2016 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne, March 18-20

For ease of use, there is one thread per grand prix where you can discuss everything during that specific GP weekend. You can find these threads here.
Alguck
Alguck
0
Joined: 20 Mar 2016, 14:46

Re: 2016 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne, March 18-20

Post

Phil wrote:Mercedes is mighty. Not much more to say than that really. They maintained the same pace of that Ferrari while on technically slower tires. Even without the red-flag, I'm not sure they could have irked out a win today. If Vettel had started the race after the red-flag on soft tires, I'm fairly confident Rosberg would have eaten him with his Mercedes; at the very least by the point Vettel would have had to stop again.

Equally, the red-flag was also very costly to Hamilton. Had he not stopped for mediums before the crash, he could have capitalized on a better grid position for the restart, just like Ricciardo did. That would have given us a great battle for the win between him, Rosberg and perhaps Vettel. Instead, he was behind Ricciardo and both TorroRossos which cost him a lot of time and an impossible task of making it to the front without further crashes/safety cars etc. Still, the start of the race and that mighty start of the Ferraris will be something to bear in mind.

Good for Nico and his mindset starting into this season. Hamilton looked quite positive post race; I think he felt quite confident after the difficult race he had to end up in 2nd and only 6 seconds off the winning time. Bahrain will be much more normal race - a proper race circuit, more overtaking opportunities, more predictability.

Very happy for Ricciardo. Had hoped he could have finished on the podium, but the pace of that RedBull is not that bad. Neither is that of the TorroRosso. I think TR will do well this season; They were a lot harder to overtake by the Mercedes than Ricciardo later was. I put that down to the engine.
The red flag was COSTLY to Hamilton? You mean because it didn't give him a huge second advantage in addition to eliminating the quite substantial gaps in front of him?

User avatar
Shrieker
13
Joined: 01 Mar 2010, 23:41

Re: 2016 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne, March 18-20

Post

Doesn't matter when you're in dirty air, if you can't pass three cars at the restart immediately, the leaders are going to open up a gap again. Which is what they did.

Some drivers benefited massively from the red flag today. Hamilton and Mercedes missed it by one lap, but it's just the way it goes.

Safety car isn't rare round here so if I was Hamilton, I might've thought about nursing the tires a bit in the first stint instead of attacking Verstappen all the time and eek out a few more extra laps. But then again, maybe that's why he's a triple world champ and I'm not XD
Education is that which allows a nation free, independent, reputable life, and function as a high society; or it condemns it to captivity and poverty.
-Atatürk

fawe4
fawe4
7
Joined: 24 Jan 2014, 16:26

Re: 2016 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne, March 18-20

Post

Todays crash is again a proof that sandtraps have no place on f1 circuit. What would be a perfectly normal incident, turned into serious crash that could cost a life. Sand is the only reason for formula going airborne.

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
593
Joined: 31 Jan 2010, 20:37

Re: 2016 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne, March 18-20

Post

Rosberg and Hamilton both lucky in their turn 1 coming together. Hamilton only lost a small bit of the endplate and Rosberg escaped a puncture.

Interesting that they both had poor starts. I seem to remember they struggled last year in restart situations; I wonder if there is some inherent weakness in their car that doesn't like two starts. Epic start from Vettel though. Be interesting to see if that continues through the season.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

User avatar
Phil
66
Joined: 25 Sep 2012, 16:22

Re: 2016 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne, March 18-20

Post

Alguck wrote:The red flag was COSTLY to Hamilton? You mean because it didn't give him a huge second advantage in addition to eliminating the quite substantial gaps in front of him?
Yes, quite clearly. On lap 16, the order was 1. Rai, 2. Vet, 3. Ham, 4. Ros. This order is of course slightly misleading because Vettel and Rosberg had already stopped, while Rai and Ham were still on their first set of tires.

Vettel was on super softs (the unused ones from Q3), Rosberg on softs.

Then, end of lap 16, onto lap 17, Hamilton and kimi dive into the pits. Hamilton pitted strategically onto medium tires that at that point were clear was the focus to drive to the end without another stop, meaning that even though Rosberg was now ahead on quicker tires, he would later have to pit, so would have to make good on that time he would lose through the pits.

