2017 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne, 24 - 26 March

[Vasconia]

I really think that Mercedes/Lewis lost the race. I think Mercedes still has the edge. It was the early pit due to too much "whining" of Hamilton that cost the race to Mercedes. Even under this circumstances if Lewis was not slowed down by Vestappen, he would be in front of Vettel. So, overall, I think Mercedes is still the favorite.

If the "whining" of HAM was why Merc chose to pit him then they should all be fired. They alone have all the information/lap times/deltas, HAM's job is to drive the car and communicate how it is performing to them, they are completely responsible for the strategy. Regardless of HAM's tone the numbers remain the same. HAM was still ahead of VET and still lapping faster than RAI or VER. It was clear that HAM should not have been called into the pits, al that did was give VET clear air while putting him in traffic.

Man, it was Lewis who asked to pit, he was complaining all the time with the tyres. The mistake was to pit when it was not clear that he could be ahead of Max. This error costed him the race, or at leas the chance of fighting with Sebastian.

[Fifty]

what if DRS set is 2 or 3 sec in stead of 1?

Getting into the 1 second range, isn't really the problem, getting from 1 second to 0 is. The cars loose so much front wing down force, that they can't follow a car for long within the 0.25 to 0.5 range, if they could they would breeze by on the straits.

Even if you made the entire back wing vanish, I don't think it would help much on an average track. What they really need to do is address the down force sensitivity issue.

23 years and I am still waiting to see this.

Ross Brawn was talking about this in an interview last week (or two weeks ago maybe). He was saying that FIA/F1 looked into it previously but the computer sym technology wasn't good enough to come up with an idea. He said he thinks that cfd is at a state now where they should be able to come up with a plan to write rules that will allow front downforce that will be less effected by another cars wake.

I have a feeling there maybe something similar to the Adrianne newey Aston Martin car aero in the solution.
But I doubt anything will be done until 2020 for many a reason.

[Vasconia]

Getting into the 1 second range, isn't really the problem, getting from 1 second to 0 is. The cars loose so much front wing down force, that they can't follow a car for long within the 0.25 to 0.5 range, if they could they would breeze by on the straits.

Even if you made the entire back wing vanish, I don't think it would help much on an average track. What they really need to do is address the down force sensitivity issue.

23 years and I am still waiting to see this.

Ross Brawn was talking about this in an interview last week (or two weeks ago maybe). He was saying that FIA/F1 looked into it previously but the computer sym technology wasn't good enough to come up with an idea. He said he thinks that cfd is at a state now where they should be able to come up with a plan to write rules that will allow front downforce that will be less effected by another cars wake.

I have a feeling there maybe something similar to the Adrianne newey Aston Martin car aero in the solution.
But I doubt anything will be done until 2020 for many a reason.

Well 2020 is not that far, so I would happily wait if this is true and they finally try to develop a regulation with cars whose aerodinamics are less dependant of another car´s turbulences.

[Godius]

I believe that they aren't putting their cards on the table either, I also think that they are waiting for the required power to bolt on the aero parts. When you look at the circuits before the summer break then you can notice that there are many power-limited tracks on the calendar. Tracks after the summer break will be more suited foor good aero performance.

I disagree. If you do not have enough power you try to compensate it by the more effective (less draggy) aero package. That is what RB did last 3 years.

I agree but Remi Taffin said that Renault will introduce an engine upgrade worth about 0,5 sec. in Canada along with the 2017 MGU-K. This might give them some possibilities to experiment what will work best for them.

[Mr.G]

I believe that they aren't putting their cards on the table either, I also think that they are waiting for the required power to bolt on the aero parts. When you look at the circuits before the summer break then you can notice that there are many power-limited tracks on the calendar. Tracks after the summer break will be more suited foor good aero performance.

I disagree. If you do not have enough power you try to compensate it by the more effective (less draggy) aero package. That is what RB did last 3 years.

I agree but Remi Taffin said that Renault will introduce an engine upgrade worth about 0,5 sec. in Canada along with the 2017 MGU-K. This might give them some possibilities to experiment what will work best for them.

This and also the post above starts getting OT. Regarding the engine if they bring 0.5 (what in reality will be 0.3-0.4) Ferrari and Mercedes bring also at least 0.1-0.2 or even 0.3 for them...

[Mandrake]

I think it's clear that Mercedes could and would have won with a little more experience with the tires and less panicking with regards to the PitStop. Melbourne being a track particularly hard to overtake on helps massively in this.

The point though is, Hamilton was never able to get away from Vettel implying that Vettel could have gone slightly faster than Hamilton in the first stint. Also in the second stint, whenever Hamilton tried to close the gap, Vettel was able to respond immediately. Therefore, in this particular race, the Ferrari was the slightly faster car, there is no point denying it. If this transforms to other circuits we will have to see.

On the scenario side of things: Vettel was close enough to attempt an undercut when Hamilton went into the pits. He closed the gap to below 1s at the right time. Had Merc not pitted Hamilton AND had Vettel attempted the undercut, I strongly believe Mercedes would have called for Hammertime and would have pitted Hamilton the lap after. Meaning that most likely the undercut would have worked and then both would have been stuck behind Verstappen, not changing the result. Ferrari had the speed to put pressure on Mercedes, just as Mercedes was able in recent seasons.

[Andres125sx]

Does anyone think Hamilton is defeatist these days? Crying that it's impossible to overtake yet goes on to say Vettel would have passed him. Which is it Lewis?

