2017 Hungarian Grand Prix - Hungaroring, 28-30 July

[aran.vtec]

I wonder, If Lewis did manage to pass Kimmi after he insisted that Botas yields to him, would he still have given the place back to Botas?
What was the intention of the Switch? Was it to get lewis more points?, Was it to get him on the podium?
If so why did they Switch them back?

Or was it to put on a nice "check out what a genuine nice dude our driver is" PR Show?
Media and most die-hard LH fans seems to have nicely fallen for this PR stunt, praising their driver for giving "up" a place that, come to think of it, was never his place to give up to start with, as he never really challenged his team mate to earn the position.
I guess Mercedes AMG F1 team has realised that the best “great fans man” are the ones easily led by the nose with cheap PR propaganda.
What I also find very curios is that on 5 occasions so far this season Lewis stated that “ this venue is definitely in my top 3 list.” I struggle to understand this, surely the PR team should consider expanding the script to “top 10” list?

What the actual fook are you on about. Of course if Lewis had passed Kimi he would have stayed in 2nd!!! Merc used their head to have a go at Ferrari. So if he got in front of 1 Ferrari it would have been a good job. As he didn't , they switched back as agreed.

Stop trying to pick at holes that dont exist.
It wasn't a PR stunt. It was , driver number 77 was unable to catch Ferrari. Driver 44 reckons he can. We have nothing to lose if we try. If he cant pass any Ferrari we will switch them back as thats fair.

Jesus christ

The question is Why are they willing to gift Lewis a second spot but nor a 3rd spot, if points are not that important why switch them in the first place?
Why not tell Botas to have a go at Kimmi, Seb was so slow and holding up Kimmi?
What made the team Think Lewis can have a better go at kimmi? I mean you expect the slowest to be let by by the slower to have a go at the slow?

The question i have is what made lewis think he could pass kimi if he couldnt pass Bottas?

[Manoah2u]

Quote of the year Magnussen: "Suck my balls Mate" to Hulk

Magnussen is becoming my personal hero, first he says it like it is "if it looks like sh*t, it's sh*t"
and then the comeback of the year to sore loser Hulk "Suck my balls honey"

that stuff deserves a compilation

[Ennis]

What the actual fook are you on about. Of course if Lewis had passed Kimi he would have stayed in 2nd!!! Merc used their head to have a go at Ferrari. So if he got in front of 1 Ferrari it would have been a good job. As he didn't , they switched back as agreed.

Stop trying to pick at holes that dont exist.
It wasn't a PR stunt. It was , driver number 77 was unable to catch Ferrari. Driver 44 reckons he can. We have nothing to lose if we try. If he cant pass any Ferrari we will switch them back as thats fair.

Jesus christ

The question is Why are they willing to gift Lewis a second spot but nor a 3rd spot, if points are not that important why switch them in the first place?
Why not tell Botas to have a go at Kimmi, Seb was so slow and holding up Kimmi?
What made the team Think Lewis can have a better go at kimmi? I mean you expect the slowest to be let by by the slower to have a go at the slow?

The question i have is what made lewis think he could pass kimi if he couldnt pass Bottas?

Kimi was in a different car. Not wanting to kill both his and his teammates tyres, killing both their chances at taking a Ferrari. The fact he genuinely did seem to have more pace.

On the earlier point on "Why are they willing to gift Lewis a second spot but not a 3rd spot, if points are not that important..." - what?

[GPR-A duplicate2]

[Text....]
A 1 min 13.3 from Rubens wow and no runoff back then...

The problem is, you don't pay attention to details. The circuit was smaller and relatively faster, than it is today when Barrichello set that time.

Hungaroring from 1989 - 2002.


Hungaroring from 2003 - Till now.

[Chene_Mostert]

[Text....]
A 1 min 13.3 from Rubens wow and no runoff back then...

The problem is, you don't pay attention to details. The circuit was smaller and relatively faster, than it is today when Barrichello set that time.

Hungaroring from 1989 - 2002.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 02.svg.png

Hungaroring from 2003 - Till now.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ng.svg.png

you think this makes it 6 second, with these "monsters"? the cars are slow and to easy, in fact so slow and easy you can allow a TV commentator to jump in on short notice...

[GPR-A duplicate2]

[Text....]
A 1 min 13.3 from Rubens wow and no runoff back then...

The problem is, you don't pay attention to details. The circuit was smaller and relatively faster, than it is today when Barrichello set that time.

