2013 Bahrain GP - Sakhir

[zeph]

Did you read the article? That is not what Anderson is saying at all.

Yes, and his opinion of what is wrong differs with what was reported by AMuS (who first reported the issues) as the concern of Red Bull & Mercedes. Added to that, his notion that Vettels driving style is causing problems then raises the question of why Webber, Hamilton & Rosberg are struggling. Webber has a vastly different driving style to Vettel, being infact the complete opposite of what he suggests the issue is, and yet has been wearing his tyres out even quicker than Vettel.

It certainly seems strange that the two teams with the most downforce are struggling when the answer is apparently just to not drive like Vettel.

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/form ... 01436.html

The AMuS article should you be interested. Claims supposedly from RB & Merc that the new construction with steel ring causes more wear the more downforce you have.

What is more, RBR is not exactly at a disadvantage. They took the double in Malaysia, for crying out loud...

Aided by the fact Alonso failed to finish and Raikonnen was nowhere on the intermediates.

My German isn't all that great, but I think I understand that AMuS article well enough. Like I said in my previous post, I think these tires suck. And I would certainly want to see things differently next season.

But the article also strikes me as the first move in a propaganda war. RBR and Mercedes (both Austro/German-owned, incidentally) may have more trouble adjusting to the new tires than the other teams, so yeah, let's use sympathetic media to rally up support for our POV.

They seem to suggest that the tires were deliberately designed to put high-downforce cars at a disadvantage. While the article does a fairly good job of explaining how that could be, it does not prove that is what happened. It is merely supposition from the RBR camp.

Andersen offers an alternative view, and while I do not dismiss RBR's theory, I find his explanation a sensible one, and his argument that to change the tires now would be unfair to other teams a valid one.

Also, the AMuS header talks about RBR and Mercedes, but the article primarily airs RBR's views, with a lone reference to something Lauda said being about all they have from Mercedes. Andersen only mentions RBR clamoring for new tires.

At the end of the day, they all have the same tires and need to make them work. RBR had similar problems at the start of last season but came back strong in the second half.

Regarding Malaysia, the two teams that complain, RBR and Merc, finished 1, 2, 3 and 4. If you want to attribute that
result to Alonso's exit and Raikkonen's lack of pace (who finished behind Grosjean, btw), I doubt anything I could say would change your mind.

[ringo]

what are the chances of a safety car here?

[theblackangus]

If the Government decided to limit all Lamborghini's & Ferrari's to 30mph on public roads and allow all Kia Cee'ds to go 70mph, the Ferrari & Lamborghini would still be clearly better cars when not disadvantaged through no fault of their own.

I hardly feel that's a reasonable comparison. Nobody has specifically targeted the RB or any car for that matter and chosen to impose a limit on their car. As previously stated, all cars were designed based on the same input requirements, of which tyres were inlcuded (and are evidently somewhat important).

I agree here the comparison isn't really a valid one.

Think about it like this -
Everyone is given the same box of parts. Its up to each team to do the best with the parts they have. (parts = rules)
Its easy to engineer a solution that exceeds the spec of what the usable materials can perform to.
Remember the best racing car will fall apart the moment it wins. - Meaning that each and every material was used to maximum, and no excess was used.
That is the engineering challenge.

If your upset about the "same box of parts" - then your are really advocating a materials war which equals a money war.... and I prefer racing where the championship isn't just bought with throwing money at it. That's not in the spirit of an engineering competition.

Honestly in some perfect fantasy world the more money you spend to win should some how count against you.
Formula: points award is based on current but with the following: Points awarded = Points for place/money spent in season thus far in millions.

[QLDriver]

I really dont think a 5 place pen for a gearbox change is right, maybe 2 or 3 place.... As someone mentioned before, surely a better penalty would be instead of putting a driver back 5 places, maybe take 5 points from the constructors points. Although saying that , the driver is just a part of the team. You win as a team, and lose as a team.

