zkojq wrote:

Can we please not pretend that running wide and cutting the corner aren't the same thing.

So, since you seem to know it all: how come when Sainz overtakes while leaving the Austin-track he does not get penalized?
No don`t worry, I don`t expect an answer.....
Just ignore the huge controversy in the F1 world about this decision.
What do the likes of Lauda & Hill know? We have ZKOJQ to explain it all!

zkojq wrote:

Does anyone know what happened to Sainz? He seemed to pit quite early on, never to be seen (by the FOM feed) again.

He had a slow puncture in Lap 2.

zkojq wrote:

I've been very impressed with him in the past few races.

Yes, impressive how he crashed for no reason during his last race for Toro Roso.
And he was brilliant in Mexico too, running last while doing absolutely nothing to rectify it.

zkojq wrote:

because the Stewards took their time applying the penalty to Vettel. Unacceptable; imagine if that had been someone like Sainz, Hulkenberg or Ocon and they had been denied their first podium.

19 seconds to take a decision strikes me as quick for such a controversial call.

zkojq wrote:

Why did Raikkonen feel uncomfortable?
.

Just check the scene in the cool down room.

zkojq wrote:

Yes, the dutch are trying to perpetuate myths about how one of the stewards has it in for Verstappen. Mika Salo received many death threats, which is unacceptable.

Absolutely unacceptable, nobody on here is defending that.
Not all the Dutch fans are defending VER, but you seem to handle the broad brush pretty well!

zkojq wrote:

Congratulations to Lewis on finally equalling Seb. Shame he had to make the very petty comment towards Rosberg in the post-race press conference, especially after Rosberg congratulated him on youtube. Really spoiled the celebration -

Just like you spoiled your own "congratulations" to HAM.
Oh so sincere...

No Tax On Rotax

notaxonrotax wrote:

19 seconds to take a decision strikes me as quick for such a controversial call.

It wasn't even slightly controversial- the VT clearly showed he had all four wheels off the track.

Some penalties take a long time to judge because they are not either/or situations. This did not require judgment- he either was or wasn't off the track when he passed. And since he was, he got the penalty.

zkojq wrote:

Congratulations to Lewis on finally equalling Seb. Shame he had to make the very petty comment towards Rosberg in the post-race press conference, especially after Rosberg congratulated him on youtube.

Yeah, that seemed rather unnecessary.

zkojq wrote:

Because cutting a corner to make an overtake is not the same as running wide.

I agree that the former is worse than the latter. However both gain you an advantage- allowing you to carry more speed through a corner. The stewards have the idea that gaining an advantage is only punishable during an overtaking move, but I think that doesn't make sense to a lot of fans (including me). If you run wide when you're in clear air, it still gains you an advantage over whoever you end up racing against later in the race.

I think there are loads of places the track designers could address this. Grass is good, but only in the slower corners since it's a potential safety issue. In the faster corners, more sausage curbs and barriers to rejoining the circuit. All these solutions exist and are used in certain corners, but they could be employed far more.

Yeah Maxie! Way to go, next year go for the big prices!

zkojq wrote:

moo wrote:

As an aside, I wonder if Hamilton would have got the puncture had Vettel not already lost some elements of the left hand side of his front wing after hitting Verstappen moments earlier... When Vettel hit Hamilton with the same front wing, there would have been significantly more sharper parts exposed as a result of the earlier contact. If there had been no contact between Verstappen and Vettel, Hamilton might have got away with it just as Verstappen did with contacts on both rear wheels from Hamilton and Vettel!

Oh please, stop with the conspiracies.

Ok, I suggest you put down the "My First Big Book Of Conspiracies (suitable for ages 5+)" and step away from the keyboard for a bit. Thats how far overboard you went there, Mr UFOs-used-CIA-Mind-Control-To-Force-Oswald-To-Shoot-JFK-Using-A-Weapon-Supplied-By-The-Reptile-People.

Its called "speculation":

speculation
ˌspɛkjʊˈleɪʃn/Submit
noun
1.
the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
"there has been widespread speculation that he plans to quit"
synonyms: conjecture, theorizing, hypothesizing, supposition, guesswork; More

If Vettel hadn't contacted with Verstappen and lost the initial bit of front wing (you see it fly off), chances are Hamilton wouldn't have had a puncture - that initial contact probably made Vettels front wing a heck of a lot sharper on that side, meaning it could cause the puncture very easily.

Verstappen got away with two hits, one from Vettel on the right rear, and one from Hamilton on the left rear - and he probably got away with those contacts because they were with complete front wings - no sharp carbon fibre exposed.

