2015 British Grand Prix - Silverstone, 03-05 July

[iotar__]

This is your race, left Rosberg - right Hamilton:
38 1:48.709 38 1:49.338 = Rosberg 0,603 quicker
39 1:47.629 39 1:49.591 = Rosberg 0.962 quicker
40 1:42.769 40 1:43.748 = Rosberg 0.979 quicker
41 1:41.895 41 1:43.864 = Rosberg 1.969 quicker
42 1:39.183 42 1:41.184 = Rosberg 2.001 quicker

6,5 s in five laps, 1,3 s per lap quicker, that wasn't by "choice" and neither was the rain

It's a Miracle !!! Suddenly, the god in Rosberg awoke and ALMOST WON. But slept with Inters on.

44 P 1:53.679 44 2:09.721
45 2:13.409 45 1:52.659
46 1:51.473 46 1:51.281
...and how it was decided for Rosberg, same tyres (-1), Hamilton was leading and he could have only lost either by being slower (check) and/or worse strategy (nope) but not with Merc controlling it, everything else is talking. So one simple question to close it: do you really think Merc left Rosberg hoping it would give him advantage over LH and therefore problems of them racing? Options were limited once they knew LH was coming in.

Same applies to multiple headlines I saw - "did Williams lose the win through team orders?", what race were they watching on top of holier than thou TO approach? Rosberg overtook both on track (so of course rain helped him too) and Bottas was considerably slower than Massa in the wet.

He was fast just by fluke and couldn't be faster when the tires changed. Which clearly is the proof that he was just in a lucky situation to come closer. But Lewis called a gem and got right in the window of opportunity. Who knows what was going on with Lewis' car when Nico was approaching fast. No ifs and buts, the deserving driver won. Nico was plain lucky that rain helped him to overtake Bottas, which he couldn't have done in dry. If the rain allowed Nico the advantage of passing Williams' and coming closer to Lewis, the rain again made it even. In the end Lewis won by 10 Seconds !!! That's how much slower Rosberg was.

That's just silly but OK:
1. No miracles needed just the better driver, he was considerably quicker than Hamilton and no big fonts shouting will change it: 6,5 seconds in 5 laps, 1,3 second per lap.
2. "In the end Lewis won by 10 Seconds !!! That's how much slower Rosberg was." Really? In the end Rosberg won Monaco by ...s and that's how faster he was. Live by your own rules.
3. As already stated - pace on interns was irrelevant, race was over and I think he closed the gap (11 to 10) not that it mattered much.

The point Merc is trying to sell that Hamilton won because of some tactical decision he made and Rosberg didn't is blatantly wrong.

Three laps to pit for Rosberg:
42 - he can't and/or it does not make sense
43 - he is behind after pitstop he needs to be quicker so decision is not winning him anything
44 - you saw it yourself.

[f1316]

Sorry if this has already been said, but the part I don't understand is why Williams didn't anticipate Hamilton stopping and pit Massa at the same time. We all heard Mercedes saying "box box box" to Lewis half a lap before he stopped and once he stopped first it was obvious what was going to happen.

The problem was, once again, that Williams was too afraid of splitting the strategies.

Yeah, but why would it have been a split? This was one stop strategy zone and they pitted both on the two subsequent laps, so no change of strategy needed, just a bit more quick thinking.

The rain put pay to any chance of them winning regardless, but if they'd pitted massa at the same time as Hamilton, I think they'd have had a good shot at the win without rain as Massa looked hard to pass and better on the harder tyres.

[LionKing]

The other interest thing is why Mercedes's blatant fake pit stop attempt was not investigated and punished. I thought that practice has been banned a few years ago.

[Overdriving]

Vettel catching and overtaking Raikkonen:
https://vid.me/1n0N
That's some fantastic control on dry tyres.

[Jonnycraig]

For anyone who harboured any doubts that Vettel is the king of the wet:


Gains on the wet track on dry tyres

[GPR-A duplicate2]

That's just silly but OK:
1. No miracles needed just the better driver, he was considerably quicker than Hamilton and no big fonts shouting will change it: 6,5 seconds in 5 laps, 1,3 second per lap.
2. "In the end Lewis won by 10 Seconds !!! That's how much slower Rosberg was." Really? In the end Rosberg won Monaco by ...s and that's how faster he was. Live by your own rules.
3. As already stated - pace on interns was irrelevant, race was over and I think he closed the gap (11 to 10) not that it mattered much.

The point Merc is trying to sell that Hamilton won because of some tactical decision he made and Rosberg didn't is blatantly wrong.