Hungaroring from 1989 - 2002.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 02.svg.png

Hungaroring from 2003 - Till now.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ng.svg.png

you think this makes it 6 second, with these "monsters"? the cars are slow and to easy, in fact so slow and easy you can allow a TV commentator to jump in on short notice...

Do you mind checking weight to power ratio AND allowed fuel consumption? And also try to find out the wake impact from years gone by.

[GPR-A duplicate2]

you think this makes it 6 second, with these "monsters"? the cars are slow and to easy, in fact so slow and easy you can allow a TV commentator to jump in on short notice...

Do you mind checking weight to power ratio AND allowed fuel consumption?

now you are looking at the excuses, the end results are these cars car not "monsters" and the current drivers don't like to "race", for some of them the drivers parade is the most important part of the weekend

Again, the problem in debating with someone like you is, when things start getting technical, you chicken out. If one doesn't understand (and sometimes does not want to understand) how the cars have evolved over the years and the complexities they have brought for racing (specifically overtaking), it's hard to then have a discussion.

Regulations (engine - weight)
1980-1983
1500 cc with compressor or 3000 cc without a
compressor. Maximumweight 575 kg (1980), 585 kg (1981), 580 kg
(1982), 540 kg (1983)
480 hp at 10000 rpm-588 kg (1980 Williams 07B)
640 hp at 11000 rpm-540 kg (1983 Brabham BMW BT55 Turbo)
1984-1985
1500 cc without and 3000 cc with compressor.
Minimumweight 540 kg, maximumfuelconsumption 220 l/race.
750 hp at 12000 rpm-540 kg (1985 McLaren-TAG MP4/2B Turbo)
1986
1500 cc with compressor. Minimumweight 540 kg,
max.fuelcons. 195 l/race
1400 hp at 12000 rpm-540 kg (Williams-Honda FW11 Turbo)
1987-1988
- Min.weight 500 kg (1987), 540 kg (1988).
Max.fuelcons. 195 l/race (1987), 155 l/race (1988), max.pressure 4
bar (1987), 2.5 bar (1988).
850 hp at 13000 rpm-540 kg (Williams-Honda FW11 Turbo)
- Or: 3500 cc not compressed. Minimum 500 kg, no fuel-limit.
590 hp at 12000 rpm- 500 kg (Tyrell-Ford 016)
1989
3500 cc not compressed (no more turbo engines), no refuelling.
685 hp at 13000 rpm-500 kg (McLaren-Honda MP4/5)

Regulations (engine - weight)
1990-1994
3500cc, normally aspirated engines
1995-1999
Engine capacity reduced: 3.5 to 3.0 litres.

Technical regulations (engine - weight)
2004
3000cc engine that must last a complete race weekend. Replacing an engine costs the driver 10 places on the grid. Replacing one after second qualifying is equal to a start from the back of the grid.
Minimum weight: 605 kg during each
qualifying practice session and no less than 600 kg at all other times during the Event.(including driver and fuel)

900 hp at 18500+ rpm (2003 BAR Honda 006)

Air ducts for front and rear brake cooling may not be higher than 160mm above the centre line of the wheel, and not be lower than 160mm below the wheel centre line.

2005
Engines must last 2 complete race weekends.
2006-2007
2400cc engine with 8 cylinders in a 90° V bank, each one with 2 inlet and 2 outlet valves. An engine must weigh at least 95kg,
mainly limited to be built with Aluminium alloys (with ceramics, metal matrix and magnesium alloys forbidden). Variable geometry intake and output systems forbidden.
750 hp at 19000+ rpm (Toyota)

2008
2400cc engine with 8 cylinders in a 90° V bank. Regulations identical to those set since 2006. Engines are homologated by the FIA and development is freezed for 10 years (later changed).
Therefore, because of a WMSC decision on 7 December 2007, no engine other than those available at 31 March 2008 can compete in an F1 event between 2008 and 2017.
2009
Each driver is allowed the use of 8 engines during a season. A new engine will cost 10 grid places.
Maximum engine revolutions limited to 18000 rpm.
Kinetic energy recovery systems (KERS) are allowed and used.

Technical regulations (engine - weight)
2010
The minimum weight of the car has been raised from 605kg to 620kg;
Each driver is allowed the use of 8 engines during a season. A new engine will cost 10 grid places;
Maximum engine revolutions limited to 18000 rpm;
Kinetic energy recovery systems (KERS) are allowed but teams agreed not to use it.
2011
KERS still allowed and used again after mutual agreement between teams (FOTA);
Teams mutually agree to have a fixed weight distribution of the cars before ballast: 47%front - 53%rear (agreement valid only for 2011 to deal with the new Pirelli tyres).
2012
Limitations on engine torque maps (to reduce inventive maps aimed only at increasing diffuser efficiency);
Weight applied on the front and rear wheels must not be less than 291kg and 342kg respectively.
2013
Weight applied on the front and rear wheels must not be less than 292kg and 343kg respectively.