Its not a conspiracy, its a musing - a what-if, if you will. Vettel would have had to pit for front wing damage, Hamilton would have been up to second place and Verstappen may have had a threat for the lead. Would have been a much more interesting race...

So calm down, take a deep breath, and do something productive today.

zckls04 wrote:

notaxonrotax wrote:

19 seconds to take a decision strikes me as quick for such a controversial call.

It wasn't even slightly controversial- the VT clearly showed he had all four wheels off the track.

And Sainz doing the same thing in the same race.....four wheels out while overtaking and not getting penalized at all....that does not make it controversial???
Both are unquestionably "leaving the track and gaining an advantage".

Well, I already said it earlier:

"Just ignore the huge controversy in the F1 world about this decision.
What do the likes of Lauda & Hill know?"

Seriously, you make it sound like there`s not a HUGE discussion going on in the F1 world about marshall inconsistency.
Just look at VER blocking BOT during Q2, that was not fair and should have been punished in my opinion.
And there`s VET making a pig´s breakfast of HAM´s rear right in turn 3 just now, that also went unpunished?
How does this work, please?


No Tax On Rotax

notaxonrotax wrote:

And Sainz doing the same thing in the same race.....four wheels out while overtaking and not getting penalized at all....that does not make it controversial???
Both are unquestionably "leaving the track and gaining an advantage".

Which overtake are you referring to? The one on Perez where Sainz goes wide on the right?

In the Mexico drivers briefing, there is the following conversation:

Hamilton: "There is a subtle difference between going wide and cutting a corner..."
Whiting: "I agree"
(and then they talk about Vettel going wide in turn 9 and Whiting defending the lack of a penalty due to overall data )

So thats your answer - there is a difference between going wide and cutting a corner.

In Sainz move on Perez, its the same as Vettels move on the first lap to overtake Hamilton - the difference between this and Verstappens move is that Verstappen shortened the race track by significantly cutting a corner, while going wide on a corner increases the distance you have to travel. Sainz and Vettel both end up beyond the white line, but on the curb which is a poorer traction surface than the track itself, so the only way you can argue they gained any advantage is through preservation of momentum or whatever, and that hasn't been proven.

Verstappens move put him in a much flatter position for acceleration out of turn 17, which is a significantly clearer advantage than any Sainz gained against Perez - plus Sainz went off the track after he had actually passed Perez, while Verstappen passed Raikkonen during the period off the track.

Thats my take on it.

notaxonrotax wrote:

And there`s VET making a pig´s breakfast of HAM´s rear right in turn 3 just now, that also went unpunished?
How does this work, please?

First corner/corners moments are always given significantly more leeway - there are *loads* of overtakes done in those first few corners which involve bumps or track excursions which go unpunished, simply because its expected due to the proximity and weight of the cars.

There was nothing blatant to suggest that Vettels move was anything other than a heavy car in a bend suffering oversteer - so he's given that leeway.

notaxonrotax wrote:

And Sainz doing the same thing in the same race.....four wheels out while overtaking and not getting penalized at all....that does not make it controversial???
Both are unquestionably "leaving the track and gaining an advantage".

For Sainz vs Ocon - Sainz gained no position, gained no advantage and Ocon finished ahead of him in the race, and indeed that lap, so no penalty required.

The F1 Drivers Briefing at Mexico:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpZ8q8l0HV4

Bit of controversy there!

notaxonrotax wrote:

So, since you seem to know it all: how come when Sainz overtakes while leaving the Austin-track he does not get penalized?
No don`t worry, I don`t expect an answer.....
Just ignore the huge controversy in the F1 world about this decision.
What do the likes of Lauda & Hill know? We have ZKOJQ to explain it all!

Oh right, silly me. Lets allow Verstappen to keep the position he gained after an illegal overtake, because we wouldn't want to hurt his feelings.

notaxonrotax wrote:

And he was brilliant in Mexico too, running last while doing absolutely nothing to rectify it.

I thought you said he had a puncture??

notaxonrotax wrote:

Just check the scene in the cool down room.

He looked fine to me.

zckls04 wrote:

I agree that the former is worse than the latter. However both gain you an advantage- allowing you to carry more speed through a corner. The stewards have the idea that gaining an advantage is only punishable during an overtaking move, but I think that doesn't make sense to a lot of fans (including me). If you run wide when you're in clear air, it still gains you an advantage over whoever you end up racing against later in the race.

