2016 Austrian Grand Prix - Spielberg, Fri 01 – Sun 03 Jul 2016

[Phil]

Auto-Motor-und-Sport has an article that quotes Toto Wolff saying that they changed Hamiltons strategy because they feared he would have a difficult time maintaining pace with his softs to the end of the race. E.g.: become a sitting duck, compared to Rosberg on fresh SS.

I still feel this is utter rubbish what Toto is saying here:

Link Austrian lap time history chart / FIA Event & Timing Austria 2016 GP

Up until Lap 54, Rosberg on 11 laps older tires was still doing consistent 1:09 times.

Lap 53:
ROS: 1:09.3 (43 laps old S)
HAM: 1:09.1 (32 laps old S)

Therefore, it was safe to assume that Hamilton could continue to maintain a similar lap delta up to at least lap 54+11 = 65. That would mean there would still be 6-7 laps to cover till the end.

Assuming Rosberg would be 1 second quicker on new tires (he wasn't), he would still need to cover a gap of at least 22 seconds, the duration of a pitstop, and overtake Verstappen to gain on Hamilton in that time. That would mean by the end of lap 65, there would still be a gap of at least 11 seconds remaining, assuming he'd be the 1 second quicker, that he would then need to close in 6-7 laps. That IMO is a very substantial gap, unlikely to be closed, especially assuming Hamilton could have backed off. The history shows us that both Mercedes, after pitting on lap 54/55 did slightly better/lower 1:09 times. Even Verstappen, who stayed on his 1-stop, was able to continue to do 1:09 times till the end of the GP.

I would have preferred to see Mercedes pit Rosberg and then re-evaluate Hamiltons strategy on a lap-to-lap basis. Seeing Rosberg pace and informing him if things didn't look good. At least they gave him the opportunity to undercut, though on the harder compound tire and the slow pit, it just didn't work out.

[komninosm]

I fail to understand how you can get away with a 10-second time penalty for deliberately driving off track.
These tactics are identical to what Michael Schumacher has pulled off with Villeneuve in 1997, and the only difference there is that it was a championship deciding race.

I think this one, even though the consequences are less, is a far worse issue than what we had at Barcelona. He could claim to be surprised there, but here, it was a simple, deliberate move.
Given the explanation of the stewards, I would think of more severe penalty would be more appropriate.

By the rules, could they have given him a 30 second penalty? (Isn't that what a 10second pit stop penalty in race translates to after race?)
Could they have DSQ him by written rules?

[Jolle]

Q: who other than Vettel has had tire blowouts during the race in the last three seasons ('14-'16)?

Just want to get an idea. I remember Vettel in Spa last year and again last weekend, but nothing else comes to mind.

edit:

Of course Pirelli can make durable tires. But they are instructed to make these compounds for better entertainment.

Silverstone 2013? Or the whole first half of 2013 was a disaster.
For sure they can make durable tires. But this is about tires with good structural integrety. As discussed by Ferrari they couldn't see any performance problems for the tires. Pressures normal, laptime the same as the lap before. And then, all of a sudden the tire explodes. Do you think this is normal? The tire also exploded on a straight, not in a corner when forces would be highest. This is the just the way the tire is build.

Would be funny that is was caused by the high pressures Pirelli subcribes. Never in history has a tire manufacturer had so much influence on how teams have to use the tires. There are restrictions on camber, pressures, etc. And still they explode...
How sad is this?
I this would have happened to Hamilton on his ultrasofts, everybody would rage and cry rivers. Now it is "just" Vettel. But it doesn't hide the fact that there is a problem with these tires...

Be afraid for 2017, be very afraid... The cars will be faster and put more load on the tires. Let's just hope everybody survives next season.

The disasters of the first half of 2013 was also greatly influenced of teams switching the tires arounds, with the more high tech cords, spinning and loading them not like intended by Pirelli.

