2017 Chinese Grand Prix - Shanghai 07-09 April

[ENGINE TUNER]

What is "pure speed"?

If you have to ask maybe this is not the sport for you, maybe try bowling or darts

No, please define "pure speed", or do you just like saying it cause it sounds "cool".

Do you not watch swimming or track? Is pure speed difficult to grasp in those sports? Why is it difficult to grasp in F1?

[Chene_Mostert]

I don't think Vettel took a gamble by pitting under the VSC. Actually, it's a no brainer to pit under the VSC because it's basically half a pit stop for free. I was surprised the Mercs didn't pit also under the VSC, and honestly thought they were gonna lose out to Vettel because of that. Vettel was unlucky only because the VSC was followed immediately by a SC period.

Exactly, the VSC pit was a good decision. Can't see the future.

Since you can't see the future you have no idea if it was a good decision, it could have started raining again immediately, or they could have called a red flag instead of an SC(although this year I don't think they are still allowed to change tires under a red flag).

The inters may have still been faster for a couple laps after the SC went in, or VET could have spun on the wet pit straight while pushing... you don't know because yu cane see the future.

VET gambled and it didn't work out. If he was fast enough he would't have had to gamble.

I don't think so.
If you get presented with an opportunity to gain advantage you take it no matter how "pure" your speed is. Unfortunately pitting under the VSC was not the right opportunity. Had it work it should have been considered a brilliant strategy.

[Chene_Mostert]

If you have to ask maybe this is not the sport for you, maybe try bowling or darts

No, please define "pure speed", or do you just like saying it cause it sounds "cool".

Do you not watch swimming or track? Is pure speed difficult to grasp in those sports? Why is it difficult to grasp in F1?

Well you seem to struggle to define it...

[ENGINE TUNER]

I don't think so.
If you get presented with an opportunity to gain advantage you take it no matter how "pure" your speed is. Unfortunately pitting under the VSC was not the right opportunity. Had it work it should have been considered a brilliant strategy.

So if it were only 2 cars on the track, whoever in the sauber followed by VET in his ferrari, do you think that would have affected their decision to put on slicks on a semi wet track?

VET took a gamble and lost out, pure and simple. Only the people who don't realize it was a gamble would have called it a brilliant strategy if it had worked out. It was a gamble either way and they lost out.

Well you seem to struggle to define it...

No, it is you that is struggling to understand it.

[Chene_Mostert]

I don't think so.
If you get presented with an opportunity to gain advantage you take it no matter how "pure" your speed is. Unfortunately pitting under the VSC was not the right opportunity. Had it work it should have been considered a brilliant strategy.

So if it were only 2 cars on the track, whoever in the sauber followed by VET in his ferrari, do you think that would have affected their decision to put on slicks on a semi wet track?

VET took a gamble and lost out, pure and simple. Only the people who don't realize it was a gamble would have called it a brilliant strategy if it had worked out. It was a gamble either way and they lost out.

Well you seem to struggle to define it...

No, it is you that is struggling to understand it.

The variables are totally different, so you might have to consider different opportunities.

[giantfan10]

To be honest the people running the dry tyres were still losing quite a lot of time in the last sector, the SC happened too soon for us to know if it was a great move by Ferrari or not.

Exactly!

Do you ever view any fact without a heavy slant in Mercedes favor? sheesh...
F1 fanatic:
As the VSC period ended, Mercedes were now running first and second. But a pit stop under green flag running would inevitably drop them back behind Vettel. So it was to their considerable relief when Antonio Giovinazzi crashed at the final corner for the second time in five laps.

Motorsports.com:
The leading cars should have been in the pits changing tyres, while Vettel headed down the main straight already equipped with slicks. Instead the top five were in effect protected, so Hamilton, Ricciardo (who didn't actually change tyres until the second trundle down the pitlane), Raikkonen, Verstappen (after a brilliant start from 16th) and Bottas (having lost three places with a pitstop glitch) emerged in that order.
Vettel had no choice but to follow them out in sixth.

