- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Lewis Hamilton has won the Chinese Grand Prix at Shanghai thanks to a better race strategy and a working KERS device. Sebastian Vettel struggled to the end and came in second while his teammate Mark Webber ended up in third place after starting from 18th position.
You're confusing teams and drivers. I believe the biggest complaint is that drivers are like corporate robots. And I agree. In the large part though, they are representing themselves as a driver.richard_leeds wrote:Why do so many take these off the cuff remarks so seriously? People complain that the teams are too corporate and show no personality, then as soon as someone says something non-corporate in the heat of the moment they get accused of immaturity & paranoia etc.
Given how many of these teams are said to be so immature & paranoid, it's a wonder they manage to even get to the track with their pants on the right way around.
Oh that one. I thought it was something new. I wonder why it needs to be dragged back up here...? Odd.djos wrote:The "crazy" finger gesture after Vettel retired trying to drive his car thru Webber's while Webber was leading the race at Turkey last year.Just_a_fan wrote:Which gesture? After the race?JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote: What did you make of Vettels crazy gesture then Andrew?
He was behind Hamilton and Button by the first corner and then ahead of them by the first pitstop, hence "he had overtaken Button and Hamilton by the first found of pitstops". I didn't say he overtook both out on track. And besides, how he got ahead, i.e. by overtaking or on pitstop efficiency, is hardly the central issue of my post.beelsebob wrote:Pardon? Were you watching a different race? In the race I was watching, Vettel overtook Button only because Button noobed up his pit stop.Tumbarello wrote:The issue was not the start necessarily. He had overtaken both Button and Hamilton by the first round of pit stops so all he had to do was cover their strategy to stay in front of them. I think they must have got worried about Rosberg and Massa and were trying to cover the latter whilst trying to get ahead of the former on strategy??marcush. wrote:but he did not win the start did he? so why the hell did they NOT switch to an agressive pit strategy right on the spot?
Vettel had enough tyres to do this ...and pit signalling with boards is maybe outdated but sure possible even for RedBull and the playstation boy....
KERS and strategy ..my words: they will not win this championship.
Yes, I agree with this. And it was probably a big factor in why Rosberg was slow at the end as his last stint tyres were older than Button and Hamilton's.beelsebob wrote:I'm not convinced by this – I think the long first stop was what allowed Hamilton to attack at the end of the race. Suppose his stops had been more evenly spread – he would not have been able to extend the lead in the second and third stints, and he would not have been able to close Vettel down in the last one... Oddly, having his tyres fall off the cliff and Massa overtake him may have been what won him the race.raymondu999 wrote:I think in hindsight, Rosberg had the best strategy. His 1st stop was placed in the correct lap for a good 3-stopper, whereas the others seemed to have 1st stints that were too long and 2nd stints that were too short
I was under the impression that Rosberg had to do a lot of fuel management and that was why he was slow. Besides, Nico's stops were all exactly the same as the McLarens (give or take a lap) except for the earlier 1st stopTumbarello wrote:Yes, I agree with this. And it was probably a big factor in why Rosberg was slow at the end as his last stint tyres were older than Button and Hamilton's.
Yes, this is essentially what I was trying to say with one amendment. I think it was clear that Rosberg was going to be on a three stopper but given his pace, Red Bull probably thought that the only way to get ahead of him was to two stop themselves, which would also cover Massa. Otherwise, why wouldn't they just mimic McLaren's strategy if they were who you were truly racing and you had track position?!raymondu999 wrote:Regardless of the reason that Vettel got past, the end result was he got past, and after the 1st round of stops, Vettel was ahead of the MacMercs; what Tumbarello is saying (I believe) is that they should have just mirrored the McLarens' strategy, but it seemed like they were afraid Rosberg and Massa would 2 stop, and the fresher tyres might not be enough to make up the 18 or so seconds lost in the stopsbeelsebob wrote:Pardon? Were you watching a different race? In the race I was watching, Vettel overtook Button only because Button noobed up his pit stop.
He didn't need hindsight to know he was ahead by the first stint. He simply was ahead! He has track position and can control the race, at least so far as the Maccas were concerned. He could even come in a lap earlier. I don't see why not.raymondu999 wrote:In hindsight he was ahead (by pit/track overtake) on both McLs. In hindsight, he should have covered off the two McLs. Would've been a simple "I'll mirror and do what you do" kind of thing. At worst each pitstop would probably be a lap later than the earlier McLaren, which would equate to the McL that pits on the next lap anyways.
I was under the impression that Rosberg had to do a lot of fuel management and that was why he was slow. Besides, Nico's stops were all exactly the same as the McLarens (give or take a lap) except for the earlier 1st stop[/quote]Tumbarello wrote:Yes, I agree with this. And it was probably a big factor in why Rosberg was slow at the end as his last stint tyres were older than Button and Hamilton's.
No, his other pit stops were similar to McLaren. In Greek TV they showed a team radio message that said fuel situation very critical. Any info on that guys?Tumbarello wrote:Okay. I assumed his other stops were similarly earlier than the rivals. I wasn't paying that much attention to Rosberg during the race.