2017 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne, 24 - 26 March

[fiohaa]

this is how it should have sounded on sunday
guess something that been done to the engines that ruined all of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPlOm5LjHQQ

2014 called, it wants its whinging back.

tell christian horner and toto wolff that, who upon hearing a minardi V10 doing demo runs before the race said the exact same thing, but it won't change before 2020 unfortunately.
http://www.crash.net/f1/news/243163/1/a ... orner.html

[PlatinumZealot]

Hamilton's had engine woes again.. ugh.. His engine was losing power in the race and he had to turn it down. it was pointless to chase Vettel so the only thing left to do was keep Bottas at arm's length.

I admit I was a bit scared when Bottas was closing and closing hard too but now thatI know the reason it makes sense why Valtteri was so dissappointed after the race. Must suck pushing your hardest and you can't beat an ailing car.

[Powy]

2017 Australian Grand Prix Strategy Analysis by Mercedes

[WaikeCU]

According to Mark Hughes, this was a combination of 1) Hamilton being told to turn his engine down and 2) Bottas having tyres that were several laps fresher.

I think it was more a case of Lewis blowing his load and Bottas being told to hold station.

- Oh yeah Mark Hughes . Ever since he described the most disgusting and stupid use of team orders in Ger '13 as an afternoon of great racing his credibility is non existent to me.

- So why did Bottas have fresher tyres? Magic or perhaps because LH pitted earlier losing the lead. Concept of combination of stints including length and pace doesn't exists in the world of local fanaticism.
- It's pointless enough to dissect it on a one-stopper (it was basically over after 5 laps) but that's not enough it has to be "it wasn't LH, it can't be, it's the (fresher) tyres". So what engine mode were Bottas and Ham on, how long and what was the difference? No need for details either.

It would have been miles different if Lewis pitted later and came out in front of Max. I think the gap would have been bigger if that was the case. This time, they've just settled for 2nd and 3rd. Still early in the season of course. A lot can change during the season as well. Albert Park is just a different track to start with.

[Mr.G]

I think it was more a case of Lewis blowing his load and Bottas being told to hold station.

- Oh yeah Mark Hughes . Ever since he described the most disgusting and stupid use of team orders in Ger '13 as an afternoon of great racing his credibility is non existent to me.

- So why did Bottas have fresher tyres? Magic or perhaps because LH pitted earlier losing the lead. Concept of combination of stints including length and pace doesn't exists in the world of local fanaticism.
- It's pointless enough to dissect it on a one-stopper (it was basically over after 5 laps) but that's not enough it has to be "it wasn't LH, it can't be, it's the (fresher) tyres". So what engine mode were Bottas and Ham on, how long and what was the difference? No need for details either.

It would have been miles different if Lewis pitted later and came out in front of Max. I think the gap would have been bigger if that was the case. This time, they've just settled for 2nd and 3rd. Still early in the season of course. A lot can change during the season as well. Albert Park is just a different track to start with.

IF they stay longer, Vettel could pull under cut... Or they can pit at the same time, or Vettel would pit in the next lap... How would it ends? Who knows...

[CLKGTR]

Stats overview and 2004 vs 2017 laptimes comparison - is 2017 F1 really fastest ever?

https://maxf1.net/en/stats-overview-sho ... -all-time/

[ChrisDanger]

...it makes sense why Valtteri was so dissappointed after the race. Must suck pushing your hardest and you can't beat an ailing car.

I'm inclined to think Bottas was given an instruction to "look after the engine", or however they phrase it these days.

[dans79]

where was it reported Lewis had engine issues?

[basti313]

There was something from Lewis in the team radio. But the reaction of the team was not released, so hard to read anything into this. Might be just something that can be corrected by turning a switch.

[komninosm]

Well, sort of.
In hindsight in my opionen the only "correct" strategy would have been to pit HAM as soon as he would clear VER after the stop. Because VET was about 1sec behind the undercut wouldn't have worked beforehand. And HAMs pace in clear air on fresh softs was acutally quicker than VET on used ultras so without VER the overcut wouldn't have worked either.
VET seemed quicker on softs but in no way quick enough to overtake HAM, track position seems to be even more important this season.

EXACTLY!

Vettel was managing his tyres exactly for this, he backed off to have clear air but when he needed he always was able to catch Hamilton. So if Hamilton would stay longer so would Vettel... What would happen then??? They can pit together or one of them get one lap sooner... Also one of them could go for SS tyres... How would it end? Well I don't have crystal ball...

I don't understand your answer. He and I already explained that they should pit Hamilton right when he could reliably clear Verstappen. Since Vettel was 2 seconds behind he would never be able to do it before Hamilton and get an undercut. And an over-cut is really hard to do with near equal cars. And there was no way to pass Hamilton on track. That's why as you said he fell back.

[komninosm]

2017 Australian Grand Prix Strategy Analysis by Mercedes

Thanks, that's an explanation for their strategy that I didn't think of. I'm still thinking that delaying to pit was better/safer, but hindsight is 20/20. They didn't know Verstappen would not pit.

Bring back refueling. Give them small enough of a gas tank that they need to pot twice for fuel.

I'm all for refueling, but in this forum it's usually shouted down as an opinion.
I wouldn't force a small gas tank though on teams. Let them use whatever they like and allow for different race strategies. This race was even more boring because not only for lack of overtakes (and fighting) but for samey strategies too.
Refueling will not only allow more varied strategies, but also the usual safety counter-argument is flawed. Refueling makes pit-stops slower and so less chance to run over crew members or without a wheel properly attached. This counter-balances the chance of "fire".

[GPR-A duplicate2]

I'm all for refueling, but in this forum it's usually shouted down as an opinion.

Because they all believe the overtaking has to happen on the track and not in pits, which was the case with refuelling era. Even if you bring back refuelling, it is not going to resolve the problem of lack of overtaking. The kind of aerodynamic profile that the current cars have, it is almost impossible to overtake, unless the difference between cars is more than a second and you have long straights to allow that. On most circuits that are on calendar, overtaking is impossible between equal cars. However, one thing that happens with refuelling is, the cars would be faster throughout the race due to lower weights and the curiocity that the strategy is going bring.

For one, I wouldn't care if the overtaking happens on track or in pits, as long as there is a possibility of altering the race leader situation, it would all be fine. I thoroughly enjoyed the refuelling era.

[maxxer]

limit the amount of elements they can have on wings diffusers barge boards

[roon]

They are de facto constrained to two—air & water. It's usually in the driver's interest to avoid the other two.

[maxxer]

They are de facto constrained to two—air & water. It's usually in the driver's interest to avoid the other two.

funny , but what i am saying is to keep the aero more simple. Less talk about it being difficult to overtake