Thats the reality of the situation. Not the spin job you 2 mercedes fans are trying in this thread : )

[Manoah2u]

Yeah, damn everyone who isn't Merc, Ferrari or Red Bull! It's unbelievable that they don't all file into the pits after the grid lap and instantly retire. Imagine actually having the temerity to try and race for meager points! As soon as Verstappen got within 5-6 seconds of the car in front it should have pulled off the circuit and stopped! Losing the 8-10 seconds whilst Verstappen swanned by was the 'moral' and 'correct' thing to do. What's ten seconds? Personally, I couldn't believe it when Magnussen and the Force India's even had the temerity to stay out and finish the race once Hamilton got close to them! Even Sainz stayed out when it was clear that, on the long straight, some of his disturbed air had the chance to potentially move some marbles (also put down by those selfish non-Red Bulls/Ferrari/Mercs). Hamilton might have driven over those! I mean, sure, he earned his team six points by being so selfish, but that's nothing compared to the catastrophic impact his presence on the circuit would (WOULD!) have definitely had on both the WDC and WCC.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, backmarkers have a right to race too and the leaders (all of them) have to deal with the backmarkers in accordance to the rules. Being lapped without losing significant time is even a recognised skill amongst midfield and backmarker drivers.

take a chill pill man. nobody was kicking you in the shins.

[fiohaa]

I do wonder why Ferrari didn't get kimi out the way and let vettel through. You'd think they'd tell kimi "u got 3 laps to pass him, or let vettel try ". That potentially cost vettel the win, as ham said on the podium he was having to push and trade fastest laps. Ferrari strategy still gives me concerns. It was such an obvious thing to do.

It's a risk. You're basically telling Kimi that he has to help Ferrari with the WCC and that he's Seb's rear gunner. It would shod his already brittle self confidence. But, at least it kills the number 1 and number 2 myth at Ferrari.

Its not a risk at all - it makes no sense for Ferrari to let the quicker Ferrari driver, who can potentially challenge for a Win instead of coming 2nd, Sit behind the slower car for many laps.

Letting Kimi to try would show that Ferrari were being totally fair - Exactly like what Redbull did in monaco a few years back with Kvyat and Ricciardo.
Instead of finishing 2nd and 5th, they could have finished 1st and 5th.

i also don't see how you can assume it would destroy Kimi's confidence - he's not some teenager rooky. He probably doesn't even care.

[ENGINE TUNER]

I don't think so.
If you get presented with an opportunity to gain advantage you take it no matter how "pure" your speed is. Unfortunately pitting under the VSC was not the right opportunity. Had it work it should have been considered a brilliant strategy.

So if it were only 2 cars on the track, whoever in the sauber followed by VET in his ferrari, do you think that would have affected their decision to put on slicks on a semi wet track?

VET took a gamble and lost out, pure and simple. Only the people who don't realize it was a gamble would have called it a brilliant strategy if it had worked out. It was a gamble either way and they lost out.

Well you seem to struggle to define it...

No, it is you that is struggling to understand it.

The variables are totally different, so you might have to consider different opportunities.

Exactly, the Ferrari has enough pure speed to beat the sauber on track without having to resort to gambles like changing onto slicks on semi wet track, where someone(SAI) on slicks just went off track and someone else on slicks(GIO) crashes a lap later.

But VET did not have the pure speed to catch and pass HAM so he resorted to a gamble, gamble that he lost out on.

[Chene_Mostert]

So if it were only 2 cars on the track, whoever in the sauber followed by VET in his ferrari, do you think that would have affected their decision to put on slicks on a semi wet track?

VET took a gamble and lost out, pure and simple. Only the people who don't realize it was a gamble would have called it a brilliant strategy if it had worked out. It was a gamble either way and they lost out.


No, it is you that is struggling to understand it.

The variables are totally different, so you might have to consider different opportunities.

Exactly, the Ferrari has enough pure speed to beat the sauber on track without having to resort to gambles like changing onto slicks on semi wet track, where someone(SAI) on slicks just went off track and someone else on slicks(GIO) crashes a lap later.

But VET did not have the pure speed to catch and pass HAM so he resorted to a gamble, gamble that he lost out on.

I don't think so.
Like I said if it was only 2 cars on track and VSC had to come out, there would be no reason for the other car to seek an advantage, as he would now be the only car on track.