I've never quite understood why they didn't put the same rule in place for the gearboxes as for engines. Right now you're limited to using the gearbox for 5 races unless there's a DNF. Why not just limit the teams to, say, 4 gearboxes per driver in a season and penalise 5 places for each subsequent change? That way there's an allowance for aberrant problems like this (where it wasn't really caused by the driver or team), but it still has the same cost saving. It also prevents the practice of retiring the car on the last lap to get a new gearbox. It also means that if there's a new suspension spec that needs a new gearbox case, the teams can immediately introduce it.

[dave34m]

I really dont think a 5 place pen for a gearbox change is right, maybe 2 or 3 place.... As someone mentioned before, surely a better penalty would be instead of putting a driver back 5 places, maybe take 5 points from the constructors points. Although saying that , the driver is just a part of the team. You win as a team, and lose as a team.

I've never quite understood why they didn't put the same rule in place for the gearboxes as for engines. Right now you're limited to using the gearbox for 5 races unless there's a DNF. Why not just limit the teams to, say, 4 gearboxes per driver in a season and penalise 5 places for each subsequent change? That way there's an allowance for aberrant problems like this (where it wasn't really caused by the driver or team), but it still has the same cost saving. It also prevents the practice of retiring the car on the last lap to get a new gearbox. It also means that if there's a new suspension spec that needs a new gearbox case, the teams can immediately introduce it.

Yes, I remember Martin Brundle saying the same last year and I agree totally.

[Teechnical]

I missed Q3 yesterday, is Alonso starting on a Used and worn set of tyres? What about Kimi Raikonnen?

[Pierce89]

If the best cars are being beaten, are they really the best cars then?
If the engineers are highly skilled, and are top notch innovators, why don't they just improve their design to best suit the current tyre behaviour?

To say that the RB is the best car because it has most downforce or "raw pace" or whatever you want to call it (too good) is simplifying a complex matter based on one narrow perspective.

PS - I don't much like the tyres either and IMO there is a better solution out there.

If the Government decided to limit all Lamborghini's & Ferrari's to 30mph on public roads and allow all Kia Cee'ds to go 70mph, the Ferrari & Lamborghini would still be clearly better cars when not disadvantaged through no fault of their own.

With regards engineers, they clearly are having to tinker their design to suit the current tyres with them going from 1 second a lap faster in Malaysia to 2 tenths slower in Bahrain, a track that couldnt be more suited traditionally to RB and which Vettel has been on pole for the last 2 visits.

You completely ignore the fact that Red Bull was "1 second a lap faster" in totally mixed conditions rather than a legitimate normal quality session. Gary Anderson also mentions Red Bull was trying to ADD DOWNFORCE at China because they couldn't keep up.

[Cocles]

Nice footage from the mercedes female mechanic´s rear end there

Yeah. Someone needs to post this.

[NathanOlder]

Nice footage from the mercedes female mechanic´s rear end there

Yeah. Someone needs to post this.

Careful mate, I had various warnings about mentioning how i prefered Natalie Pinkham to Georgie Thompson due to the fact i dont find Georgie as appealing. So asking for video's on a female's rear end is probably too much

atleast most of us saw it

[raymondu999]

what are the chances of a safety car here?

Very low. I don't actually remember there ever being one to be honest. But then again I'm half drunk right now

[turbof1]

what are the chances of a safety car here?

Tilke circuit, so very low chance for a safety car. Don't expect one.

[Blanchimont]

So asking for video's on a female's rear end is probably too much

atleast most of us saw it

And now even more of us can see it...

[Rikhart]

Naughty, naughty cameraman =D> I loved how he tries to cover it at some point, by focusing on what she is actually doing to the front wing hahaha!

[Blanchimont]

I just thought what a pity users can't upvote posts in the race threads, it would have given me lot +1!

[Redragon]

So asking for video's on a female's rear end is probably too much

atleast most of us saw it

And now even more of us can see it...

http://imageshack.us/a/img833/8063/mechk.jpg

I can imagine the radio transmissions. Instead of W..F are you doing? more like

Back rear end problem
Pit! Pit! Pit!
Nice pace, just hold it, steady, steady
Leave me alone, I know what I am doing