For sure.

zckls04 wrote:

I think there are loads of places the track designers could address this. Grass is good, but only in the slower corners since it's a potential safety issue. In the faster corners, more sausage curbs and barriers to rejoining the circuit. All these solutions exist and are used in certain corners, but they could be employed far more.

It seems that much of the issue here is MotoGP. Because many of the F1 circuits also host MotoGp races, they have been removing grass/artificial grass because MotoGP bikes can't handle it. This has the unfortunate result of many circuits (eg COTA) looking like painted up carparks. The excessive use of tarmac really looks awful.

https://www.bennetts.co.uk/bikesocial/n ... ossi-crash

At Austria they seemed to address the problem with those massive sausage kerbs that break the suspension if you drive over them. Maybe that could be used more on other F1 Circuits. Quite a few people broke suspensions/steering arms in practice/quali in Austria. People complained, but if you go off track, I don't really see why you shouldn't suffer the consequences.

moo wrote:

take a deep breath, and do something productive today.

moo wrote:

There was nothing blatant to suggest that Vettels move was anything other than a heavy car in a bend suffering oversteer - so he's given that leeway.

Oh ok, I thought you were trying to say earlier that Vettel purposely tried to take out Hamilton. My apologies for what I said if that was not the case.

notaxonrotax wrote:

And Sainz doing the same thing in the same race.....four wheels out while overtaking and not getting penalized at all....that does not make it controversial???

Nope. OJ murdered somebody and got away with it. That does not mean Phil Spector's conviction is "controversial".

If you want to protest the inconsistency, protest the fact that Sainz didn't get punished, not that Verstappen did.

Seriously, you make it sound like there`s not a HUGE discussion going on in the F1 world about marshall inconsistency.

No, I've been pretty consistent in my criticism of the inconsistency of the stewards (not marshals!) over the years. However I don't complain when they make correct calls, only when they make incorrect ones.

Just look at VER blocking BOT during Q2, that was not fair and should have been punished in my opinion.

Where did you want Verstappen to go? He was as far off the racing line as he could get.

And there`s VET making a pig´s breakfast of HAM´s rear right in turn 3 just now, that also went unpunished?
How does this work, please?

Why would that be punished? It was a pretty clear racing incident. And another thing I agree with the stewards on is that punishing people for first corner incidents when the tires are cold and ten people are heading into the first turn at once is asinine.

zkojq wrote:

Lets allow Verstappen to keep the position he gained after an illegal overtake

I am talking about how quickly this controversial decision was taken.
And yes, the decision WAS controversial; like it or not!
I have provided ample proof in this thread that the decision divided the F1 world.
Only in this thread, this appears to be denied for some reason.

zckls04 wrote:

zkojq wrote:

Because cutting a corner to make an overtake is not the same as running wide.

However both gain you an advantage- allowing you to carry more speed through a corner. The stewards have the idea that gaining an advantage is only punishable during an overtaking move, but I think that doesn't make sense to a lot of fans (including me). If you run wide when you're in clear air, it still gains you an advantage over whoever you end up racing against later in the race.

Here we agree!
Sainz absolutely gained an advantage while leaving the track and therefore I find it unfair that he did not get punished.
Like me do many others......but that has been pointed out plenty of times.

zckls04 wrote:

If you want to protest the inconsistency, protest the fact that Sainz didn't get punished, not that Verstappen did.

Exactly, the inconsistency......
But we`re going around in circles here......

zckls04 wrote:

No, I've been pretty consistent in my criticism of the inconsistency of the stewards (not marshals!) over the years. However I don't complain when they make correct calls, only when they make incorrect ones.

Consistent in YOUR opinion.
I am pretty consistent in my opinion too.

zckls04 wrote:

Why would that be punished? It was a pretty clear racing incident. And another thing I agree with the stewards on is that punishing people for first corner incidents when the tires are cold and ten people are heading into the first turn at once is asinine.

Here`s the thing, it happened in turn 3.
And no, there were not "10 cars in one turn".
Pretty avoidable accident, and was not punished (I guess) because he destroyed his own race too.

zkojq wrote:

notaxonrotax wrote:

And he was brilliant in Mexico too, running last while doing absolutely nothing to rectify it.

I thought you said he had a puncture??

He certainly did, and so did HAM.
I didn`t think SAI was too impressive after he had 4 functioning tires bolted back on his car though.


No Tax On Rotax

notaxonrotax wrote:

Here`s the thing, it happened in turn 3.

Which makes no difference. It's still right at the start of the race. The tires haven't gotten warmer, the field hasn't spread out.

