2015 Hungarian Grand Prix - 24-26 July

[iotar__]

- Why the hell are you mixing Ricciardo's Rosberg and Hamilton incidents? I know why: if you mix it you can pretend that Hamilton's mistake was smaller (by association) and from the other side it's over the top defending Ricciardo - "nothing wrong". One was 100% Hamilton's fault , the other 90-10 type, how can you write he "didn't do anything wrong" when objectively there were at least three completely wrong parts in this bad attempt? So dive across the other driver (yes or no?), outbraking yourself (yes or no?) and accelerating into BACK of the other car (yes or no?) is "nothing wrong" ? That's just an insult to reality.

- Hamilton did more than Maldonado (less space left) seconds later to Bottas who braked and went off track wheras Perez went straight and accelerated. Biased commentators who were just lamenting collision started waxing poetic over brilliant positioning that sent Bottas off track. I need to turn off the sound with replays because of F1 "experts" like that.
- Whiting should be thrown out of F1.There's no stewards deciding anything, just tourists accepting "recommendations". Mouth full of Bianchi then ignoring multiple crashes and badly attached wheels for selected teams. At least he had to plough through after wrong Maldonado's drive-through, brilliant. And they wonder why no one serious wants to joint this private playground of several teams.

To finish Merc Rosberg softs mistake (just facts or questions, simple yes or no):
- they didn't have time to change tyres, [fine - when I questioned that I was wrong]
- they intended to put softs with regular pitstop but didn't have them prepared
- they had mediums as a "default" choice in case of a safety car, puncture etc. (not a regular stop) which turned out to be the wrong choice anyway [opinion: I'd call that a huge mistake or they didn't intend to use softs],
- so they divide laps into "default" choices but can't have them both prepared during this one touch and go lap?

[wickedz50]

Hard to understand when Merc crew insisted Nico that he will be getting a soft but somehow changed it to medium and out comes their excuse. On the soft Nico would have won, leave alone there would not have a collision with Ricardo.
If a soft was to be put on and the radio message happened long time back the tyre should have been ready. This is conspiracy.

[ChrisF1]

- Why the hell are you mixing Ricciardo's Rosberg and Hamilton incidents? I know why: if you mix it you can pretend that Hamilton's mistake was smaller (by association) and from the other side it's over the top defending Ricciardo - "nothing wrong". One was 100% Hamilton's fault , the other 90-10 type, how can you write he "didn't do anything wrong" when objectively there were at least three completely wrong parts in this bad attempt? So dive across the other driver (yes or no?), outbraking yourself (yes or no?) and accelerating into BACK of the other car (yes or no?) is "nothing wrong" ? That's just an insult to reality.

Last response:

1) Ricciardo did not dive across the other driver. He did outbrake himself, but so do lots of other drivers.

2) The outbraking is nothing to do with the collision as he kept the car on track, it isn't as though he rejoined and Rosberg was unaware that he was there.

3) He didn't accelerate into the back of the other car, he accelerated forwards on a constant line and Rosberg cut across him. You've just stated diving across another driver is wrong, so accept that Rosberg was wrong to move across.

[Vasconia]

Hard to understand when Merc crew insisted Nico that he will be getting a soft but somehow changed it to medium and out comes their excuse. On the soft Nico would have won, leave alone there would not have a collision with Ricardo.
If a soft was to be put on and the radio message happened long time back the tyre should have been ready. This is conspiracy.

He was slow with the sofs, then he changed to mediums, but he was also slow. But as you have mentioned the most logic strategy was to change to softs again and attack Vettel, he could have won the race though he didnt deserve it.

Anyway Ricciardo ruined his race and damaged his options for the championship.

An spectacular race in Hungary and with dry conditions, its hard to believe.

[Vasconia]

I agree with Schuttelberg. We may criticize Rosberg that he was too aggressive here, but I think that's what he needed last year. In 2014 I had the impression that he was too careful and not willing to risk too much as opposed to Hamilton.