At that point, the order was 1.) Vet (SS) 2.) Ros (S), 3.) Kimi (S), 4.) Ric (SS) 5.) Ves (S), 6. Sainz (S), 7. Ham (M)

Then the crash happened and subsequent red-flag, meaning that tires could be changed. This enabled Rosberg to strategically move to mediums as well and his relative position to Hamilton just increased by that pitstop he would have made had that red-flag not happened. Ricciardo was the big winner here, because he had not pitted yet and therefore could stay in 4th position. Had Hamilton not pitted, he would have been in 3rd with the freedom of choice of tyres behind Rosberg on the same, with no gap.

Lets assume no luck, just safety-car, no red-flag - then Vettels position would have been stronger relative to Rosberg (SS vs S) meaning both would have needed to pit again. It would have also meant that Ham would have faced the same situation vs. the two Torro Rossos in front, but once ahead, would have been closer to Rosberg and Vettel given both would have had to pit again. That situation stayed vs. Vettel (who then had the problem of facing track position but his gap to Rosberg eliminated which meant he fell back to 3rd).

Imagine, no red-flag, no tyre change - Hamilton on mediums vs cars in front of him who all needed to pit again. He might have ended up 1st or at worst still 2nd because his position would have only been better than what unfolded with the red-flag and Rosberg moving to mediums too on a free pitstop (during the red-flag).


EDIT:

In short. With red-flag; Hamilton lost his advantage by pitting on to mediums relative to Rosberg and had to deal with Ricciardo ahead of him (who got a free pitstop because of the red-flag). Had the red-flag not happened, Rosberg would have remained on softs and Ricciardo at his pitstop would have fell behind the TRs and Hamilton. Hamilton finished 6+ seconds off the lead - imagine the situation WITHOUT the red-flag and Rosberg doing an extra pitstop and Ricciardo not being in the way.
Last edited by Phil on 20 Mar 2016, 16:28, edited 1 time in total.
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

flickerf1
flickerf1
7
Joined: 29 Feb 2016, 00:52

Re: 2016 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne, March 18-20

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:Rosberg and Hamilton both lucky in their turn 1 coming together. Hamilton only lost a small bit of the endplate and Rosberg escaped a puncture.

Interesting that they both had poor starts. I seem to remember they struggled last year in restart situations; I wonder if there is some inherent weakness in their car that doesn't like two starts. Epic start from Vettel though. Be interesting to see if that continues through the season.
I read somewhere that the Merc's clutch had overheated leading to a bad start. Also, Lewis seemed to be positioned strangely on the grid. Not sure what was going on there.
The Wicked + The Divine.

User avatar
GPR-A duplicate2
64
Joined: 07 Aug 2014, 09:00

Re: 2016 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne, March 18-20

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:Interesting that they both had poor starts. I seem to remember they struggled last year in restart situations; I wonder if there is some inherent weakness in their car that doesn't like two starts. Epic start from Vettel though. Be interesting to see if that continues through the season.
Last year when the start procedure rules were changed, to remove the engineer assisted starts and the clutch bite settings to be finalized after last quali lap, instead of at the race formation lap, is when the Mercedes cars became vulnerable at the starts. Before that, they always got a great get away.

User avatar
Phil
66
Joined: 25 Sep 2012, 16:22

Re: 2016 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne, March 18-20

Post

GPR-A wrote:Last year when the start procedure rules were changed, to remove the engineer assisted starts and the clutch bite settings to be finalized after last quali lap, instead of at the race formation lap, is when the Mercedes cars became vulnerable at the starts. Before that, they always got a great get away.
Not quite. Rosbergs starts became vulnerable. But everytime the start procedure changed and an extra formation lap was required, Mercedes had overheating clutches.
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

muhammadtalha.13893
muhammadtalha.13893
0
Joined: 31 Jan 2015, 09:12

Re: RE: Re: 2016 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne, March 18-20

Post

Phil wrote:
Alguck wrote:The red flag was COSTLY to Hamilton? You mean because it didn't give him a huge second advantage in addition to eliminating the quite substantial gaps in front of him?
Yes, quite clearly. On lap 16, the order was 1. Rai, 2. Vet, 3. Ham, 4. Ros. This order is of course slightly misleading because Vettel and Rosberg had already stopped, while Rai and Ham were still on their first set of tires.

Vettel was on super softs (the unused ones from Q3), Rosberg on softs.

Then, end of lap 16, onto lap 17, Hamilton and kimi dive into the pits. Hamilton pitted strategically onto medium tires that at that point were clear was the focus to drive to the end without another stop, meaning that even though Rosberg was now ahead on quicker tires, he would later have to pit, so would have to make good on that time he would lose through the pits.

