What a thrill.

For each set of tires teams saved at a weekend they could burn 200 kg more fuel.