However, if I had to blame someone for the collision between Rosberg and Ricciardo I see Rosberg being more at fault simply because I don't think Rosberg had to drive so much to the left side.

Sorry but you are wrong, Ricciardo did a suicide attack and he failed, he was almost out of the track and he rejoined without paying enough attention to where Nico was. He was too optimistic in both movements and he ruined Nico´s race.

Nico has the same problem always, when he is not ok with the car he is not able to give the 100%, while Lewis does. On this ocassion Lewis made too many mistakes, if not he would have overtaken Nico on the track.

[Vasconia]

I'm genuinely lost on this.

Incident 1 - Hamilton made contact with Ricciardo. He broke his front wing, came into the pits and got repairs.
Incident 2 - Rosberg made contact with Ricciardo. He punctured his tyre, came into the pits and got repairs.

In my honest opinion, I thought Ricciardo was innocent in both incidents and I'm treating both as separate incidents. But, why did Hamilton get the penalty and Rosberg didn't? I understand Rosberg took enough of a penalty by losing his place, but so did Hamilton by having to box again.

Can anyone explain this? I'm genuinely puzzled.

Different situations, Ricciardo tried to overtake Nico from nowhere, an imposible overtake. He blocked and he rejoined withouth seeing where Nico was. I think he deserved a penalty, you try to make an imposible overtake, you make a mistake, and as a consequence yo ruin another driver´s race.

[ChrisF1]

Why are people saying Ricciardo rejoined without looking at Nico, Ricciardo never leaves the track and holds a constant line, I (and others) posted the gif.

[Schuttelberg]

I'm genuinely lost on this.

Incident 1 - Hamilton made contact with Ricciardo. He broke his front wing, came into the pits and got repairs.
Incident 2 - Rosberg made contact with Ricciardo. He punctured his tyre, came into the pits and got repairs.

In my honest opinion, I thought Ricciardo was innocent in both incidents and I'm treating both as separate incidents. But, why did Hamilton get the penalty and Rosberg didn't? I understand Rosberg took enough of a penalty by losing his place, but so did Hamilton by having to box again.

Can anyone explain this? I'm genuinely puzzled.

Schuttelberg, very nice posts on the Rosberg analysis. Very much agree on that part.

About the incidents; While I do agree that they are rather similar, I am assuming that the way the collision took place played a decisive role in how the stewards applied their reasoning to both incidents. In Rosberg/Ricciardos incident, one could say that Rosberg had the position in the bag (through much better drive and momentum) and he was ultimately stupid to misjudge the gap and cut across, which basically ruined his race. Essentially, Rosberg was already damaged enough due to having to crawl around the entire track to be able to pit. What may also have played a role is that they felt Ricciardo was the one "out of control" - so any damage he suffered through it, would be by his own doing (he was the one who chose to overtake) and he suffered the consequence too, by having to pit for a new nose.

Hamilton/Ricciardo; it's the other way around: Hamilton locked up, so he was the one "out of control". I still think that circumstance played a huge factor, it happening on the restart after the safety car period. Despite that, his trajectory basically put him on a severe collision path with Ricciardo. IMO had that collision been less forcefull, perhaps a "kiss" to the side or a minor impact, I think it would have been classed as a racing-incident. The velocity of it though and the angle he collided with Ricciardo however made it that much worse, which probably resulted in him getting the drive-through for it.

This is just my 2 cents on why the stewards might have decided differently in both incidents.

Thanks Phil. The stewarding makes more sense now.

[Vasconia]

Congrats to Vettel. Flawless drive. Fitting farewell to Jules. Congrats to Red Bull hosting two drivers to the podium.

I don’t know about anyone else, but man it was great to see Alonso fighting for positions and overtaking. That guy is just chomping at the bit. If Honda can get that dang power unit sorted, 2016 may be a good year for McHonda and Alonso.

Can someone please post a link which shows the race lap times for the drivers?