Did he say on track?

No but it's obvious he meant that.

Not to me. To me it´s obvious he was talking about an undercut

[iotar__]

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red- ... rm-887147/ Horner doesn't 'think' and doesn't 'believe' suspension ban affected RB. He also 'believes' that:

"the deficit to the top is shared equally between its chassis and engine"

1,3 = on a stop and go track with some engine impact but without high speed corners, meaning Renault in Australia was over one lap:
- 0,65 s and Red Bull's chassis 0,65 s. behind Merc
- 0,5 s and 0,5 s (chassis) behind Ferrari, assuming driver's impact is not there
How far behind would they be at Monza or at Silverstone?

[giantfan10]

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/red- ... rm-887147/ Horner doesn't 'think' and doesn't 'believe' suspension ban affected RB. He also 'believes' that:

"the deficit to the top is shared equally between its chassis and engine"

1,3 = on a stop and go track with some engine impact but without high speed corners, meaning Renault in Australia was over one lap:
- 0,65 s and Red Bull's chassis 0,65 s. behind Merc
- 0,5 s and 0,5 s (chassis) behind Ferrari, assuming driver's impact is not there
How far behind would they be at Monza or at Silverstone?

Horner:"To be honest with you, Mercedes weren't that far away - I think probably half a second," said Horner. "Ferrari have been very impressive here and probably had the quickest car.

[f1316]

I'm surprised everyone isn't a little bit more excited (including the commentators).

...

- this is also linked to the fact that the drivers are now clearly making a difference; you can see much more where a driver is doing something dramatic and finding time as a result (see Grosjeans's lap or lots of what Alonso was doing)

I agree on some points, disagree on others:

...

- you might attribute Grosjean's perfect lap to new cars but he had plenty of those in the old ones (Spa '15, Brazil '16, Singapore '15) that F1 experts running redbull infomercials missed. Speaking of: Marko was worried too much about Bottas and not enough about their own drivers, Ricciardo too . Egg on the face buddy.

In terms of the driver having more impact, again (and this goes for pretty much everything) there's very little evidence to base any conclusions so far, but there is a pattern in multiple teams where teammates are separated by large gaps. That's been far less prevalent in recent years, and we'll see if it continues, but I suspect from what we've seen so far that it might.

So as a bit of a follow up, Alonso agrees drivers can make more of a difference this year:

"Alonso says he’s happy too that 2017 regulations have delivered cars where the driver can make the difference - citing the disparity in performance between experienced and less experienced drivers apparent in several teams.

“Definitely I’m much more happy now,” he said after qualifying. “We saw even today, we see also the teams, how they split the drivers – always one experienced driver, one rookie maybe behind."

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/alon ... rs-886468/

[FormulaFan]

Hello,

Could someone explain me why Hamilton had problems with tires at Australian GP?
Why others dont have those problems?
If others dont have tire problems does that mean that mercedes can fix that problem easily?

Thx

[3jawchuck]

Hello,
Could someone explain me why Hamilton had problems with tires at Australian GP?
Why others dont have those problems?
If others dont have tire problems does that mean that mercedes can fix that problem easily?
Thx

I think Bottas mentioned some tyre problems in interview, can't find where now though.

[Mr.G]

Hello,
Could someone explain me why Hamilton had problems with tires at Australian GP?
Why others dont have those problems?
If others dont have tire problems does that mean that mercedes can fix that problem easily?
Thx

I think Bottas mentioned some tyre problems in interview, can't find where now though.

Kimi too, they address the issue later, but it was too late...

[iotar__]

Hello,

Could someone explain me why Hamilton had problems with tires at Australian GP?
Why others dont have those problems?
If others dont have tire problems does that mean that mercedes can fix that problem easily?
Thx

Did he? That's because every time Ham underperforms, makes bad decision or can't overtake it's tyres problems or it's a track where it's impossible to overtake . He had problems in Singapore last season too.

More to the point Mercedes had pace problems connected to existence of competition or (secondary guess) to new suspension clarification, keeping pace ahead of Ferrari, forced early stop and consequent traffic afterwards. Similar to Williams/Massa against Vettel couple years ago but with more fuss.

Hard to judge pace on one stoppers since there's no point in pushing, stints lengths were different, Hamilton was trying to stay ahead of Vett but it looked like Bottas had quicker 2nd and Ham 1st stint.

[basti313]

I think it's clear that Mercedes could and would have won with a little more experience with the tires and less panicking with regards to the PitStop. Melbourne being a track particularly hard to overtake on helps massively in this.

Looking in detail at the laptimes...I do not see how. Ham was a sitting duck:
- Ham's tires were done. Overheated on the slip in lap 14. The fuel corrected laptimes show a nice cliff for lap 15 and 16. Clear trigger for a pitstop by the way.
- The delta to Ves was 0.8 and 0.6sec in lap 15 and 16. At this rate it would have needed at least 5 more laps.
- The delta to Rai was similar, if they would have waited to clear Ves, they would have ended up behind Rai.
- The gap between Rai and Ves was 2.5sec, too much for an undercut. So Ferari could have used Rai for stopping Ham for one lap in any case. The pace difference was large enough to give Vet the overcut in any case.
- Vet was behind Ham, so he could have simply done the opposite. Either go to the pit after Ves pitted for the undercut or stay out to let Ham pit behind Rai.