2015 Bahrain Grand Prix - Sakhir

[iotar__]

can you clarify a few things for me?
when did vettel blame perez?.. right after the incident vettel got on the radio and said he had brake failure...can you point me to the quote or article saying vettel blamed perez?
now youre saying vettel drove into perez on purpose? for what benefit?
the stewarts investigated the collision it was never said that they were investigating perez for that collision in fact they listed both car numbers....
so does the fact that the wheel never came off and raikonnen pulled over and retired have anything to do with him not being penalized?
should probably fact check before you go on the ferrari conspiracy theory rant
so whats the theory on hamilton who followed kimiin the pit lane incident?

I can clarify everything
- "Perez took my wing off' "f..." something not "I drove into Perez"
- he drove on purpose straight (not on purpose to crash of course) despite having problems expecting Perez to avoid him not other way round, like Maldonado - Guttierez with slower speed
- look at decisions at FIA site: car nr X (Perez) collided with car nr Y (Vettel) , then the decision is about Perez, clearing him of blame. I might be wrong if it matters I thought it did.
- this is the best explanation, the moment when problems started (re-watch on youtube) look at the white line:

Vettel could steer right, it was his choice to continue straight. Now if the wheel was not attached AND Vettel continued to drive despite problem the case can be made for two penalties .

Raikkonen's case is the simplest and most obvious. The purpose of penalising is to avoid not attaching wheels properly. When it happens it's called unsafe release like in Australia. Unsafe release unquestionably happened and they knew about - mechanic's reaction. Whether something happens afterwards or not is irrelevant. If they penalised only when wheel flies off and kills a mechanic no one would bother with slowing the process and avoiding risk counting on the fact that it's unlikely. That''s not how preventing accidents works (see SC speeding penalties for comparison).

No anti- something "rants" just reality and facts. FIA explanation was ludicrous and included irrelevant elements just to fill empty sheet of (e-)paper: 1. system malfunction - does not matter, systems don't put wheels on cars, people/teams do, it's the simplest mechanical procedure and no system can be blamed for messing it up. 2. Telemetry which they monitored carefully - irrelevant, unsafe release happened second after car moved, monitoring later does not change it. You pull over and retire to 1. avoid additional penalty 2. You can't drive with a wheel not attached properly, nothing to do with the first penalty.

[turbof1]

i think the races is mercedes to lose ... i would not be surprised if vettel splits the mercs or wins this race though....
the merc is clearly faster over one lap but then the waters get very muddy in race pace.

I also think it'll come down to who will be on pole. On this track Rosberg has not been beaten in qualifying since 2006, his race pace has been mediocre at best over the past races though. If it's him in front in the first stint, that could play into Ferrari's hands.

His race pace in China was actually good, arguably better then Hamilton's. Not going to defend Rosberg's ranting after the race, but Rosberg too has a very good race pace that roughly matches Hamilton, as shown in Australia too. Malaysia was too murky too call, with both drivers having to dig through the field and different strategies.

[search]

His race pace in China was actually good, arguably better then Hamilton's. Not going to defend Rosberg's ranting after the race, but Rosberg too has a very good race pace that roughly matches Hamilton, as shown in Australia too. Malaysia was too murky too call, with both drivers having to dig through the field and different strategies.

I meant more generally, also over the 2nd part of 2014, he rarely seemed to be capable of beating Hamilton pace wise - but yes, "mediocre" probably isn't the right term.

[Jordan44]

i think the races is mercedes to lose ... i would not be surprised if vettel splits the mercs or wins this race though....
the merc is clearly faster over one lap but then the waters get very muddy in race pace.

I also think it'll come down to who will be on pole. On this track Rosberg has not been beaten in qualifying since 2006, his race pace has been mediocre at best over the past races though. If it's him in front in the first stint, that could play into Ferrari's hands.

His race pace in China was actually good, arguably better then Hamilton's. Not going to defend Rosberg's ranting after the race, but Rosberg too has a very good race pace that roughly matches Hamilton, as shown in Australia too. Malaysia was too murky too call, with both drivers having to dig through the field and different strategies.

I'm not sure how you can make this claim. Nico looked no quicker than Hamilton. I know they were managing tyres but you'd expect him to at least challenge for an overtake if he was really quicker. It was Lewis who conserved his tyres well and put in two blistering laps. And he was flying on the medium tyres. Nico was no where near Lewis on the mediums in terms of pace.