[Chene_Mostert]

Do you mind checking weight to power ratio AND allowed fuel consumption?

now you are looking at the excuses, the end results are these cars car not "monsters" and the current drivers don't like to "race", for some of them the drivers parade is the most important part of the weekend

Again, the problem in debating with someone like you is, when things start getting technical, you chicken out. If one doesn't understand (and sometimes does not want to understand) how the cars have evolved over the years and the complexities they have brought for racing (specifically overtaking), it's hard to then have a discussion.

The cars might have evolved but the outcome ( lap time ) have regressed. what is the benefit of evolution if the outcome is worse? is it all for the show?

[GPR-A duplicate2]

The cars might have evolved but the outcome ( lap time ) have regressed. what is the benefit of evolution if the outcome is worse? is it all for the show?

Now we are going in the same direction.

With driver safety taking precedence over anything else, the crash structure and driver cell security took paramount importance over speed and hence the increase in weight (for stiffening purposes and more such parameters increased weight). Later, the engine efficiency and environment friendly (less fuel) requirements started taking precedence, reduced the power of the engines. Unlike the cars of the past, ever since the weight distribution rules were put in place, there was no escaping from utilizing the front of the car way more than ever, that started making the cars more and more complex at the front. The more complex the cars became at the front, the more they started suffering in terms of following other cars, coupled with the fact that, designers found more and more complex solutions at the rear to generate more downforce, leading to increased wake. Increased wake and ever growing reliance on the front. There developed the ugly combination of wake affecting the front of the car, leading to large doses of understeer, making following a car become more and more difficult.

While all this was happening, the tracks changed very little to ease the difficulties the cars were developing.

[Treble]

Should be an easy one for Mercedes, barring any drama. Long run times, especially for Bottas shows a large gap to Ferrari and then Red Bull. One thing is for sure, Unlike RB, both Merc and Ferrari would be running their PU components in a very conservative mode. The situation is so reminiscent of Baku.

Here are the long run times.

https://i.gyazo.com/afe0d3392c493ad1d04 ... 8c8356.png

Again, the problem in debating with someone like you is, when things start getting technical, you chicken out. If one doesn't understand (and sometimes does not want to understand) how the cars have evolved over the years and the complexities they have brought for racing (specifically overtaking), it's hard to then have a discussion.

And TECHNICALLY why Mercedes lost on this track?

[GPR-A duplicate2]

Should be an easy one for Mercedes, barring any drama. Long run times, especially for Bottas shows a large gap to Ferrari and then Red Bull. One thing is for sure, Unlike RB, both Merc and Ferrari would be running their PU components in a very conservative mode. The situation is so reminiscent of Baku.

Here are the long run times.

https://i.gyazo.com/afe0d3392c493ad1d04 ... 8c8356.png

Again, the problem in debating with someone like you is, when things start getting technical, you chicken out. If one doesn't understand (and sometimes does not want to understand) how the cars have evolved over the years and the complexities they have brought for racing (specifically overtaking), it's hard to then have a discussion.

And TECHNICALLY why Mercedes lost on this track?

A Car that was, either not setup correctly (as they claimed in Monaco too), or wasn't designed to perform on tighter tracks (not allowing them to show their power muscles) AND their senior driver screwing the banker lap and putting himself under pressure to deliver on the last flier, that didn't come through.

Oh and yeah, if you are trying to troll for my first message. Welcome to F1 world where things can drastically go bad from Friday to Sunday. Read something on what happened in 2016 Baku GP.

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12472/ ... uropean-gp

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns33867.html
F1 2016 Spanish GP - Ferrari puzzled by qualifying flop

Ferrari had looked competitive right from the start of the weekend, Vettel setting the fastest time in FP1 - with the benefit of running soft tyres while the two Mercedes drivers opted to run with medium tyres - and Raikkonen was second in both Friday sessions, losing out to Rosberg by just 0,254s in the afternoon. Saturday morning provided further encouragement to the Scuderia, as Vettel was third quickest but just 0.147s away from Rosberg's best time, but in qualifying the red cars looked far from easy to drive and were never in a position to fight with Mercedes.

[Chene_Mostert]

The cars might have evolved but the outcome ( lap time ) have regressed. what is the benefit of evolution if the outcome is worse? is it all for the show?