Thank you.

Yes, both Vettel and Alonso did a great race. It was nice to see Mclaren having a decent performance, finally.

Two victories for Ferrari, I think that Marchione had promised something if team was able to race this amount of victories, or was it with three?

[Schuttelberg]

I'm genuinely lost on this.

Incident 1 - Hamilton made contact with Ricciardo. He broke his front wing, came into the pits and got repairs.
Incident 2 - Rosberg made contact with Ricciardo. He punctured his tyre, came into the pits and got repairs.

In my honest opinion, I thought Ricciardo was innocent in both incidents and I'm treating both as separate incidents. But, why did Hamilton get the penalty and Rosberg didn't? I understand Rosberg took enough of a penalty by losing his place, but so did Hamilton by having to box again.

Can anyone explain this? I'm genuinely puzzled.

Different situations, Ricciardo tried to overtake Nico from nowhere, an imposible overtake. He blocked and he rejoined withouth seeing where Nico was. I think he deserved a penalty, you try to make an imposible overtake, you make a mistake, and as a consequence yo ruin another driver´s race.

There's no way Ricciardo deserved a penalty. Ricciardo did a lot of that en route to a victory last year (same move). I think Rosberg had left the door open on the inside and in racing terms, (during the pass-entry into the corner) Ricciardo was ahead. In the corner or what you refer in racing as mid-corner, for a while Ricciardo was ahead and for a while Rosberg. On exit, when contact occurs Rosberg is clearly ahead and the contact occurs due to a very slight change in line from Rosberg. Ricciardo can't just make his car vanish there and you can't punish someone for making an "impossible" move when he's not responsible for the collision. I think Rosberg is a bit clumsy when he's racing top drawer drivers wheel to wheel, and not for the first time the pressure got to him. Whatever way you look at it, Ricciardo is not the guilty party in that accident. Whether you go by rules or just the sporting side.

[Phil]

Hard to understand when Merc crew insisted Nico that he will be getting a soft but somehow changed it to medium and out comes their excuse. On the soft Nico would have won, leave alone there would not have a collision with Ricardo.
If a soft was to be put on and the radio message happened long time back the tyre should have been ready. This is conspiracy.

I'm not sure what there is not to understand... The teams do their simulation runs in P2 to figure out what pace they can get out of which tires, for which duration of them. The data suggested that the option tire was going to be a challenge to take to the end.

Lets go back:
Hulkenberg had his front wing incident on lap 43 out of 69. Not quite 2/3rds of the race. Just about outside of the frame of the ideal point for the 2nd stop for a 'shorter' stint on options. Remember, the option tire is only advantageous if you can run its pace, but at ideally less laps. So the goal for his strategy was to go long on the prime tire during the middle stint, then get on the option at the end at which point he will reel in both Ferraris on the prime tire to have a go.

Virtual safety car is 'deployed' on lap 43. The benefit of the virtual safety car is that it slows down traffic to a safe speed - and in theory, if the track is deemed safe enough, can be deactivated with racing resuming without much delay. No cars needed to unlap, no safety car restart, no bunching up of the field. At this point, the logical thing to assume was that it was simply a short VS phase. The debris however made it impossible to clean (the field was spread out), so race control decided to deploy the actual safety car. By then however, all of them had already pitted for the prime tire.

Once the real safety car went out, the situation changed. It became clear that we'd have a prolonged safety car period (at least another 4 laps) until the debris is cleared, the traffic is bunched up and the lapped cars unlap themselves. If Mercedes had known this would happen, you can bet that they would have put those softs onto Rosbergs car.

Hindsight is a beautiful thing. It just didn't work out this time. Rosberg was neither responsible or stupid.

[Schuttelberg]

2 back to back races where the race has turned upside down on Lap 43!

[Jonnycraig]

Hard to understand when Merc crew insisted Nico that he will be getting a soft but somehow changed it to medium and out comes their excuse. On the soft Nico would have won, leave alone there would not have a collision with Ricardo.
If a soft was to be put on and the radio message happened long time back the tyre should have been ready. This is conspiracy.