At that point, the order was 1.) Vet (SS) 2.) Ros (S), 3.) Kimi (S), 4.) Ric (SS) 5.) Ves (S), 6. Sainz (S), 7. Ham (M)

Then the crash happened and subsequent red-flag, meaning that tires could be changed. This enabled Rosberg to strategically move to mediums as well and his relative position to Hamilton just increased by that pitstop he would have made had that red-flag not happened. Ricciardo was the big winner here, because he had not pitted yet and therefore could stay in 4th position. Had Hamilton not pitted, he would have been in 3rd with the freedom of choice of tyres behind Rosberg on the same, with no gap.

Lets assume no luck, just safety-car, no red-flag - then Vettels position would have been stronger relative to Rosberg (SS vs S) meaning both would have needed to pit again. It would have also meant that Ham would have faced the same situation vs. the two Torro Rossos in front, but once ahead, would have been closer to Rosberg and Vettel given both would have had to pit again. That situation stayed vs. Vettel (who then had the problem of facing track position but his gap to Rosberg eliminated which meant he fell back to 3rd).

Imagine, no red-flag, no tyre change - Hamilton on mediums vs cars in front of him who all needed to pit again. He might have ended up 1st or at worst still 2nd because his position would have only been better than what unfolded with the red-flag and Rosberg moving to mediums too on a free pitstop (during the red-flag).


EDIT:

In short. With red-flag; Hamilton lost his advantage by pitting on to mediums relative to Rosberg and had to deal with Ricciardo ahead of him (who got a free pitstop because of the red-flag). Had the red-flag not happened, Rosberg would have remained on softs and Ricciardo at his pitstop would have fell behind the TRs and Hamilton. Hamilton finished 6+ seconds off the lead - imagine the situation WITHOUT the red-flag and Rosberg doing an extra pitstop and Ricciardo not being in the way.
I don't know what is the point of this. Just if's and but's. Maybe Hamilton would not have stooped before red flag, maybe rosberg would not have stopped either. Why is Hamilton so special that something good could have happened to him and luck could have helped him but not the others? Had Rosberg had a little better start, he could have disappeared into the distance, same is for Hamilton so I really don't get all this talk. Had Hamilton not stopped and extended his first stint, and red-flag had not happened, you guys woulb be furious at Mercedes strategists and talk about how bad they are doing by keeping Hamilton out. Its Motorsport, a lot of this happened. Just get over with it already.

Xwang
Xwang
29
Joined: 02 Dec 2012, 11:12

Re: 2016 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne, March 18-20

Post

Had Vettel two Soft tyre sets at the red flag?
If so I'm wondering why Ferrari did not change the already used (even if for few laps) second set of SS with an S set so that to lengthen the stint and reduce the need to cure the S tyres (practically speaking an SS/SS (red flag) S/S strategy).
I think it would be better for Vettel. Do you agree?

User avatar
Chene_Mostert
-2
Joined: 30 Mar 2014, 16:50

Re: 2016 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne, March 18-20

Post

Phil wrote:
Alguck wrote:The red flag was COSTLY to Hamilton? You mean because it didn't give him a huge second advantage in addition to eliminating the quite substantial gaps in front of him?
Yes, quite clearly. On lap 16, the order was 1. Rai, 2. Vet, 3. Ham, 4. Ros. This order is of course slightly misleading because Vettel and Rosberg had already stopped, while Rai and Ham were still on their first set of tires.

Vettel was on super softs (the unused ones from Q3), Rosberg on softs.

Then, end of lap 16, onto lap 17, Hamilton and kimi dive into the pits. Hamilton pitted strategically onto medium tires that at that point were clear was the focus to drive to the end without another stop, meaning that even though Rosberg was now ahead on quicker tires, he would later have to pit, so would have to make good on that time he would lose through the pits.

At that point, the order was 1.) Vet (SS) 2.) Ros (S), 3.) Kimi (S), 4.) Ric (SS) 5.) Ves (S), 6. Sainz (S), 7. Ham (M)

Then the crash happened and subsequent red-flag, meaning that tires could be changed. This enabled Rosberg to strategically move to mediums as well and his relative position to Hamilton just increased by that pitstop he would have made had that red-flag not happened. Ricciardo was the big winner here, because he had not pitted yet and therefore could stay in 4th position. Had Hamilton not pitted, he would have been in 3rd with the freedom of choice of tyres behind Rosberg on the same, with no gap.

