Sebastian Vettel has done what he needed to. He stuck his head down, gave it all and won the race. Ferrari's terrible strategy and McLaren's good form here have given him the world championship, well deserved. Lewis Hamilton is second, Jenson Button third.
gridwalker wrote:
What were people's impressions of Vettel's questionable pace control at the end of the safety car period? I am surprised that there wasn't an investigation, as he dropped WAY back (further than the mandated 10 car lengths IMHO) and Hamilton obviously had difficulty maintaining his position behind him.
It depends whether the blinking lights on the SC are on or off. After they go off signaling SC is going in, the race leader becomes effectively the pace setter.
gridwalker wrote:
What were people's impressions of Vettel's questionable pace control at the end of the safety car period? I am surprised that there wasn't an investigation, as he dropped WAY back (further than the mandated 10 car lengths IMHO) and Hamilton obviously had difficulty maintaining his position behind him.
It depends whether the blinking lights on the SC are on or off. After they go off signaling SC is going in, the race leader becomes effectively the pace setter.
Exactly
Agree with the 10 car lengths bit - my initial reaction was that he was in the wrong but then the commentators said that the safety car was coming in that lap so he definitely wasn't doing anything wrong there.
I'd like to see a replay of Hamilton going off track but the way I saw it at the time was that Vettel accelerated and then slowed down again causing Hamilton to avoid him as he had thought Vettel was trying to bolt for the line. If that was the case then I believe Vettel would be in contravention of the rules as he is supposed to maintain a constant pace until he decides to make his break for the line.
komninosm wrote:Lack of refuelling made strategy variety and overtaking even more of a living hell than normal. I mean come on, every single car had 1 stop.
Lack of refuelling wasn't the problem, it's the damned tyres. When the supposedly marginal option tyre can manage two thirds race distance on a supposedly high wearing surface without giving away much performance then something is seriously wrong. We need option tyres that are good for approx 1/4 to 1/3rd race distance, with prime tyres good for 1/3rd to 1/2 race distance. That should split the strategies between 2 and 3 stops with an outside chance of someone being able to pull off a 1 stop if they're really careful and are able to defend on shot tyres in the closing laps.
Hopefully that's what we'll get with the Pirelli's next year, and when coupled to the removal of the double diffuser then hopefully we'll get better on track action as well.
Sure tire situation sucked, but even if we get our A,B,C,Ds back, it would still be better to have refuelling because refuelling makes strategies with more than 1 pit-stop more effective. I hope I don't have to explain how.
It may work for you, but simply having more pit stops doesn't make the racing more exciting for me. Everyone being on the same strategy is dull, but it is more important that people be able to pass. Having tyres that degrade to a point that allows some drivers to pit and some try and manage them should create opportunity for drivers having to pass on track. Other regulation changes will be required to make it possible for them to do so - such as next years outlawing of the DDD.
Vitaly Petrov wrote:... maybe I should have asked on my team radio, please ask Vettel how much he wants to pay me to help, and then we go to Ferrari and ask them the same too. Then whoever gives the most, we see.
komninosm wrote:What I also noticed was that Shoemaker tried to go forward when he was facing the wrong way. Look at his tires. He had selected 1st gear and spun them, but then stopped as he realised it was stupid. Maybe if he had let his car slide backwards or off track a bit more he would have been missed by all other cars. That accident was his fault anyway. He lost his rear, there was no contact with Rosberg as someone said here.
What? Where else was he meant to go? The only sensible thing to do was to try and get off the track but a Force India scuppered this. If he went backwards, then there would have been a bigger pile-up. I think you have the orientation a bit wrong there. Anyway it was just one of those things, as Shumcaher admitted.
Go watch it again...
He immediately pushed the gas pedal then stopped realising that half the grid was coming at him and this was no time to make a U-turn on track. Stop trolling please.
Trolling? Right Don't really see the disagreement here or the need for insults.
Schumacher was between a rock and a hard place. Whichever direction he went would have caused a smash so staying put was the safest option. It seems strange to me that all the drivers managed to miss him except Luizi.
Your bias is blinding; while I am a fan of LH, accusing me of fanboyism just won't cut it for you.
So, one becomes an 'above average' driver if he wins 4 races and chops other cars on five other occasions eh ? He's crashed into others more than he's won lol.
--End--
I hear Alonso has won the DHL fastest lap competition
Shouldn't he and lewis both win that award?
Or he won it on count back?
gridwalker wrote:Only when they contain wedges of cash destined for the FIA
He delivered them a £25,000,0000 package following spygate, that is for certain!
Sorry for the correction, but that package was delivered by Honest Ron in person.
I am not amazed by F1 cars in Monaco. I want to see them driving in the A8 highway: Variable radius corners, negative banking, and extreme narrowings that Tilke has never dreamed off. Oh, yes, and "beautiful" weather tops it all.
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." Niels Bohr
I know I'm late to this party, but I've been thinking about the race, and it occurred to me that RB had a truly neat strategy.
They know that Ferrari in particular had only one driver who was in contention, and they also knew that they had two drivers who were in the mix.
Ferrari were almost bound to cover off one of RB's pit-stops, whichever driver that happened to be. As it happened, they went for Mark's pitstop, but I think they might just as easily have tried to cover Vettel had he been first to pit, which might well have brought Mark into contention.
I don't like Horner and I'm not too keen on Mr Finger, but I think they played a blinder in this race. Webber happened to be the sacrificial lamb (what a surprise!), but I reckon they MIGHT have been being "fair" there too.
Thats just my opinion though guys, I know feelings run deep on here.
The answer to the ultimate question, of life, the Universe and ... Everything?
Webber was already out of it in the first few laps, he had no chance of passing Vettel, Hamilton, Button and Alonso. So his only choice was to gamble (which was also supporting the team).
I guess that if he was ahead of Alonso on lap 5 then it might have been very different.
djos wrote:Hey who wrote that, Me or You? That's right Me and I know how I wrote it!
No....you don't. That's what's sad about it. You might believe you're trying to be 'sarcastic' (looking up what sarcasm means might help), but since Mark Webber actually believes he's a number 2 and that's how he justifies things to himself there's not a drop of sarcasm or double meaning in there.
Just because you dont grasp the concept of sarcastic quotation marks doesn't make it an invalid concept.
I dont believe for a minute Webber is a #2 driver, he's always been the lead driver (or equal) in every other F1 team he's raced for because he get's results.
EDIT: thanks Gridwalker for pointing what I was trying to convey better than I could.
Last edited by djos on 16 Nov 2010, 01:27, edited 1 time in total.
Go watch it again...
Don't really see the disagreement here or the need for insults.
