Singapore GP 2011 - Massa told to destroy Hamilton's race

[Mchamilton]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula ... 066906.stm
food for thought, maybe the new rules have taken even more out of the driver end of the formula

[Traction]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/formula ... 066906.stm
food for thought, maybe the new rules have taken even more out of the driver end of the formula

Nice article but the last two paragraphs sum up the root cause of his error strewn season...impatience....

[ringo]

Yes,
but it's hard to fight instinct.

Part of the driver wants to take advantage of the situation, in case the opportunity may never happen. 2011 regs make is certain that overtaking is a gift if you wait, especially if your car is better than the guy in front.

Waiting for an opportunity takes out all the unknown eventualities in a race though.

A good programmer should be able to write an algorithm for a race if they knew exactly how good each car is and the track conditions etc. The opportunities and attempts could easily well be predicted.

The race would look like a merry go round, with the horses going up and down in a certain sequence.

Instinctual drivers don't fall into this algorithm. Shumacher's examples of losing front wing makes this obvious this year.

With hind sight, Hamilton may have been good for a podium or second place, with using his speed only to get close then waiting.

Then again if you are waiting on Vettel, his tyres will never go off before yours and his speed will never wane.

I'd say the intintcual drivers just need a P2 position.

[raymondu999]

I don't like rekindling flames; but has anyone seen the Singapore FOM race edit? There are certain... interesting radio messages

[lebesset]

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2011/10/02/210/

another example of ferrari team tactics , I suppose we already knew what massa's function now is in the team ; shan't be holding my breath waiting for him to be told ' hamilton is faster that you '

[raymondu999]

It sounds to me more like he said "destroy his race" rather than "destroy his car." I think what Smedley was saying there is "come on mate; let's make life tough for him tonight. Don't let him past"

[ajdavison2]

Just watched it, sounds like an order to impede another driver.

[JMN]

Rob Smedley: "Hold Hamilton as much as we can. Destroy his race as much as we can, c'mon boy [Massa]".

[Dragonfly]

And what is the technical aspect of all this besides the process of cutting the defending car's tyre with your front wing?

Oh, and the other technical aspect I see is the ability of FOM to cut and publish taken out of context excerpts in order to keep the brawl among the public alive.

The rest is just LH fans looking for excuses.

[raymondu999]

Don't be silly Dragonfly. Obviously we're here to discuss the issue of material strength of the tyre; and how the minimum bodywork radius rule isn't enough

[timbo]

Obviously we're here to discuss the issue of material strength of the tyre; and how the minimum bodywork radius rule isn't enough

Actually I was thinking a lot about this.
In some recent crashes we've seen no damage to rear tyres. Is it the angle of the crash that made a difference in this case?

[raymondu999]

I may be wrong, but this wan't a "head on" crash a la Hamilton v Alonso in Sepang was it? Did Ham's endplate not come in to Massa's tyre at Massa's sidewall?

[Tim.Wright]

ah, this is a non-event. Instructing a driver to defend his position is no different to instructing a driver to overtake. Nothing to discuss

Tim

[raymondu999]

Actually as Timbo and I stated there is a bit of a point about materials

[beelsebob]

Absolutely agree with people above – absolute non event.

1) It's entirely legal to impede another driver - when you're racing against them.
2) It's entirely legal to use one team member to hold up a competitive driver (as long as they're racing against them), and let the other team member scamper off.
3) Trying to destroy each other's races and have the best one you can have is exactly what F1 is about. There's rules about exactly how much distruction you're allowed to dole out, but it's still what it's about.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with this instruction at all.