Three laps to pit for Rosberg:
42 - he can't and/or it does not make sense
43 - he is behind after pitstop he needs to be quicker so decision is not winning him anything
44 - you saw it yourself.

The problem in your analysis is, it is all taken on face value, without even putting an ounce of common sense to ask a simple question; How is it possible that, suddenly Nico's car was going 2 seconds faster than Lewis'? That's not normal and hence, it was just fluke. Either Lewis' encountered some problem (might be tires suddenly losing temperature) OR he was being over cautious and slowing down. Instead, you are simply over hyping Nico's times with the numbers available and projecting that IT WAS FOR REAL AND NICO WAS SUPER FAST. That is what the problem is. If Nico indeed was 2 SECONDS faster, he should have chased back Lewis in the end and won, which he didn't. If he was 2 seconds faster, when Lewis pitted, he should have clearly got an undercut, but he too suffered in increased rain. My point is, your mathematics is not wrong, but projecting it by ignoring the context and situation is wrong.

[Juzh]

Vettel catching and overtaking Raikkonen:
https://vid.me/1n0N
That's some fantastic control on dry tyres.

Thanks for this. Been wondering what exactly happened on that lap. Just looks like raikkonen has no confidence in wet conditions.

[Phil]

Yes, it was clear from the get-go that Merc was waiting for the pitstops to leapfrog them. The RIGHT strategy would have been to have Bottas back them up and allow Massa to disappear in the distance, not have Massa move over!

Excellent points. Though I wonder how well a Williams could have defended against the Mercedes if not for the DRS train they caused. Remember; Massa was the only one without DRS - and he did a good enough job to stay ahead of Bottas and keep the pressure under control from his team-mate. Meanwhile, Bottas had DRS, as did Hamilton, as well as Rosberg. That made overtaking overall difficult. If there was a bigger gap between the Williams before the pitstop, it may have made life a bit easier for the first Mercedes to pass the Williams. Or perhaps not.

Williams were also caught out on how well the undercut worked and what kind of pace the Mercedes had once in clean air. Hamilton made it work.

As for Rosberg / Hamilton. Rosberg was very quick no doubt, but in the crucial stages, he couldn't set himself apart. Not when he was following Hamilton before the 1st pistsops, not at the end of the race when the gap was around 10 seconds, both in clear air and equal tires on equal track conditions. So where did that superior pace go? As a racer, you don't give up - not when you are beating your team-mate by over a second a lap.

The superior pace Rosberg was showing was only evident when they were on slicks, on a track that was getting wetter in confined areas of the track. Hamilton was in the lead and had all the reason to play it safe. Rosberg at that point was still behind both Williams when his advantage started to become apparent, so he went fully agressive (risky - he nearly went off at some point!) to be able to pass both Williams as that was his best and only chance at that point. That worked out brilliantly and by then, because of those decisive moves, he was already running at a higher more agressive pace which brilliantly helped him keep the pressure and tire temperatures up vs Hamilton who was driving cautious and lost pressure & temperature. That isn't the same as destroying your tires mind you - just more difficult to get them back up to temperature under those conditions. Anyway, they both pitted and once both were on tires in equal state (warmed up with adequate pressure) the lap time deltas were back in order with both Mercedes lapping in the same region.

If the stronger rain hadn't come and they would have stayed on slicks, it's anyones guess what would have happened.

A.) Rosberg might have closed up to Hamilton with tires in a superior state and passed him easily
B.) The track might have improved in time in order for Hamilton to be able to react
C.) It might have rained heavier, as it did, which resulted in the right stop by Hamilton and resulted win

Hamilton was fortunate that the pit-stop worked out. The data was there, but changing conditions are always tricky. Some think Button is some wet weather specialist because he has 'lucked' into great pit-stop calls in the past, but I put it down to pure luck through circumstance. Hamilton found himself on tires under performing due to dropped temperatures and pressure, so it pushed him into wanting new tires in the right time as conditions started to worsen. Likewise, Button lucked into some great pit-stop decisions because he was out of position and took a gamble that worked out brilliantly. As a leader of the race, it's mostly lose/lose. You are the first to drive into the wet areas of the track, the one to dictate pace. The ones behind you can take you as a yardstick, just as Rosberg did. If Hamilton had driven agressively (like Rosberg did in order to pass the Williams), he might have pushed a bit too far, had an off-track moment and everyone would be laughing, shaking their heads at the daftness of taking an unnecessary risk from the lead. As it turned out; He did exactly what he needed to to win the race. Full points from me, as for Rosberg for making the best of the situation he found himself in.

[GPR-A duplicate2]

Massa was the only one without DRS - and he did a good enough job to stay ahead of Bottas and keep the pressure under control from his team-mate. Meanwhile, Bottas had DRS, as did Hamilton, as well as Rosberg.