Lets assume no luck, just safety-car, no red-flag - then Vettels position would have been stronger relative to Rosberg (SS vs S) meaning both would have needed to pit again. It would have also meant that Ham would have faced the same situation vs. the two Torro Rossos in front, but once ahead, would have been closer to Rosberg and Vettel given both would have had to pit again. That situation stayed vs. Vettel (who then had the problem of facing track position but his gap to Rosberg eliminated which meant he fell back to 3rd).

Imagine, no red-flag, no tyre change - Hamilton on mediums vs cars in front of him who all needed to pit again. He might have ended up 1st or at worst still 2nd because his position would have only been better than what unfolded with the red-flag and Rosberg moving to mediums too on a free pitstop (during the red-flag).


EDIT:

In short. With red-flag; Hamilton lost his advantage by pitting on to mediums relative to Rosberg and had to deal with Ricciardo ahead of him (who got a free pitstop because of the red-flag). Had the red-flag not happened, Rosberg would have remained on softs and Ricciardo at his pitstop would have fell behind the TRs and Hamilton. Hamilton finished 6+ seconds off the lead - imagine the situation WITHOUT the red-flag and Rosberg doing an extra pitstop and Ricciardo not being in the way.
Too much bla-bla
You are ignoring the fact that both Vet and Ros would have opened a Pittston gap to Lewis. What was the gap prior to the SC?
Face it Lewis failed today and benefited from the incident.
Also I get the feeling That Mercedes AMG F1 has selected Nico as the 2016 WDC, we will get a clear picture after first quarter of the season.
"Science at its best is an open-minded method of inquiry, not a belief system." - Rupert Sheldrake

User avatar
Juzh
161
Joined: 06 Oct 2012, 08:45

Re: 2016 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne, March 18-20

Post

Xwang wrote:Had Vettel two Soft tyre sets at the red flag?
If so I'm wondering why Ferrari did not change the already used (even if for few laps) second set of SS with an S set so that to lengthen the stint and reduce the need to cure the S tyres (practically speaking an SS/SS (red flag) S/S strategy).
I think it would be better for Vettel. Do you agree?
I think the only way for ferrari to win was to mirror merc with medium tires and hope mercs don't have such speed advantage on them to overtake on track. They didn't on supersoft (ros vs kimi, ham vs max, both unable to overtake). This was a major mistake on ferrari's part.

flickerf1
flickerf1
7
Joined: 29 Feb 2016, 00:52

Re: 2016 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne, March 18-20

Post

Australian GP's lap times and fastest laps: http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2016/03/20/2 ... st-laps-2/
The Wicked + The Divine.

User avatar
Phil
66
Joined: 25 Sep 2012, 16:22

Re: RE: Re: 2016 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne, March 18-20

Post

muhammadtalha.13893 wrote:I don't know what is the point of this. Just if's and but's.
I was asked a question, I answered it - that was the point of this. The point was to illustrate how a pretty unprecedented (but not unjustified) red-flag changed the strategic elements in play. A safety-car would have meant the strategies would have remained, the red-flag meant everyone got a free pitstop and could logically react to to those who had already committed to a strategy. Meaning Rosberg could change to medium and nullify Hamiltons advantage and as an added bonus, he had a better position vs. Vettel.

Had the red-flag not occurred and only a safety car for example: Vettel would have been ahead of Rosberg on less different tires (SS vs S) and it had meant both would have faced another stop. So if Vettel could have stayed ahead during that stint, his chances of winning the GP would have been considerable higher than staying on SS vs Rosberg on M.

These points are interesting for analytic purposes. To put into perspective means understanding the relative different strategies at play better. It's great to speculate what could have happened when the strategies would have played out accordingly and I remain firm; Vettel and Hamiltons situation would have been better (relative to Rosberg and/or their current positions).
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

User avatar
GPR-A duplicate2
64
Joined: 07 Aug 2014, 09:00

Re: 2016 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne, March 18-20

Post

Phil wrote:
GPR-A wrote:Last year when the start procedure rules were changed, to remove the engineer assisted starts and the clutch bite settings to be finalized after last quali lap, instead of at the race formation lap, is when the Mercedes cars became vulnerable at the starts. Before that, they always got a great get away.
Not quite. Rosbergs starts became vulnerable. But everytime the start procedure changed and an extra formation lap was required, Mercedes had overheating clutches.
The rules were to come in effect from Spa and Mercedes started their trials from Hungary.


Belgium GP - Ferrari qualified far behind, but compare their starts.


Italian GP - Look at the speed that Vettel started with from 3rd.


Later though, they started having better/decent starts.