And no, there were not "10 cars in one turn".

Hyperbole my friend. Not meant to be taken literally.

Pretty avoidable accident, and was not punished (I guess) because he destroyed his own race too.

Nope. It wasn't punished because the stewards don't punish incidents at the start of the race. This has been a convention for many years now, and is widely understood and supported by almost everybody who watches F1.

Consistent in YOUR opinion.
I am pretty consistent in my opinion too.

Your opinion is actually still a mystery to me. Can you explain how you think it should work? Should the four wheels off track rule be abolished? I'm still not sure why you're attacking a decision which correctly reflects the rules (Verstappen's overtake being punished) versus the ones which do not (allowing track limits to be exceeded elsewhere).

zkojq wrote:

That moment when more than half the Renault's die, but both Hondas finish the race!

Renault engines have been quite unreliable this year, however Honda has literally changed engines every couple of races (including this one), so having them finish a race from time to time (with everything new in the back) is not exactly anything to brag about.

About track limits, Vettel did pass Massa I think, with 4 wheels off the track. No penalty there.

zckls04 wrote:

notaxonrotax wrote:

Here`s the thing, it happened in turn 3.

Which makes no difference. It's still right at the start of the race. The tires haven't gotten warmer, the field hasn't spread out.

And no, there were not "10 cars in one turn".

Hyperbole my friend. Not meant to be taken literally.

Oh, I realized the hyperbole....therefore I used the quotation marks in "10 cars".
But it does matter you see, some leniency is given in turn 1 due to the simple fact that "10 cars" (see what I did there?) all claim a tiny bit of asphalt so the risk of coming together is simply higher. Everybody knows and understands that I guess.
But then you go on and say:

zckls04 wrote:

It wasn't punished because the stewards don't punish incidents at the start of the race. This has been a convention for many years now, and is widely understood and supported by almost everybody who watches F1.

And that is simply not true!
Turn 1 incidents have been punished, and only recently if I may add.
I went through the trouble of getting you 2 recent examples:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/alon ... sk-928736/

https://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2016/04/03/316829/

Furthermore, Turn 1 and Turn 3 are NOT the same.
Again in Mexico, Turn 3 saw a lot less traffic than Turn 1.
In fact, there were only 3 cars close to each other, BOT was behind them. Cold tires are no excuse, they may be a factor but I have never heard stewards not penalizing an accident because "the poor chap just came out of the pits". Cold tires are a factor that needs to be managed by the driver.
VET was to blame for this coming together. Not punished because of a World Championship at stake and VET screwing his own race in the crash anyway.....that is my opinion.
If he had punctured HAM without destroying his own front wing I HOPE the stewards would have penalized VET, but I don`t know anymore.

Also look at this, a pretty thorough analysis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiOGSiEwHM0

Where do you draw the line? Cold tires exonerate the drivers up to Turn 4? Up to Turn 8, or Turn 1 in lap 2 perhaps?
The rules don`t work that way I´m afraid ZCKLS04, and history shows that!
Plenty of incidents have been punished in Lap 1.

VER in Budapest, weren`t his tires cold; ZCKLS04?

http://en.f1i.com/news/275068-2017-hung ... eport.html

Here`s another one:

http://en.espn.co.uk/spain/motorsport/story/157847.html

The list goes on.......

zckls04 wrote:

Your opinion is actually still a mystery to me. Can you explain how you think it should work?

You know what ZCKLS04, I respectfully bow out of this discussion.
We have done more laps going round and round and round than the actual cars did this last fortnight.

Look:
https://www.thenational.ae/sport/commen ... x-1.669528

The call was "marginal", according to this piece.
RAI lost 4,9 seconds in the last couple of turns, hardly the behaviour of a man that felt robbed of a position.
More like a beaten man, NOT expecting a penalty for the overtaking party!

I watch and read the news from 4 different countries in 3 different languages, and so I mulled the opinions of many experts in the business.
The opinions vary from your point of view up to "RAI forced VER off the track".

Personally, I am just surprised that they jumped to this decision within 19 seconds while other track infringements were not penalized at all.
They could have debriefed the drivers in question first. The penalty would have appeared a lot more convincing if they would have looked at all the circumstances, which is impossible in such a short time scope. Yes, previous incidents in the same weekend matter while making a call IMHO!

They had NOT been penalizing any track excursions WITH advantage the whole weekend, for instance, this:

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12433/ ... n-briefing

And then suddenly punishing one within such a short time strikes me, and maaaany others from maaaany countries; as odd.
It`s not so much the fact that VER was demoted to P4, it was the way in which it was done.