Whole of this year, it has been proved how important it is to stay in clear air and how nasty it is to stay behind another car with similar characteristics. The DRS advantage that the trailing cars had, was nullified by the clear air for the leader and with that, the leader was elegantly killing the tires of trailing cars.

Williams were also caught out on how well the undercut worked and what kind of pace the Mercedes had once in clean air.

Exactly !!! Clear air. With that, it is evident that Massa was just holding them up.

If the stronger rain hadn't come and they would have stayed on slicks, it's anyones guess what would have happened.

A.) Rosberg might have closed up to Hamilton with tires in a superior state and passed him easily

No. He cleared the Williams only because rain arrived. Had it stayed dry, he would have been staring Bottas' gearbox, whole race and should have been satisified with a 4th place and Lewis' wouldn't have lost his tire temperatures and would have cruised away.

[nacho]

Vettel catching and overtaking Raikkonen:
https://vid.me/1n0N
That's some fantastic control on dry tyres.

Recovering those rear slides really well. Maybe this clip highlights that Raikkonen is having a lot more trouble with the engine response than Vettel. Impossible for Vettel to drive like that without having a really good feel for the throttle.

[Phil]

No. He cleared the Williams only because rain arrived. Had it stayed dry, he would have been staring Bottas' gearbox, whole race and should have been satisified with a 4th place and Lewis' wouldn't have lost his tire temperatures and would have cruised away.

Yes. (I'm pretty sure I mentioned this specifically in my post). But the important point is that Rosberg had to drive more aggressively [vs Hamilton] in order to pass the Williams when the downforce advantage on a wet track became apparent.

*That* aggressive driving is what caused him to keep his tire temperatures and pressures up better [as well as gaining him confidence at that pace in those conditions] than Hamilton which also lead to him closing the gap once he was in clear air, vs Hamilton who was also in clear air, but was driving more cautiously, because he had something to lose.

[Vasconia]

Kimi has called it.

In any case, as usual Kimi can not drive well in wet conditions. He was passed by Vettel where quickly when the rain came, and shortly Kvyat would be the next to pass him. Kimi would have been 7th at most even if he stayed out. Instead he finished in a distant 8th but still only 2 points difference...

I thought this happened because Kimi pitted too early and his wet tyres were destroyed at that point of the race.

No, Vettel passed Kimi just before Kimi's stop to intermediates when both were on dry weather hard tires. They were pretty much in the same situation having pit for those hard tires before on consecutive laps.

Thank you! Now I can fully appreciate Vettel´s overtake on Kimi, which was spectacular. Seb is really good when the track is wet. Anwyay Kimi is not that bad so I he must have some confidence problems with the car.

[GPR-A duplicate2]

No. He cleared the Williams only because rain arrived. Had it stayed dry, he would have been staring Bottas' gearbox, whole race and should have been satisified with a 4th place and Lewis' wouldn't have lost his tire temperatures and would have cruised away.

Yes. (I'm pretty sure I mentioned this specifically in my post). But the important point is that Rosberg had to drive more aggressively [vs Hamilton] in order to pass the Williams when the downforce advantage on a wet track became apparent.

*That* aggressive driving is what caused him to keep his tire temperatures and pressures up better [as well as gaining him confidence at that pace in those conditions] than Hamilton which also lead to him closing the gap once he was in clear air, vs Hamilton who was also in clear air, but was driving more cautiously, because he had something to lose.

Quote Possible. I am not sure, but contemplating that having been behind the Williams would have also helped to gain temperature in tires with the turbulent air, when the track was quickly losing temperature !

[ChrisF1]

Very impressed by Vettel, or any driver who was willing to push that much when the car was desperate to spit you out. Some really precise steering inputs going on!

[fanboy] But wait, Vettel can't drive unless the rear of his car is solid and he has Adrian Newey and a trick diffuser or engine mapping[/fanboy]

[Phil]

Possibly that too. I still retain that in changing conditions; Confidence and risk is key. Rosberg drove at a higher risk because he had to (to overtake the Williams) and that gained him the confidence to stay at a much higher pace delta, where as Hamilton decided to drive more cautious and "control" the race and protect his tires (which resulted in the lower temps and pressure). On changing conditions that can be key, but can also bite you, as Rosberg was quickly closing on Hamilton.

For all we know; Rosberg could have spun right behind Hamilton and then we would have said that Rosberg was silly to do so because he risked and lost it. We tend to applaud when things go well, even a gamble and hail it as the best thing ever, and when they don't, we laugh at the pure stupidity...