Lewis Hamilton crushed all hope early on at Monza by sprinting away to lead the Italian Grand Prix from start to finish. Sebastian Vettel did salvage the Ferrari fans by finished second, ahead of former Ferrari man Felipe Massa in the Williams.
emaren wrote:I wonder if this is the reason for Rosberg pushing to get past Vettel too ? All sense says that he knew he was at the limits of the engine, so why risk it for three points ? Other than knowledge that Hamilton was potentially facing a 25second penalty and overtaking Vettel would send him from 15 points to 25 and hence close the gap to Hamilton...
Rosbergs tyre pressures were lower by 4x the amount that Hamilton's were down by, so I don't think that is it - no need to look for conspiracy theories, Rosberg thought he had a chance to get Vettel, so he tried. Simple as.
ChrisF1 wrote:
Rosbergs tyre pressures were lower by 4x the amount that Hamilton's were down by, so I don't think that is it - no need to look for conspiracy theories, Rosberg thought he had a chance to get Vettel, so he tried. Simple as.
I actually forgot that - I assumed, like many, that Hamilton was the only one under threat. I guess because got long after the call for hammer time Rosberg exploded....
I'm still confused as to why people saw the letter about Mercedes and Ferrari being tested, and read it as all 4 were under investigation despite the letter clearly saying Ferrari were above the minimum. Even Sky couldn't get it right with all of their millions =D>
Can someone tell me what kind of effect warming the tires in the warm-up lap has on the tire pressure? Because during the warm-up lap I saw Rosberg almost not warming his tires.
I'm surprised by the lack of talk about Williams. They were very lucky to inherit that 3rd place podium, but in reality, I'm a bit surprised by their absolute lack of killer instinct. As it was, they could have simply waved past Rosberg, because the way he got by both Williams with the undercut just screams absolute amateurs. If they had any killer instinct at all, they would have pitted Massa *before* Mercedes had pitted Rosberg and he would not have been able to get past. But once again, they waited too long and when Rosberg did pit, they tried to cover Massa but it was already too late. They were extremely lucky to get on that podium.
That is honestly, a very unfair assessment. Rosberg pitted on lap 18 - which is actually significantly before the 1 stop window. If they'd pitted Massa earlier than him he would have either had to do a lot of tyre conservation (and hence been dog food to Rosberg), or would have been forced into a 2 stop (and been dog food for Rosberg)
notsofast wrote:Any thoughts on why Hamilton said that it was "not cool" (I think those were his words) that he had to drive so fast at the end of the race? He was basically being asked to drive faster than Vettel. What if Vettel had been in front of him instead of behind him? Wouldn't Hamilton himself have wanted to go faster in that scenario?
Not looking for fanboi arguments. Just trying to understand if there was a technical issue with the car or the track that made it "not cool" to drive so fast.
He said why in the radio messages - he was having to take risks. He had a win in the bag, 20 seconds in the lead, and was being asked to risk throwing it all away in a gravel trap.
About the tyre/pressure debate, this is the best I´ve read
Just_a_fan wrote:The FIA should be DSQ!
Pressures depend on temperature, FIA/Pirelli needed more than 2hours of investigation to realice a slightly underpressure is not a problem if the measure was done at a lower temperature than usual???
Moose wrote:That is honestly, a very unfair assessment. Rosberg pitted on lap 18 - which is actually significantly before the 1 stop window. If they'd pitted Massa earlier than him he would have either had to do a lot of tyre conservation (and hence been dog food to Rosberg), or would have been forced into a 2 stop (and been dog food for Rosberg)
You're probably right. And I think the tires were not an issue for anyone, not at Monza. And I'm not sure he'd have been dog food either; I mean, tire deg will start costing you in the corners, not necessarily on the straights. We've seen it countless of times when a car struggling on tires was still able to hold of quicker cars behind simply due to the fact it had a high enough top-speed making the DRS zone less effective. Anyway, you're probably right; Pitting early on lap 18 or even 19 (the same lap Mercedes chose to pit Rosberg) would have meant they'd have had track position and given Rosberg a fair headache. I would have much rather seen them attempt *something*, no *anything* to try and keep that position rather than just watching once again how Mercedes pulls past with the undercut.
