2015 Canadian Grand Prix - 5-7 June

[Jordan44]

Ricciardo has lost it and at this rate will not have a drive for 2016.

WDC:

7th DANIEL RICCIARDO 35
8th DANIIL KVYAT 19

irrelevant "stats" ! danni has had more mechanical woes! but when he doesnt have them, he is showing ricciardo how to drive.

Far too early in the season. No one can reliably conclude Kyvat is better than Ricciardo at this stage. Red Bull wont kick out a driver who got them 3 wins in a sub-par car and beat a 4x world champion. The only one under threat this season is Kvyat. If he proves himself, he will stay and partner DR.

[mrluke]

Can Mercedes score more points if they replace one of their drivers? Probably not. Can Ferrari score more points if they replace one of their drivers? Probably not. Can Williams score more points if they replace one of their drivers? That's where it gets interesting. But we're talking about spending extra money just to try and get more points, but still only be third in the WCC and fifth in the WDC. Probably not a good investment. The cars are too far apart in performance; driver changes won't help.

Good post.

Why would Mercedes replace any driver when they consistently qualify 1&2 and finish the race 1&2.

[Jordan44]

Can Mercedes score more points if they replace one of their drivers? Probably not. Can Ferrari score more points if they replace one of their drivers? Probably not. Can Williams score more points if they replace one of their drivers? That's where it gets interesting. But we're talking about spending extra money just to try and get more points, but still only be third in the WCC and fifth in the WDC. Probably not a good investment. The cars are too far apart in performance; driver changes won't help.

Good post.

Why would Mercedes replace any driver when they consistently qualify 1&2 and finish the race 1&2.

Pretty much what I said. Right now they have no reason to. But if the field gets more competitive, they may wish to bring in a quicker driver who can match Lewis more often than Nico.

[Phil]

Good enough would be winning races without his team mate making a mistake. Taking it on merit and actually overtaking his team mate on track which he has never done.

But why? For whom? Us the fans? Or the sport? I really don't see the logic in that. As others have pointed out, from a teams point of view, he's been doing more than enough. He's been right on Hamiltons tail in pretty much all the races when he wasn't leading himself, this and last season, save for mechanical problems, team strategic errors or cicrumstances. If anything, he has proven to be a very solid and consistent performer.

You will rarely have two drivers of equal strength and I'm not sure a team would want this either. As it stands, Lewis is performing just that much better, but the difference isn't that big. I don't think the team feels Rosberg is "underperforming". If you listen to Niki and Toto, it's more that they are impressed by Lewis stelar performance. I'm really not sure what one could ask more of Rosberg, from a teams perspective. Beating his team-mate would make little difference for the team points wise. They are already pushing each other on the track, as was again the case in Canada...

[iotar__]

After re-watching Stevens it's even bigger joke, Alonso-Glock posted was worse and Vettel-Kartikheyan ten times worse. It's simply ignoring blue flags penalty incident by a snail pace team and zero experience driver. Another 10 cm, 0,2 s pushed off track everyone and their Brundle is so certain about until it happens to someone else but much worse, like 30 m 2 s Alonso and they all "change" their minds. Penalty on top of that is outright ridiculous in light of ignored fighting for position collisions, apologies 100% fake and team written.

"Brake wear is now critical," "so we'd like you to manage them for 10 laps before you attack Lewis."

OK let's say he had high brakes temperature. How did they know A. the precise number of laps it would take B. that it would be good enough to attack Hamilton then (gap created)? This one is simple: he was too quick and it was consistence and for a reason. Why not take care for a lap or two and see what happens, why 10 laps? Either they have some prophets or call me a conspiracy theorist. What if it would have been fine after 3 laps, should he still wait 7 laps or should it be "attack now brakes are fine"? Race is about stages and they managed it.

On top of that is success propaganda: perfect race (Wolff), no it was only easy because Ferrari has no drivers to challenge you; race in control (LH): no, see the gaps and not driving away from a team-mate with brake problems; pushed like mad (NR), no, not when you were nursing your brakes you were not . I'm not saying Rosberg is winning (long way) or didn't have problems but they did avoid the fight.

[George-Jung]

...Burrpp...

[PlatinumZealot]

Doubtful... At the end both were pretty level at 98 used? If he had less fuel, he would have needed to save more and finish with less.

Lewis had used far less when I last saw the graphic, and Nico was never asked to do any fuel saving which makes no sense, as Lewis was always under Nico's consumption every time I saw it.

Then again, I'm not sure Mercedes would do that, them being for driver equality and all.

That's just speculation. Lewis confirmed after the race that they always use the same fuel.