The notion on this thread that "there`s no discussion possible" on this incident has worn me down.
Discussions everywhere what I can see, but on here it is an open and shut case.....at least according to some.

Not trying to get the last word in, please reply ZCKLS04; but I am not going to go over this for the umpteenth time.
I hope the stewards will be more consistent in the remaining 2 races, that is my last word on this.

I love F1 and I quite enjoy SCBRIML´s F1 thread so I don`t want to get annoyed too much.
I thank you for a respectful discussion, probably catch you around Brazil!


Cheers,

No Tax On Rotax



P.S: What does ZCKLS04 stand for please?
I have trouble getting it right, every time I am trying to type it.

Another owner, another brilliant plan to revolutionise and modernise F1 - and another threat from Ferrari that they may walk away from the sport.

I can see their point - Liberty Media and the FIA released their "draft specification" for the post-2020 engine formula, and its basically another brand new engine:

- 3,000rpm increase
- smaller, standardised turbo specification
- removal of the MGU-H from the turbo
- restrictions in fuel spec, possible move to single supplier
- much more restriction on the layout of the engine (to allow for a plug-in change between manufacturers)
- much more restriction on the engine design itself
- standard energy store
- bigger MGU-K

Both Renault and Mercedes have come out against it, as its basically a brand new engine - the FIA and Liberty are pitching it as a "minor change" to the current engines, but the 3,000rpm increase plus the MGU-H removal plus the turbo restrictions plus the engine design and layout restrictions means no part of the current formula would be legal under the proposals.

Which means another massive investment by engine manufacturers.

Ferrari especially doesn't like the standardisation: "One is the fact that somehow powertrain uniqueness is not going to be one of the drivers of distinctiveness of the participants' line-up. I would not countenance this going forward." to quote Marchionne.

I don't find myself in this situation very often, but I wholeheartedly agree with the Ferrari bloke - F1 is not a spec sport. A big part of the reason I watch it is because of the technical side - the "who got it right this year" aspect. The FIA have already clamped down massively on the "thing to have" each year, and its been a while since a team introduced a "must have" feature (blown diffuser, forward blowing exhausts, f-duct etc etc) and thats saddening - especially as they want to go further down the road of restrictions.

http://m.bbc.com/sport/formula1/41870426

Looks like Williams has given MAS the opportunity to tell the world he "decided to retire".

No Tax On Rotax

Aye aye aye,

The moment the pressure is off in the Championship, HAM lost a bit of concentration.....and spun off in Q1.
I guess 4 times world champions are allowed to do that.

Interesting grid today, with HAM at the rear and RIC somewhere around P15.
The forecast is warm and dry!

No Tax On Rotax

When was the last time Vettel binned it during Quali?

moo wrote:

Liberty Media and the FIA released their "draft specification" for the post-2020 engine formula, and its basically another brand new engine:

- 3,000rpm increase
- smaller, standardised turbo specification
- removal of the MGU-H from the turbo
- restrictions in fuel spec, possible move to single supplier
- much more restriction on the layout of the engine (to allow for a plug-in change between manufacturers)
- much more restriction on the engine design itself
- standard energy store
- bigger MGU-K

I like the idea of standardising some of the problematic parts. Other than that, it's stupid to let the engine manufacturers have influence over the new rules as they're each going to lobby for rules that favour their respective competitive advantages.

Interesting race!

RIC with an uncharacteristic mistake.
HAM driver of the day, finishing within 6 seconds of the winner.
BOT....underwhelming.
VET....controlled the race well.

Yet another penalty awarded in the 1st lap: Grosjean is rapidly becoming another Maldonado.

No Tax On Rotax

notaxonrotax wrote:

Interesting race!

Apart from the podium places, yes.

notaxonrotax wrote:

HAM driver of the day, finishing within 6 seconds of the winner.

I was hoping he had enough left to get past Raikkonen, but I think his tyres were shot in the last couple of laps.

https://m.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/36093 ... -for-2018/

I think Hyper-soft will win!

The pink color will make some on this forum very happy!

No Tax On Rotax

notaxonrotax wrote:

https://m.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/360933/pirelli-reveal-fan-named-pink-walled-tyre-for-2018/

I think Hyper-soft will win!

The pink color will make some on this forum very happy!

No Tax On Rotax

It can only be "Softy McSoftface".

Maldonado was acting dangerously.