Anyway, I didn't mean to be too unfair to Williams. It's just this hasn't been the first time they lacked that killer-instinct which I think is a pity.
Not for nothing, Rosberg's Championship is the only thing that lends credibility to Hamilton's recent success. Otherwise, he'd just be the guy who's had the best car. — bhall II #Team44 supporter
Sorry to bring this thread back to the tyre story but just to wrap up all this tyre pressure nonsense:
When you read the original referral from the technical delegate, he appears to assume that the pressures will be taken when the tyres are in the blankets and at their maximum permitted temperature of 110 degrees. Clearly that is not always going to be the case and there doesn’t appear to be any method of adjusting the measured pressure with reference to the tyre temperature that the time the pressure reading was taken. With the benefit of hindsight and after reading about what actually happened and also some of the comments here, I had the following thoughts:
(a) ignoring the tyre temperature when taking the pressure readings on the grid seems like a pretty basic error, particularly when the technical delegate says the tread temperature was actually measured at the same time;
(b) going forward should the protocol then be:
i. pressures must be [19.5]psi at a temperature of [110]degrees when the tyres are fitted or at the grid? – this sounds like a clear rule and an easy to understand approach for all ;
ii. If not the above, should there be an agreed calculation method for when the pressure is measured at a time when the temperature is under 110 degrees? – this gives flexibility for teams that might want to have the tyres cooler (for whatever reason) but with flexibility comes room for arguments/exploitation;
iii. a standard on board pressure monitor coupled with a minimum tyre pressure while the car is in the race? – I have to agree with what Anthony Davidson was saying, it’s not the pressure on the grid that matters, it's the pressure while the car is moving. While I appreciate the minimum pressure is there for a reason, each car heats the tyres differently so a minimum operating pressure should be the key metric here. Again, however, I suppose there is the difficulty in policing this;
iv. Pirelli inflating the tyres itself or instead mandating a minimum mass of air/water being pumped into them prior to being fitted?
(c) I'm not sure I consider what happened here is the same as the illegal rear wing on the Saubers in Australia a few years back, the plank on Schumacher's car at Spa 94, red bull's floor at Monaco or other instances where we're talking about a permanent illegal fixture or something that becomes less legal/more illegal during the course of the race. We are talking about 1 tyre out of 4 which was fractionally under a minimum (which we now know as for valid reasons) at a particular point in time. It was obviously back above the minimum once the race began so from that point ceased to be illegal (if it ever was in the first place). While I have some sympathy with the GP2 drivers who suffered, that situation was a little different (given they have no tyre warmers) and, in any event, Bottas was only given a drive through at Spa for running mixed compounds (in fact I thought he should have been made to serve another pit stop to replace either all of one of the tyres instead);
(d) was anyone at Mercedes verifying the pressure readings when they were taken for the second time on the grid? It sounds like they didn’t see them, I would have thought they would want someone checking everything the FIA delegate is measuring, if only so they have their own independent note of it. Surely if they did they would either have spotted that the pressures were under the recommended minimum and/or at least have a chance to point out that the temps were low before the race started; and
(e) the stewards also need to be required to raise any issues with the cars discovered on the grid and notify the teams asap (and ideally within the first 10 laps), not wait until over an hour after the race has started. I think it's perfectly understandable that some things take a long time to discover/rule on but we are talking about discrete data here – the pressures were either under the minimum for that given temperature or they were not. Why did it take more than an hour for this to come out? It seems completely backward in an era when teams in Brackley, Woking, etc can monitor in real time what's going on with a car racing on the other side of the world.
All in all, I think the FIA dropped the ball on this one and while Mercedes were pushing things to the limit, I've got a lot of sympathy for what it must've been like for them since lap 48 or so.