[Phil]

Well today confirmed something we have suspected for a while. The team do put less fuel in Lewis's car. It's the only reasonable explanation for why Lewis was so fuel critical at points in the race despite showing far less fuel usage than Nico all the way through.

Just to add to this, as I now had a time to go back and watch the broadcast... after the chequered flag, the overlay showed the following fuel usage for the top 10:

Hamilton: 99.22 kg
Rosberg: 99.46 kg
Bottas: 99.04 kg
Raikoennen: 99.42 kg
Vettel: 99.35 kg
Massa: 96.35 kg
Maldonado: 97.09 kg
Hulkenberg: 98.65 kg
Kvyat: 98.62 kg
Grojean: 97.56 kg

Given that the fuel limit per race is 100 kg, it's hard to explain how Hamilton was supposedly underfueled if he at that point used pretty much all that was allowed. If they were indeed underfueling cars, I would think it would need to be by at least a few kgs to make a meaningful difference, but as I also mentioned, I don't think Canada would be the race to do it.

What the above figures also show is that all these cars were pretty much fuel limited, so pretty much all of them were not driving to the limit of the car, but to the limit of the fuel to get to the end of the race. In that sense, it's hard to argue that Mercedes had "a lot" of untapped hidden potential it was hiding and just managing... Vettel also pretty much used all there was to be used, but he also had traffic which might have cost a little more fuel (but on the other hand, had slip-stream here and there, as well as DRS on a number of laps). In the end, we still get to wonder about the Ferrari's full potential on not fuel limited tracks, but the same also applies to Mercedes.

IMO - I think if Vettel had started on the 2nd row, it would have been close, but I still think both Mercedes would have prevailed. But being fuel limited would probably bring the gap closer among different cars, assuming both have a similar fuel efficiency...

On that note, Massa didn't seem to have used a lot of fuel. Perhaps he was underfueled slightly as a gamble?

Also on the topic of fuel management; I wonder how the teams find the best balance between saving fuel and showing pace. I would think if you save fuel at the beginning, the effect is bigger because you are on a heavier car (= more potential to save, so the gain later is bigger) and get to reap the reward later on when you can drive at a higher relative pace for the extra fuel you saved up. Do it the other way around and when the car is quickest, you are in fuel saving mode. So one over the other might yield a much better race-distance time in total... (speaking strictly on the thought behind getting quickest from lap 1 to lap 70 with X amount of fuel).

[PlatinumZealot]

I am hoping they do replace Rosberg after next season (that's if he doesn't want to leave himself) and bring in someone else, but I don't see it happening. If they're still dominating, then Rosberg does the job for them. Sits there and claims second place. No point spending for a second top driver unless the field tightens up and they need someone quicker. It would be nice to see Alonso vs Hamilton part two but it wont happen.

Interesting, because I actually think Rosberg might just be quicker than Alonso. I think Rosberg has developed well over the years. I would like to see him at Ferrari against Vettel.

[Vasconia]

Good season? i would say its been "alright" by top drivers standards.
Theres a reason hes yet again being talked about getting left by Ferrari and its not because hes doing a "good" season.

Kvyat is doing good yes but if certain individuals are going to undermine Ricciardo by calling him a myth then by definition their favorite driver is even more of a myth regardless of what excuses that come up.

Well, I had written a long comment which has been erased, thank you Internet.

I think that Kimi´s performance during the races has been great, with the exception of Canada, but his problems are the Saturdays where he has made too many mistakes. He needs to improve this because the normal situation would be to finish fourth or third and putting Vettel under pressure sometimes. Anyway ,I think that nowadays Sebastian is a faster driver than Kimi, simply like that.

The mistake made yesterday was stupid but this should not change that Ferrari was quite happy with Kimi´s improvement. If he makes better qualifications, it should be no problems for him to continue in 2016.

About the use of the term "myth" with Ricciardo, I consider it stupid as well, but I also considered stupid the comments that Kvyat was not enough good to be in RB, when he has been close to Ricciardo, he has had a lot of reliability problems and he is very young. Come on, give him some time. He can deliver and he has shown it in the last two races.

[ChrisF1]

I cannot believe anybody is arguing that Grosjean was innocent. It baffles me, and I wonder if I watched a different race.

If that was any non-open wheel series he would have pitched himself into the wall for cutting back too early.

[PlatinumZealot]

Well today confirmed something we have suspected for a while. The team do put less fuel in Lewis's car. It's the only reasonable explanation for why Lewis was so fuel critical at points in the race despite showing far less fuel usage than Nico all the way through.