[giantfan10]

im not sure how you can make the claims you're making.... quicker or not if he challenged for an overtake which entails getting close to the car in front his tires were going to be destroyed leaving him vulnerable to the 2 ferrris chasing him.. why would any driver with half a brain continously attack their teamate who is in a car that can match them in any situation and risk losing 2 places?
of course lewis conserved his tires well he was out front in clean air running whatever pace he wanted to.
lewis had fresher tires for the medium stint since he stopped later than the 2 cars behind him....
it is not as simple as some would make it out to be ......"he should have just passed him" is nonsense

[giantfan10]

can you clarify a few things for me?
when did vettel blame perez?.. right after the incident vettel got on the radio and said he had brake failure...can you point me to the quote or article saying vettel blamed perez?
now youre saying vettel drove into perez on purpose? for what benefit?
the stewarts investigated the collision it was never said that they were investigating perez for that collision in fact they listed both car numbers....
so does the fact that the wheel never came off and raikonnen pulled over and retired have anything to do with him not being penalized?
should probably fact check before you go on the ferrari conspiracy theory rant
so whats the theory on hamilton who followed kimiin the pit lane incident?

I can clarify everything
- "Perez took my wing off' "f..." something not "I drove into Perez"
- he drove on purpose straight (not on purpose to crash of course) despite having problems expecting Perez to avoid him not other way round, like Maldonado - Guttierez with slower speed
- look at decisions at FIA site: car nr X (Perez) collided with car nr Y (Vettel) , then the decision is about Perez, clearing him of blame. I might be wrong if it matters I thought it did.
- this is the best explanation, the moment when problems started (re-watch on youtube) look at the white line:
http://i.imgur.com/Ed9XrTk.png
Vettel could steer right, it was his choice to continue straight. Now if the wheel was not attached AND Vettel continued to drive despite problem the case can be made for two penalties .

Raikkonen's case is the simplest and most obvious. The purpose of penalising is to avoid not attaching wheels properly. When it happens it's called unsafe release like in Australia. Unsafe release unquestionably happened and they knew about - mechanic's reaction. Whether something happens afterwards or not is irrelevant. If they penalised only when wheel flies off and kills a mechanic no one would bother with slowing the process and avoiding risk counting on the fact that it's unlikely. That''s not how preventing accidents works (see SC speeding penalties for comparison).

No anti- something "rants" just reality and facts. FIA explanation was ludicrous and included irrelevant elements just to fill empty sheet of (e-)paper: 1. system malfunction - does not matter, systems don't put wheels on cars, people/teams do, it's the simplest mechanical procedure and no system can be blamed for messing it up. 2. Telemetry which they monitored carefully - irrelevant, unsafe release happened second after car moved, monitoring later does not change it. You pull over and retire to 1. avoid additional penalty 2. You can't drive with a wheel not attached properly, nothing to do with the first penalty.

more like opinions from your perspective....
vettel appologized to perez for running into him because he had a car problem ... end of story
the only opinion that matters is the stewards and i happen to agree with them in all the cases you stated.... the end

[kenny5]

I hope for repremands - did they actually break a rule?
*Edit: spelling

I recall a few years ago, there was a Q of cars at the pit lane exit
for a critical qualifying -- it was starting to rain-- and
Robert Kubica, passed them all in the pitlane.

Broke no rule then -- but i thought it brought about a new rule
--single file in the pitlane ??

[FrukostScones]

VET reinvestigated

[iotar__]

- "Perez took my wing off' "f..." something not "I drove into Perez"
- he drove on purpose straight (not on purpose to crash of course) despite having problems expecting Perez to avoid him not other way round, like Maldonado - Guttierez with slower speed
- look at decisions at FIA site: car nr X (Perez) collided with car nr Y (Vettel) , then the decision is about Perez, clearing him of blame. I might be wrong if it matters I thought it did.
- this is the best explanation, the moment when problems started (re-watch on youtube) look at the white line:
http://i.imgur.com/Ed9XrTk.png
Vettel could steer right, it was his choice to continue straight. Now if the wheel was not attached AND Vettel continued to drive despite problem the case can be made for two penalties .