But yes, the tires are not optimal and they never will. They could be better! And they will always blow up. It's a racing tire! It's part of the whole definition of racing. It should be done on the edge of whats possible.

Drivers crash, engines fail and tires blowup, the three constants of racing.

[zac510]

I totally don't trust the teams not to be running some whacky toe settings on the unloaded tyre, or an aggressive diff setting that attempts to generate more heat. And if they did, they're not going to step up and take the blame for a tyre failure either, lest they give away some secret knowledge.

By the way I don't really want to seem like I'm defending Pirelli, but I think this whole scenario of tyres in F1 has many influential factors many that are constantly changing; it's not just Pirelli's tyre construction only. So I really want to analyse and consider all factors before I blame (although preferably I won't blame anyone).

[Juzh]

The disasters of the first half of 2013 was also greatly influenced of teams switching the tires arounds, with the more high tech cords, spinning and loading them not like intended by Pirelli.

Mclaren didn't (or at least they said so about a thousand times) and still perez' tires got wrecked twice in silverstone that year. Tire swapping was just another excuse by pirelli. One of which we've now heard over and over again.

[Schuttelberg]

Auto-Motor-und-Sport has an article that quotes Toto Wolff saying that they changed Hamiltons strategy because they feared he would have a difficult time maintaining pace with his softs to the end of the race. E.g.: become a sitting duck, compared to Rosberg on fresh SS.

I still feel this is utter rubbish what Toto is saying here:

Link Austrian lap time history chart / FIA Event & Timing Austria 2016 GP

Up until Lap 54, Rosberg on 11 laps older tires was still doing consistent 1:09 times.

Lap 53:
ROS: 1:09.3 (43 laps old S)
HAM: 1:09.1 (32 laps old S)

Therefore, it was safe to assume that Hamilton could continue to maintain a similar lap delta up to at least lap 54+11 = 65. That would mean there would still be 6-7 laps to cover till the end.

Assuming Rosberg would be 1 second quicker on new tires (he wasn't), he would still need to cover a gap of at least 22 seconds, the duration of a pitstop, and overtake Verstappen to gain on Hamilton in that time. That would mean by the end of lap 65, there would still be a gap of at least 11 seconds remaining, assuming he'd be the 1 second quicker, that he would then need to close in 6-7 laps. That IMO is a very substantial gap, unlikely to be closed, especially assuming Hamilton could have backed off. The history shows us that both Mercedes, after pitting on lap 54/55 did slightly better/lower 1:09 times. Even Verstappen, who stayed on his 1-stop, was able to continue to do 1:09 times till the end of the GP.

I would have preferred to see Mercedes pit Rosberg and then re-evaluate Hamiltons strategy on a lap-to-lap basis. Seeing Rosberg pace and informing him if things didn't look good. At least they gave him the opportunity to undercut, though on the harder compound tire and the slow pit,AND making a mistake on his out lap, it just didn't work out.

[PhillipM]

It's just straight up terrible driving.Turn in... is what exactly Lewis should have done in Spain too, rather than take to the grass. Had he stayed, even on the white line back then and allowed Nico to drive into him, the chances are that Nico would have got a rear puncture and no way to escape the criticism. Instead of taking the run off here in Austria, Lewis did the perfect thing to turn in, which was absolutely the right thing to do in that situation for any driver. Result, Nico got admonished. It's a shame that wasn't the case in Spain.

Your advise to "turn in" as idiotic as it is is completely unnecessary, Hamilton did something equally bad, attempted stupid move with zero chance of success, went off, lost control, caused the crash and took them both out of the race losing Mercedes 1-2 and 43 points. It does not get worse than that.

The fact that Spain crash wasn't penalised and objectively lesser incident in Austria was on top of equally different team's reaction (quotes below) shows that drivers are not treated equally by FIA and Mercedes. Hamilton's example of the worst possible driving was not only not penalised but awarded with 7 points gained (Rosberg's very probably win) and team orders the next race. If FIA can sweep this under the carpet means that there are no rules in F1.