Now we are going in the same direction.

With driver safety taking precedence over anything else, the crash structure and driver cell security took paramount importance over speed and hence the increase in weight (for stiffening purposes and more such parameters increased weight). Later, the engine efficiency and environment friendly (less fuel) requirements started taking precedence, reduced the power of the engines. Unlike the cars of the past, ever since the weight distribution rules were put in place, there was no escaping from utilizing the front of the car way more than ever, that started making the cars more and more complex at the front. The more complex the cars became at the front, the more they started suffering in terms of following other cars, coupled with the fact that, designers found more and more complex solutions at the rear to generate more downforce, leading to increased wake. Increased wake and ever growing reliance on the front. There developed the ugly combination of wake affecting the front of the car, leading to large doses of understeer, making following a car become more and more difficult.

While all this was happening, the tracks changed very little to ease the difficulties the cars were developing.

OK and now we turn to Safety... Ok so let me add safety to the mix.
The current cars at not "monsters" they are slow and safe, and the current drivers don't want to get their elbows out and race due to it being too unsafe.
older, less "evolved" unsafe cars manage to lap quicker and drivers managed to overtake on the same track with gravel traps in place of "run off" areas in the past... Why blame the track and wish for it to be removed...

[ferkan]

LH44 fans "Why didnt Ferrari, instead of winning and taking 1-2 like they did, take 1-5 and let Kimi, who is currently 5th on WDC list and only has matematical chance of winning, win the race?
Jesus...

[NathanOlder]

I wonder, If Lewis did manage to pass Kimmi after he insisted that Botas yields to him, would he still have given the place back to Botas?
What was the intention of the Switch? Was it to get lewis more points?, Was it to get him on the podium?
If so why did they Switch them back?

Or was it to put on a nice "check out what a genuine nice dude our driver is" PR Show?
Media and most die-hard LH fans seems to have nicely fallen for this PR stunt, praising their driver for giving "up" a place that, come to think of it, was never his place to give up to start with, as he never really challenged his team mate to earn the position.
I guess Mercedes AMG F1 team has realised that the best “great fans man” are the ones easily led by the nose with cheap PR propaganda.
What I also find very curios is that on 5 occasions so far this season Lewis stated that “ this venue is definitely in my top 3 list.” I struggle to understand this, surely the PR team should consider expanding the script to “top 10” list?

What the actual fook are you on about. Of course if Lewis had passed Kimi he would have stayed in 2nd!!! Merc used their head to have a go at Ferrari. So if he got in front of 1 Ferrari it would have been a good job. As he didn't , they switched back as agreed.

Stop trying to pick at holes that dont exist.
It wasn't a PR stunt. It was , driver number 77 was unable to catch Ferrari. Driver 44 reckons he can. We have nothing to lose if we try. If he cant pass any Ferrari we will switch them back as thats fair.

Jesus christ

The question is Why are they willing to gift Lewis a second spot but nor a 3rd spot, if points are not that important why switch them in the first place?
Why not tell Botas to have a go at Kimmi, Seb was so slow and holding up Kimmi?
What made the team Think Lewis can have a better go at kimmi? I mean you expect the slowest to be let by by the slower to have a go at the slow?

They weren't giving lewis anything. They saw that they had a chance to get a mercedes to 2nd or even 1st. Bottas didnt have the pace to catch kimi. If he did have the pace he would have caught him. Are you too young to understand what happened (genuine question) ?

[NathanOlder]

What the actual fook are you on about. Of course if Lewis had passed Kimi he would have stayed in 2nd!!! Merc used their head to have a go at Ferrari. So if he got in front of 1 Ferrari it would have been a good job. As he didn't , they switched back as agreed.

Stop trying to pick at holes that dont exist.
It wasn't a PR stunt. It was , driver number 77 was unable to catch Ferrari. Driver 44 reckons he can. We have nothing to lose if we try. If he cant pass any Ferrari we will switch them back as thats fair.

Jesus christ

The question is Why are they willing to gift Lewis a second spot but nor a 3rd spot, if points are not that important why switch them in the first place?
Why not tell Botas to have a go at Kimmi, Seb was so slow and holding up Kimmi?
What made the team Think Lewis can have a better go at kimmi? I mean you expect the slowest to be let by by the slower to have a go at the slow?

The question i have is what made lewis think he could pass kimi if he couldnt pass Bottas?

Lewis would be more aggressive against kimi. With a fight against another team this year, he can't afford to risk everything against his team mate.