Raikkonen's case is the simplest and most obvious. The purpose of penalising is to avoid not attaching wheels properly

more like opinions from your perspective....
vettel appologized to perez for running into him because he had a car problem ... end of story
the only opinion that matters is the stewards and i happen to agree with them in all the cases you stated.... the end

Oh FFS and no, not opinions: 1. - wheel that is not attached is an unsafe condition (condition not release same principle). It was a physical occurrence (not opinion), rules that cover it also exist in a material world not in my head and are simple. Driver stops directly after stop (not five laps later) - simple cause effect, nothing to discuss. The rest (system, telemetry) is smoke and mirrors. Quite right: FIA treats some teams differently (which was my point) and can ignore any rules.
2. If it was a brake failure causing collision why did they investigate Perez? It does matter who they investigate - so not an opinion. According to FIA report there were no car problems, nothing like: "at the point of the collision driver X could not react because his wheel wasn't attached properly" Just "no driver was determined..."

Yes, opinion: I'm judging Vettel's ability to control the car by the way he slowly took the corner without problems - full steering control + speed and by his own pause between "braking failure" and Perez's "f... unbelievable" behaviour which stands in contrast with fake apology (he did say it both = not opinion) . I can't be certain of course at which point he was able to control it (and if at all), he did have problems, from replays it looked (opinion) like at worst just a moment before the corner. Edit: If it's a brake failure and not driver's fault there's no need do apologise, is there?

[psychemedia]

FP2 long run pace - stints of 10 laps or more:



Stints of 6 laps or more:



Actual times and deltas can be seen in the session utilisation charts: http://www.f1datajunkie.com/2015/04/fp2 ... harts.html

[Jordan44]

im not sure how you can make the claims you're making.... quicker or not if he challenged for an overtake which entails getting close to the car in front his tires were going to be destroyed leaving him vulnerable to the 2 ferrris chasing him.. why would any driver with half a brain continously attack their teamate who is in a car that can match them in any situation and risk losing 2 places?
of course lewis conserved his tires well he was out front in clean air running whatever pace he wanted to.
lewis had fresher tires for the medium stint since he stopped later than the 2 cars behind him....
it is not as simple as some would make it out to be ......"he should have just passed him" is nonsense

This is complete nonsense. There were overtakes going on up and down the track and no one complaining about tyres. Merc were just being over cautious. Are you suggesting that Merc are never going to let the drivers overtake anyone for the rest of the season in case it destroys their tyres? Because based on what you've suggested it seems that way. As Ferrari will be behind all season.

I didn't say continuously attack. I said attempt. If he was quicker then he would have at least attempted. But let's face the facts, Nico hasn't won a race on pure pace last season and he didn't make an overtake on Lewis stick last season. Nico didn't have better race pace, at all. Lewis had it in his pocket when he needed it. Tyres are just an excuse, had Lewis been P2 he would have been chasing for the win as well as working on tyres.

[hattrick]

The F1 Show 17.4.2015

____________

[Andres125sx]

quicker or not if he challenged for an overtake which entails getting close to the car in front his tires were going to be destroyed leaving him vulnerable to the 2 ferrris chasing him.. why would any driver with half a brain continously attack their teamate who is in a car that can match them in any situation

So teamate battels should never occur....


Look at Alonso, well not past season as Kimi never was a real contender, but when he´s had tough fights with his teamates he always do the same, do some attempts to see if he causes a mistake on his teamate and can overtake him, but if he can´t after 2 laps trying then he stays around 2-3 seconds behind to avoid destroying his tires until next pit-stop is close, then he push again to be as close as posible and try an estrategic overtaking with an undercut or similar.

But Nico never tried anything, he knows he can´t beat Lewis on track and that´s something difficult to assume for a racing driver

[iotar__]

- They didn't even investigate Vettel, let's pretend it didn't happen approach, we might not like conclusions,
- Raikkoinen's pitlane thing - it's a joke and reprimand is nothing, Grosjean got 2 places grid for considerably less than that (driving itself and practice with more people there). Now can you imagine that it was 10 times bigger penalty than the one Button got for China [-o< ?
- just remove all the written rules

[Jordan44]

- They didn't even investigate Vettel, let's pretend it didn't happen approach, we might not like conclusions,
- Raikkoinen's pitlane thing - it's a joke and reprimand is nothing, Grosjean got 2 places grid for considerably less than that (driving itself and practice with more people there). Now can you imagine that it was 10 times bigger penalty than the one Button got for China [-o< ?
- just remove all the written rules

I agree. It's unbelievably inconsistent. I think the problem is mainly that the same people don't steward every weekend. So they have no knowledge of prior penalties handed out to be consistent. They need a dedicated team, there every race, no changes to it.