The plan was to put him on the softs, but much later than lap 43, so at the time of the VSC, only the medium tyres were in the blankets, at the correct temperature.

Of course, most of us would agree that it's nonsense to have to warm up tyres for an F1 driver, especially behind the safety car when they can put heat in to their hearts content, but such is F1.

[F1NAC]

Congrats to Vettel. Flawless drive. Fitting farewell to Jules. Congrats to Red Bull hosting two drivers to the podium.

I don’t know about anyone else, but man it was great to see Alonso fighting for positions and overtaking. That guy is just chomping at the bit. If Honda can get that dang power unit sorted, 2016 may be a good year for McHonda and Alonso.

Can someone please post a link which shows the race lap times for the drivers?

Thank you.

Yes, both Vettel and Alonso did a great race. It was nice to see Mclaren having a decent performance, finally.

Two victories for Ferrari, I think that Marchione had promised something if team was able to race this amount of victories, or was it with three?

Arrivabene promised if they score 4 victories he will walk barefoot to Maranello hills

[GPR-A duplicate2]

Hard to understand when Merc crew insisted Nico that he will be getting a soft but somehow changed it to medium and out comes their excuse. On the soft Nico would have won, leave alone there would not have a collision with Ricardo.
If a soft was to be put on and the radio message happened long time back the tyre should have been ready. This is conspiracy.

I'm not sure what there is not to understand... The teams do their simulation runs in Q2 to figure out what pace they can get out of which tires, for which duration of them. The data suggested that the option tire was going to be a challenge to take to the end.

Lets go back:
Hulkenberg had his front wing incident on lap 43 out of 69. Not quite 2/3rds of the race. Just about outside of the frame of the ideal point for the 2nd stop for a 'shorter' option stint. Remember, the option tire is only advantageous if you can run its pace, but at ideally less laps. So the goal for his strategy was to go long on the prime tire during the middle stint, then get on the option at the end at which point he will reel in both Ferraris on the prime tire to have a go.

Virtual safety car is 'deployed' on lap 43. The benefit of the virtual safety car is that it slows down traffic to a safe speed - and in theory, if the track is deemed safe enough, can be deactivated with racing resuming without much delay. No cars needed to unlap, no safety car restart, no bunching up of the field. At this point, the logical thing to assume was that it was simply a short VS phase. The debris however made it impossible to clean (the field was spread out), so race control decided to deploy the actual safety car. By then however, all of them had already pitted for the prime tire.

Once the real safety car went out, the situation changed. It became clear that we'd have a prolonged safety car period (at least another 4 laps) until the debris is cleared, the traffic is bunched up and the lapped cars unlap themselves. If Mercedes had known this would happen, you can bet that they would have put those softs onto Rosbergs car.

Hindsight is a beautiful thing. It just didn't work out this time. Rosberg was neither responsible or stupid.

Hey Phil, when was the last time in the last few years that a safety car was deployed for less than 4 laps? With the crappy idea of letting lapped cars unlap, the safety car has been a pain in the a**. I won't even be as stupid to find a conspiracy here, because conspiracy is an event where there are intelligent people trying to outsmart. We are talking about idiots in the Mercedes strategy camp, who are simply not good enough to make decent calls at the nick of moment.

For Merc, at this point in championship, they can afford to go for ALL OR NONE approach as they are safely ahead in the game and continue to have great cushion in performance. To think like, "OH NO, let's be safe and salvage some pride by finishing the race" shows the crappy mentality. It was wiser to take the risk of not finishing the race with Softs (which is total BS as demonstrated by Ricciardo), instead of playing safe with mediums. They did this with Lewis last year and he ended up with 3rd, whereas they could have bolted a softs to Lewis and won the race. Rest everything that Toto comes out and talks about strategies, is just rubbish.