Just to add to this, as I now had a time to go back and watch the broadcast... after the chequered flag, the overlay showed the following fuel usage for the top 10:

Hamilton: 99.22 kg
Rosberg: 99.46 kg
Bottas: 99.04 kg
Raikoennen: 99.42 kg
Vettel: 99.35 kg
Massa: 96.35 kg
Maldonado: 97.09 kg
Hulkenberg: 98.65 kg
Kvyat: 98.62 kg
Grojean: 97.56 kg

Given that the fuel limit per race is 100 kg, it's hard to explain how Hamilton was supposedly underfueled if he at that point used pretty much all that was allowed. If they were indeed underfueling cars, I would think it would need to be by at least a few kgs to make a meaningful difference, but as I also mentioned, I don't think Canada would be the race to do it.

What the above figures also show is that all these cars were pretty much fuel limited, so pretty much all of them were not driving to the limit of the car, but to the limit of the fuel to get to the end of the race. In that sense, it's hard to argue that Mercedes had "a lot" of untapped hidden potential it was hiding and just managing... Vettel also pretty much used all there was to be used, but he also had traffic which might have cost a little more fuel (but on the other hand, had slip-stream here and there, as well as DRS on a number of laps). In the end, we still get to wonder about the Ferrari's full potential on not fuel limited tracks, but the same also applies to Mercedes.

IMO - I think if Vettel had started on the 2nd row, it would have been close, but I still think both Mercedes would have prevailed. But being fuel limited would probably bring the gap closer among different cars, assuming both have a similar fuel efficiency...

On that note, Massa didn't seem to have used a lot of fuel. Perhaps he was underfueled slightly as a gamble?

Also on the topic of fuel management; I wonder how the teams find the best balance between saving fuel and showing pace. I would think if you save fuel at the beginning, the effect is bigger because you are on a heavier car (= more potential to save, so the gain later is bigger) and get to reap the reward later on when you can drive at a higher relative pace for the extra fuel you saved up. Do it the other way around and when the car is quickest, you are in fuel saving mode. So one over the other might yield a much better race-distance time in total... (speaking strictly on the thought behind getting quickest from lap 1 to lap 70 with X amount of fuel).

Very good post. (Mods why can't I upvote anymore?)

Does confirm that the cars were on the limit if we are talking about average pace over the race. I find it interest that Kimi used more than Vettel and the Renaults were surprisingly fuel efficient. Man, I can see why the team put so much focus on getting more horsepower out of every drop of fuel.

[Silent Storm]

Vettel was for most part of the race in turbulent air and hence less drag while Kimi was only behind Bottas for a couple of laps.

[Jolle]

Can Mercedes score more points if they replace one of their drivers? Probably not. Can Ferrari score more points if they replace one of their drivers? Probably not. Can Williams score more points if they replace one of their drivers? That's where it gets interesting. But we're talking about spending extra money just to try and get more points, but still only be third in the WCC and fifth in the WDC. Probably not a good investment. The cars are too far apart in performance; driver changes won't help.

Good post.

Why would Mercedes replace any driver when they consistently qualify 1&2 and finish the race 1&2.

Pretty much what I said. Right now they have no reason to. But if the field gets more competitive, they may wish to bring in a quicker driver who can match Lewis more often than Nico.

Driving really fast is only half the job of a F1 driver, being part of the (sponsors) image is just as important. Look at McLaren. They would save a lot of money while brining in (almost) the same data and speed if they would have gone with Magnussen and Van Doorn this year. Same goes a bit for Lewis and Nico. Kyvatt and Bottas in a Mercedes would be 1&2 in most of the races Lewis and Nico do so, but they would save around 40 million a year. So they make a lot of extra (sponsor) money to but those guys in the car.

[Vasconia]

I am hoping they do replace Rosberg after next season (that's if he doesn't want to leave himself) and bring in someone else, but I don't see it happening. If they're still dominating, then Rosberg does the job for them. Sits there and claims second place. No point spending for a second top driver unless the field tightens up and they need someone quicker. It would be nice to see Alonso vs Hamilton part two but it wont happen.

Interesting, because I actually think Rosberg might just be quicker than Alonso. I think Rosberg has developed well over the years. I would like to see him at Ferrari against Vettel.

I think that Nico is tremendously fast, not far from the pure speed of Lewis, but Nico lacks something that Lewis or Fernando have. Nico needs everything to be perfect in order to win, if he has problems he simply looses it.

It would be stupid for Mercedes to choose another driver. This is the perfect situation for them, they have a potential winner(Hamilton) and the second driver who usually ends the races quite close, but not giving too many problems to Lewis. Mercedes dont need a driver who ends 30 seconds behind, but they dont need neither a driver who wins too many races because it could be an enormous tension in the team. And if they had a very close competitor this could be problematic.