BTW, speed is a function of distance and time, were does "purity" fit into the equation?
If two swimmers finish a 200m race 1sec apart, which swimmer's speed was the purest and why?

[NYGIANTS]

What is "pure speed"?

If you have to ask maybe this is not the sport for you, maybe try bowling or darts

No, please define "pure speed", or do you just like saying it cause it sounds "cool".

to me "pure speed" was what max was showing yesterday not at the start but how he was able to get pass the cars. his corner entry and corner exit speed i haven't seen since lewis rookie season. the debate will be is it the car or max, and my reasoning of why its max, me and wife are huge ricciardo fans and dani's entry and exit speeds is not the same which you can clearly see.

the thing is we hardly see it with the redbulls because of their power deficit just like we don't see it with lewis except in qualies or if he's relegated at the back of the grid, but people nowadays attribute his passing because of the car. but when there's variables like a wet race or a cool weather race with the redbulls i see the "pure speed" from max.

[giantfan10]

So if it were only 2 cars on the track, whoever in the sauber followed by VET in his ferrari, do you think that would have affected their decision to put on slicks on a semi wet track?

VET took a gamble and lost out, pure and simple. Only the people who don't realize it was a gamble would have called it a brilliant strategy if it had worked out. It was a gamble either way and they lost out.


No, it is you that is struggling to understand it.

The variables are totally different, so you might have to consider different opportunities.

Exactly, the Ferrari has enough pure speed to beat the sauber on track without having to resort to gambles like changing onto slicks on semi wet track, where someone(SAI) on slicks just went off track and someone else on slicks(GIO) crashes a lap later.

But VET did not have the pure speed to catch and pass HAM so he resorted to a gamble, gamble that he lost out on.

LH: Yeah, the only summary we can come up with is that. It is, as I said, very, very close and there were times when Sebastian put laps in and it was hard to even match the time. The last ten or 12 laps he was doing a 35.6 and I was doing a 35.8 and it was very hard to get to where he was. Then there was other times in the race when I was quicker.

Sebastian Vettel: “We can be happy with today’s results. The race was a lot of fun, very entertaining. I think that pace-wise we were a match today, sometimes he was faster, sometimes I was

[ENGINE TUNER]

I don't think so.
Like I said if it was only 2 cars on track and VSC had to come out, there would be no reason for the other car to seek an advantage, as he would now be the only car on track.

BTW, speed is a function of distance and time, were does "purity" fit into the equation?
If two swimmers finish a 200m race 1sec apart, which swimmer's speed was the purest and why?

Yes, time and distance, that distance is fixed(usually) but the time can be affected by strategy. Other than the rain when is it ever an advantageous strategy to pit on the second lap? When is it an advantageous strategy to put on slick tires on a semi wet track with drivers slipping off track at several different corners or crashing on straights? VET tried to win by way of strategy rather than just catching and passing HAM by way of pure speed and used a gamble to do so and lost out. Plain and simple.

If one of those swimmers went full attack in the first 25 meters and then switched lanes(if that were allowed) and then blocked the other swimmer or maybe held onto his leg then maybe his speed wasn't so pure:)

[ENGINE TUNER]

If you have to ask maybe this is not the sport for you, maybe try bowling or darts

No, please define "pure speed", or do you just like saying it cause it sounds "cool".

to me "pure speed" was what max was showing yesterday not at the start but how he was able to get pass the cars. his corner entry and corner exit speed i haven't seen since lewis rookie season. the debate will be is it the car or max, and my reasoning of why its max, me and wife are huge ricciardo fans and dani's entry and exit speeds is not the same which you can clearly see.

the thing is we hardly see it with the redbulls because of their power deficit just like we don't see it with lewis except in qualies or if he's relegated at the back of the grid, but people nowadays attribute his passing because of the car. but when there's variables like a wet race or a cool weather race with the redbulls i see the "pure speed" from max.

VER was fast yes, but RIC was clearly saving his tires and came back at VER at the end of the race. There is more going on than we all see or recognize .

[BanMeToo]

Basically your argument is that it was too wet for slicks when the VSC came out?