Lewis Hamilton has won the Canadian GP, making the best of a two stop strategy. Romain Grosjean finished in second place with Sergio Pérez third on the podium. Sebatian Vettel finished fourth after a late pitstop while Fernando Alonso is 5th after struggling to the end on badly worn tyres.
Well, Hamilton certainly looked able to overtake in other places, but chose not to because he knew he'd get repassed under DRS. He stated in a BBC interview that he didn't pass Alonso at the hairpin for exactly that reason.myurr wrote:Fair enough. Doesn't negate the other point that the rest of the track was still DRS free.
To be fair he looked able to overtake into the hair pin, but it would have been risky as he would have been at fault if Alonso had turned in on him. That was a real risk as he was only up the inside like that as Alonso was deliberately running wide to get a straighter run down the straight.beelsebob wrote:Well, Hamilton certainly looked able to overtake in other places, but chose not to because he knew he'd get repassed under DRS. He stated in a BBC interview that he didn't pass Alonso at the hairpin for exactly that reason.myurr wrote:Fair enough. Doesn't negate the other point that the rest of the track was still DRS free.
This is why we don't get overtaking in breaking zones. As long as people consider it to be the attacker's fault if they stick one up the inside and the defender turns in, people won't stick one up the inside. To me, the defender can move across while they're clearly in front of all parts of the attacker's car... If moving across would cause the two to collide, in any way, even sticking their front wing under your rear wheels, they can't make that move, simple as that.myurr wrote:To be fair he looked able to overtake into the hair pin, but it would have been risky as he would have been at fault if Alonso had turned in on him. That was a real risk as he was only up the inside like that as Alonso was deliberately running wide to get a straighter run down the straight.beelsebob wrote:Well, Hamilton certainly looked able to overtake in other places, but chose not to because he knew he'd get repassed under DRS. He stated in a BBC interview that he didn't pass Alonso at the hairpin for exactly that reason.myurr wrote:Fair enough. Doesn't negate the other point that the rest of the track was still DRS free.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/18390751 <-- he very much does explicitly state that he didn't do it because Alonso would pass him back.He didn't state explicitly that he didn't pass Alonso for that reason, he said he was 'cool' about it knowing that it was all positioning for the straight.
Completely agree, but you would then have people making all kinds of crazy lunges up the inside that result in collision. You have to have some definition where contact is bad and a clear way of determining who is at fault. How many clumsy slides up the inside into the side of a driver did we see a few years back from the likes of Massa, Barrichello and Webber? Maybe F1 would be better if you could make a crazy lunge, certainly it would lead to more overtaking attempts and more people ducking back up the inside to retake the position.beelsebob wrote:This is why we don't get overtaking in breaking zones. As long as people consider it to be the attacker's fault if they stick one up the inside and the defender turns in, people won't stick one up the inside. To me, the defender can move across while they're clearly in front of all parts of the attacker's car... If moving across would cause the two to collide, in any way, even sticking their front wing under your rear wheels, they can't make that move, simple as that.
He explained it differently on Skybeelsebob wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/18390751 <-- he very much does explicitly state that he didn't do it because Alonso would pass him back.He didn't state explicitly that he didn't pass Alonso for that reason, he said he was 'cool' about it knowing that it was all positioning for the straight.
Well, 10 points is still a bunch after such a big mistake. If the race would've been 71 laps, he would've been 8th, with number 6-8 all within 3 seconds of him at the finish. In that respect, it could've been worse.f1316 wrote:The reasoning on here seems to be that Hamilton's relatively poor 2nd stop was a contributing factor for Ferrari going to a one stopper. I'm not disputing that they might have done this, but it seems strange logic to me. By pitting on the very next lap, Alonso would have gained time from the pit stop - all things being normal he could could possibly have made up over a second in pure pit stop - and whilst he would still have emerged behind Hamilton, the gap would have been reduced.
Then you've got one stint on the primes. If you use the first stint as your guide, which is surely the obvious comparison, Alonso was able to stick with Hamilton with a stronger performance towards the end of the stint. He was slower down the straights, so overtaking was by no means a given, but it was still a decent shot at victory whilst also covering off the possibility of "falling off the cliff". He still had one set of brand new primes, I believe, so it seems a no brainer.
His logic after the race is that 10 points is fine, given their expectations before the race. That's all very well, but you had, at worst, 3rd in the bag with a two stopper, so a team with low expectations would surely have erred on the side of caution and got the 15/18 points? I'm certain Alonso is doing the "win together, lose together" job, which is admirable in a way, but I don't think anyone is really buying his explanation.
Congratulations. Sounds like fun. The air was really let out of the baloon when Hamilton made the last charge so easily but still a thorougly compelling race.Kiril Varbanov wrote:Personally for me - it was glorious experience - I was co-host and guest of the national TV F1 commentary studio. Almost 6 hours spent in the TV building, make up, watching the sport channels on large screens, my favorite control desks with thousands of buttons, quite an experience. It went good and I may appear again. Thank you, dear friend, for inviting me!
The race itself could have offer a bit more thrill - I was expecting more from Lotus (Kimi) and Massa, was somehow betting on Hamilton for the win, and stronger Ferrari (Alonso). Feeling quite stumped for MSC and his allegedly hydraulic issue and RFA wide open.
Do you really think that's the case? What makes you think they altered the compounds? If they did that and not told any of the teams, that would be disgraceful.bhallg2k wrote:It's because teams have started coming to terms with the tires this year. And by "coming to terms with the tires," I mean that Pirelli has quietly altered their construction, because they were tired of hearing their name associated with "all that's wrong with F1" and the like.
Monaco has very low deg/wear and takes a few laps for the tyres to get going at times.atanatizante wrote:Here in Canada, just like 2 week ago in Monaco, they have had the same soft and super soft tyres.
Therefore, could anybody tell me why the new soft ones, in their first lap after the pit stops, in Monaco were 3 sec. slower and here in Montreal they were at least 1 sec. faster then the old super soft ones or even on old soft ones, after the second round of pit stops ?
That was also the case here in Canada, with very low deg/wear ...ell66 wrote:Monaco has very low deg/wear and takes a few laps for the tyres to get going at times.atanatizante wrote:Here in Canada, just like 2 week ago in Monaco, they have had the same soft and super soft tyres.
Therefore, could anybody tell me why the new soft ones, in their first lap after the pit stops, in Monaco were 3 sec. slower and here in Montreal they were at least 1 sec. faster then the old super soft ones or even on old soft ones, after the second round of pit stops ?
"Natural variability"Cam wrote:Do you really think that's the case? What makes you think they altered the compounds? If they did that and not told any of the teams, that would be disgraceful.bhallg2k wrote:It's because teams have started coming to terms with the tires this year. And by "coming to terms with the tires," I mean that Pirelli has quietly altered their construction, because they were tired of hearing their name associated with "all that's wrong with F1" and the like.