Andres125sx wrote:About the tyre/pressure debate, this is the best I´ve read
Just_a_fan wrote:The FIA should be DSQ!
Pressures depend on temperature, FIA/Pirelli needed more than 2hours of investigation to realice a slightly underpressure is not a problem if the measure was done at a lower temperature than usual???
Agree, it´s FIA who should be DSQ!
It's incredibly embarrassing, when you consider it's a high school level application of the ideal gas law.
It's literally, take a temperature reading and a pressure reading, and then punch them in to a calculator to calculate the pressure at a reference temperature.
It even worse, when you consider the tires have built in pressure and temperature sensors.
I'm surprised by the lack of talk about Williams. They were very lucky to inherit that 3rd place podium, but in reality, I'm a bit surprised by their absolute lack of killer instinct. As it was, they could have simply waved past Rosberg, because the way he got by both Williams with the undercut just screams absolute amateurs. If they had any killer instinct at all, they would have pitted Massa *before* Mercedes had pitted Rosberg and he would not have been able to get past. But once again, they waited too long and when Rosberg did pit, they tried to cover Massa but it was already too late. They were extremely lucky to get on that podium.
That is honestly, a very unfair assessment. Rosberg pitted on lap 18 - which is actually significantly before the 1 stop window. If they'd pitted Massa earlier than him he would have either had to do a lot of tyre conservation (and hence been dog food to Rosberg), or would have been forced into a 2 stop (and been dog food for Rosberg)
Agreed. The Mercedes engineers know that tyre life is their strong point and they use it to "squeeze" their opponents into borderline strategies. The 34 lap stint was comfortable for the Mercedes but very hard for Williams to do.
I think it's fair to take Mercedes at face value given the things they stated with this weekend's engine. I can't help but think that the declaration of there being only two winter tests next year being the reason they did it.
It's amazing to think back last year to the unreliability and see how they turned it around this year. So it's pretty dammed ominous that they feel they can introduce the foundation lump for 2016 this year and gain the remainder of the year to make it bullet proof. Focusing next year on performance.
Reminds me of what Intel used to do with their processors in what they called a tick-tock development cycle. First introduce performance, then refine it and make it reliable, then introduce performance again and so on.
I'm surprised by the lack of talk about Williams. They were very lucky to inherit that 3rd place podium, but in reality, I'm a bit surprised by their absolute lack of killer instinct. As it was, they could have simply waved past Rosberg, because the way he got by both Williams with the undercut just screams absolute amateurs. If they had any killer instinct at all, they would have pitted Massa *before* Mercedes had pitted Rosberg and he would not have been able to get past. But once again, they waited too long and when Rosberg did pit, they tried to cover Massa but it was already too late. They were extremely lucky to get on that podium.
That is honestly, a very unfair assessment. Rosberg pitted on lap 18 - which is actually significantly before the 1 stop window. If they'd pitted Massa earlier than him he would have either had to do a lot of tyre conservation (and hence been dog food to Rosberg), or would have been forced into a 2 stop (and been dog food for Rosberg)
Agreed. The Mercedes engineers know that tyre life is their strong point and they use it to "squeeze" their opponents into borderline strategies. The 34 lap stint was comfortable for the Mercedes but very hard for Williams to do.
I would suggest to split the Williams strategies. They have been in this situation before at Silverstone but haven't learned anything. Apparently you can't have a team strategy because feelings get hurt. This means that Bottas can make sure Rosberg is in undercut range of Massa.
If they were smart and cared more about the place on the podium than the points, they would tell Bottas to be slow trough the second chicane and the first lezmos corner (not literally because that's against the rules). He can't be overtaken but he will lose time to Massa. Then you choose how risky you want to be with strategy. You can pit Bottas bordeline early, putting him on a 2 stopper and Massa as soon as Rosberg then comes into the undercut window. You could also just wait for Rosberg to pit and then cover him only with Massa and let Bottas lose the place. This would give Rosberg a run for his money and make Williams not look like boring pushovers.