Grosjean lost the rear of his car in a turn on the first lap, something that happens to 3 drivers every grand prix, and is usually deemed a racing incident (or even a heroic move if the driver manages to eliminate an opponent without losing too much himself).

moo wrote:

The FIA have already clamped down massively on the "thing to have" each year, and its been a while since a team introduced a "must have" feature (blown diffuser, forward blowing exhausts, f-duct etc etc) and thats saddening - especially as they want to go further down the road of restrictions.

Mercedes has got an engine advantage thanks to a "must have" feature, the difference with your examples being that it hasn't been banned, and others couldn't copy it due to engine tokens.

Mercedes "must have" feature is their turbo layout, with much less tubing and more responsiveness and power as a result compared to classic turbos. The FIA suggesting to offer a standard turbo seems to be aimed at them.

moo wrote:

I like the idea of standardizing some of the problematic parts.

Why ? If anything it creates a bigger problem, if it turns out the standard part is not well suited to your custom parts.

Aesma wrote:

moo wrote:

The FIA have already clamped down massively on the "thing to have" each year, and its been a while since a team introduced a "must have" feature (blown diffuser, forward blowing exhausts, f-duct etc etc) and thats saddening - especially as they want to go further down the road of restrictions.

Mercedes has got an engine advantage thanks to a "must have" feature, the difference with your examples being that it hasn't been banned, and others couldn't copy it due to engine tokens.

Mercedes "must have" feature is their turbo layout, with much less tubing and more responsiveness and power as a result compared to classic turbos. The FIA suggesting to offer a standard turbo seems to be aimed at them.

Yeah that's not at all the same thing - Mercedes was presented with the same rules as everyone else and got it *right*, diddums to the other engine manufacturers for not doing the same.

Plus the tokens didn't stop rivals from copying - it just made it expensive to do so. As is the point - you have free reign to come up with your basic package before the homologation and then you get to see what your rivals have come up with.

Yet again we have suggestions which are based around babying the manufacturers which don't get it right - sod them.

Aesma wrote:

moo wrote:

I like the idea of standardizing some of the problematic parts.

Why ? If anything it creates a bigger problem, if it turns out the standard part is not well suited to your custom parts.

That's not my comment.

Great race by Seb & Kimi this weekend. Nice to see Kimi on the podium for the 90th time! Hope he can make it to 100.

What a farce the security situation at Interlagos was this weekend. Sauber, Williams, Mercedes, Pirelli all robbed and Pirelle/McLaren had to cancel the tire test afterwards due to security concerns. Journalists were tweeting that there was no security to be seen after 5PM. Maybe next year's GP in South America should be held somewhere-else were safety isn't such a concern.

Aesma wrote:

zkojq wrote:

I like the idea of standardising some of the problematic parts.

Why ? If anything it creates a bigger problem, if it turns out the standard part is not well suited to your custom parts.

If there's problems with the standardised parts, that should affect all teams equally, rather than just the Honda/Renault teams.

Whoops: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... 1n8F4uClUU

Dutchy wrote:

Whoops: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... 1n8F4uClUU

Earlier there was another accident on the same track during the motor cycle grand prix. Unfortunately Daniel Hegarty died in that crash. This track is extremely narrow, even by motorcycle standards! Hardly any safety run-off areas either. It was an accident waiting to happen.

zkojq wrote:

If there's problems with the standardised parts, that should affect all teams equally, rather than just the Honda/Renault teams.

The fuel flow sensors dispute that

Standardised does not necessarily mean identical - one of the issues highlighted with the fuel flow sensors, in that they are calibrated but have a tolerance, which means a team can indeed have a few percent advantage given to them by FIA mandated parts...

scbriml wrote:

It can only be "Softy McSoftface".

Not for the time being at least

Has anyone run Hard or Superhard this season?

scbriml wrote:

Has anyone run Hard or Superhard this season?

Hard was available for Spain but I can't remember if anyone actually used it. Superhard will only be available from next season.

TheF15Ace wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Has anyone run Hard or Superhard this season?

Hard was available for Spain but I can't remember if anyone actually used it. Superhard will only be available from next season.

Turns out nobody used Hard in Spain.

https://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2017/05/14/ ... pit-stops/

TheF15Ace wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Has anyone run Hard or Superhard this season?

Hard was available for Spain but I can't remember if anyone actually used it. Superhard will only be available from next season.

Given the more durable tyres this year and the fact we've seen races where the supersofts have lasted absolutely ages, I'm struggling to see the point of hard and superhard. Especially as cars have to run two compounds in a dry race.

Abu Dhabi was pretty boring.