Spain “By continuing to let them race (each other) it was clear that eventually this could happen. And we will continue to let them race.”
Austria: "brainless" and this telling and contradicting part: "“In Barcelona I was much more at ease with it, because we had 30 races without collision. "From my naive thinking I thought to myself, ‘OK, they’ve learnt the lesson, seen what the consequences are and it’s not going to happen anymore’.

So let me explain something Toto Wolff, there was no collisions because on four occasions (fourth - dirty cut in Bahrain) Rosberg was going off or braking, fifth (Spain) - he could not do anything about. Your driver management of ignoring those and only attacking Rosberg after Spa is a direct reason for both '16 collisions. He of course knows that well.
Edit: corrected quotes.

I'm sorry, did I just read that as you blaming Hamilton for the Spain crash where Rosberg rammed him off track on the straight?

Wow. That's some rose tinted spectacles you have there.

As for those people complaining about Hamilton at the 2015 USGP:

1. It was wet.
2. Lewis turns into the corner to hit the apex normally
3. Understeers out wide with both cars turned in.
4. Rosberg gets run out on the exit of the corner as would be expected, where you have the option of simply backing off a little and tucking in.

What he doesn't do is deliberately drive Rosberg off the track with no intention of even turning into the apex. It's not even the same scenario, it bears no resemblance.

[komninosm]

I'm sorry, did I just read that as you blaming Hamilton for the Spain crash where Rosberg rammed him off track on the straight?

Wow. That's some rose tinted spectacles you have there.

I think half the forum has iotar on ignore. Note the lack of many replies to his blatantly biased posts (many on the verge of being flame bait, some over that edge).

[PhillipM]

Sounds like a good idea...

[Gothrek]

The disasters of the first half of 2013 was also greatly influenced of teams switching the tires arounds, with the more high tech cords, spinning and loading them not like intended by Pirelli.

But yes, the tires are not optimal and they never will. They could be better! And they will always blow up. It's a racing tire! It's part of the whole definition of racing. It should be done on the edge of whats possible.

Drivers crash, engines fail and tires blowup, the three constants of racing.

Drivers crash, because they are humans, and humans make mistakes

Engines fail, because they are under constant development, they are prototypes and very complex mechanical beings. How many components does an engine have? And how many of those components are moving? Are generating heat? Need cooling? Not to mention electric circuits.

A tire consists of different layers of rubber, with some other compounds. No complex moving parts. The amount of development one can spend on them is only limited by finances, not rules. They do not have to last 5 races, just a 30 laps or something. And still they explode & desintegrate? Sorry, this is just bad engineering. And not one year, but all the Pirelli years we have had bad tires that randomly explode. I could forgive them the early years, but after all this time?
If you compare it to the earlier years of F1, be my guest, but keep in mind that our knowledge on computres, science and compounds has been largely increased compared to 20 years ago.

I am just so tired (woohoo, what a pun) of all the excuses everybody has for Pirelli. They are doing a horrendous job. If I would peform like that on my job, I would have been fired a long time ago.

[sosic2121]

It's just straight up terrible driving.Turn in... is what exactly Lewis should have done in Spain too, rather than take to the grass. Had he stayed, even on the white line back then and allowed Nico to drive into him, the chances are that Nico would have got a rear puncture and no way to escape the criticism. Instead of taking the run off here in Austria, Lewis did the perfect thing to turn in, which was absolutely the right thing to do in that situation for any driver. Result, Nico got admonished. It's a shame that wasn't the case in Spain.

Your advise to "turn in" as idiotic as it is is completely unnecessary, Hamilton did something equally bad, attempted stupid move with zero chance of success, went off, lost control, caused the crash and took them both out of the race losing Mercedes 1-2 and 43 points. It does not get worse than that.

The fact that Spain crash wasn't penalised and objectively lesser incident in Austria was on top of equally different team's reaction (quotes below) shows that drivers are not treated equally by FIA and Mercedes. Hamilton's example of the worst possible driving was not only not penalised but awarded with 7 points gained (Rosberg's very probably win) and team orders the next race. If FIA can sweep this under the carpet means that there are no rules in F1.

Spain “By continuing to let them race (each other) it was clear that eventually this could happen. And we will continue to let them race.”
Austria: "brainless" and this telling and contradicting part: "“In Barcelona I was much more at ease with it, because we had 30 races without collision. "From my naive thinking I thought to myself, ‘OK, they’ve learnt the lesson, seen what the consequences are and it’s not going to happen anymore’.

So let me explain something Toto Wolff, there was no collisions because on four occasions (fourth - dirty cut in Bahrain) Rosberg was going off or braking, fifth (Spain) - he could not do anything about. Your driver management of ignoring those and only attacking Rosberg after Spa is a direct reason for both '16 collisions. He of course knows that well.
Edit: corrected quotes.

I'm sorry, did I just read that as you blaming Hamilton for the Spain crash where Rosberg rammed him off track on the straight?

Wow. That's some rose tinted spectacles you have there.

As for those people complaining about Hamilton at the 2015 USGP:

1. It was wet.
2. Lewis turns into the corner to hit the apex normally
3. Understeers out wide with both cars turned in.
4. Rosberg gets run out on the exit of the corner as would be expected, where you have the option of simply backing off a little and tucking in.

What he doesn't do is deliberately drive Rosberg off the track with no intention of even turning into the apex. It's not even the same scenario, it bears no resemblance.

even if hamilton shoot rosberg with a gun, some people would say it's Rosberg’s fault

[Wynters]

Bottas vs Kimi last year was worse than this and I can't remember so many people being so harsh on him! It's not like it was a Maldonado stunt

Although the incidents are only broadly similar I think the key thing is that the number of people blaming Bottas for the crash and saying Kimi did nothing wrong was a lot lower. There is a tendency for people to look for confirmation from others rather than evidence and, if those others disagree, to try and persuade them that they are wrong. The more people with a different opinion, the more posts beating the same dead horse. Really, all we've gained from all these pages is a couple of different camera angles and the Steward's report. Everything else related to the crash has just been noise (although I personally found the point about escalation of harsh driving to be interesting).

[zac510]

Well on the contrary, I think that the tyres have to deal with a lot. Low speed corners, high speed corners, 10 different types of chassis/downforce levels, 3 different types of power delivery curves, 24 different driving styles, at least (perhaps a dozen) different types of tarmac and that tarmac can have a range of 30C throughout a single race weekend, and not to mention being adaptable to a car that will be several seconds a lap faster at the start of the season to the end and with Pirelli not having time to develop the tyres during in-season testing.

The worst thing is the more Pirelli is attacked by the public, the less likely they are to improve the tyres. Only when we and the teams accept that tyres will fail sometimes will Pirelli feel the freedom to progress and develop the tyres. Now they are probably too scared to change lest they make things worse.

[Gothrek]

Also a quick list of excuses of what Pirelli uses:
- Drivers fault for driver over kerbs
- Kerbs are too extreme! (although they haven't changed in years)
- Debris
- Weird cuts into the tire for unkown reason (let say it is debris, nobody can complain about that...)
- Camber is too extreme!
- Pressures are too low!
- Teams are using the tires wrong!
- Swapping of tires is bad for you (now think of why would teams be so desperate as to swap tires in the first place...)
- We cannot test enough

And now think of what we have had during the Bridgestone era, and what excuses they had? Noone of the above...

[komninosm]

Start of the race has to be Pascal Wehrlein, reversing on the grid to find his space before the lights start, being a lap down when the safety car comes out, then to fight back to 10th on a dry track...in a Manor =D>

That was the funniest event of the race. I'm glad he wasn't penalized for that. There was no danger or safety issue.