2018 Australian Grand Prix - Melbourne, 22 -25 March

[marvin78]

Yeah. That's a logical follow up by buying all the parts they buy from Ferrari. The suspension layout alone would make certain design decisions inevitable. Some solutions look similar (as copied) but you can see the same things on other cars. This last years Ferrari BS ist what it is, BS.

[Andres125sx]

Haas is defacto Ferrari team 2, I think that is pretty obvious, they use half their car, and I think that´s what any other team should do. Ferrari learnt RBR-STR lesson and followed their route, so not bashing at all, as I always say, F1 teams have to do all they´re allowed to do to win. A second team is allowed, so...

It´s a win-win for both, Haas does not need to invest so much money to be competitive, while Ferrari enjoy a partner in the grid wich as we´ve seen in past seasons with RBR and STR, and as we saw yesterday, is pretty useful for mileage, testing parts or philosophies, holding back your rivals.... Apart from Haas wind tunnel obviously wich is gorgeous I think

[f1316]

after his mistake, Lewis had clean air and his fastest lap was a lot slower than that of Ricciardo. Obviously Daniel had newer tyres but it is still a good sign that maybe Red Bull can challenge on race pace. Not that I'm delluding myself thinking Mercedes isn't dominant. I just think this little sample(was hard to read proper race pace on this race due to traffic that the RBs had) can indicate to a possible fights on particular tracks

The trouble is Hamilton was never in clean air and pushing as hard as he could. The few laps he was in clean air and fresh tyres , he still had over half a tank of fuel, and he was told by the team he is safe in front of Kimi and clear of Vettel if a VSC/SC happened (obviously wrong)
So Red Bulls pace and Mercedes pace cant be compared just yet. First half of the race, Red Bull had traffic, 2nd half , Merc had traffic.

After Lewis made his mistake, he was pushing in pretty clear air to get back to the back of Seb - in fact it was a very similar scenario as with DR catching back up to the back of Kimi, having previously dropped back. So I think his previous fastest lap is comparable with DR’s and so the Red Bull very impressive.

The differences though are:

- DR on much fresher tyres
- DR’s lap a few later, so lower fuel
- I think he may have purposely dropped back from Kimi prior to his fastest lap, in order to save tyres and further emphasise his offset in tyre wear; so I think he was saving something for this one big push, whereas Lewis only dropped back because of a mistake


Nevertheless, I think it was a very impressive lap and shows they were very competitive in the race, and certainly on low fuel. I suspect they may have had a better race car than Ferrari here but just couldn’t use it.

That said, I think Ferrari were compromised - running lower wing level than optimal to help fuel economy - so I think they’ll develop further quicker.

[Vasconia]

Sorry to disappoint you but the Mercedes Car is far ahead and they won't make the same mistakes they did in AUS.

I tend to agree. Hamilton was much faster on qualy and he was confortably in the lead before the VSC. It wasn´t like last year when Ferrari showed a great race pace. They need to solve that fuel consumption problema if they want to push Mercedes. Bahrain with those straights would help Lewis to overtake Sebastian.

Another worrying aspect was the almost lack of overtakes, but Australia has never been a good place so we must wait for the rest races and see.

Anyway a very welcome victory for Ferrari and a Little bit of karm for Lewis after the defiant comment in the post-qualy conference. Anyway, I like those moments because they motivate the drivers even more. Except Kimi, he doesn´t give a sh*t.

Great race by Alonso, the McLaren seems to have some pace.

[Phil]

In Post Race on Sky, Toto was saying that it was a software glitch. But in the interview, I'm still not understanding what the problem was. What does the pit window estimation error have to do with the fact that he lost the lead? I don't understand how knowing that they were going to lose the lead vs not knowing they were going to lose the lead was relevant ???

I think you already figured out, but yes, when they pitted, LH was onviously driving to delta and according to the software, the team figured they had a sufficient gap to Vettel incase a safety car or VSC would happen.

I personally think that the software was working good, but they miscalculated that Vettel could accelerate on pit entry and pit exit. In the end, it was extremely close but just worked out in Vettels favour.

To me, this error felt like Monaco 2015 when they miscalculated the gaps and pitted LH again (unnecessarily) under VSC and then handed the win to Rosberg.

[ferkan]

Wheelgungate: When Haas, as a payback to Ferrari because of using their past season chassis, sabotage their own cars to cause a SC wich gifted vitory to Ferrari

Any credit?

Before any Haas retired, I was thinking about how happy should be Ferrari because of Hass pace with their old chassis, as they were holding back RBR letting Ferrari to focus on Mercedes. Then one Haas fails almost causing a SC but didn´t. Then the second fails again finally causing a SC and gifting victory to Ferrari...


I usually don´t buy coincidences in F1

It seems that you havent realised that HAAS actually use a Dallara chassis.

Yeah it looks pretty similar to Ferrari 2017, but that´s just a coincidence


Anycase, I was refering to aero, the chassis is basically the survival cell

I don't see it at all. I mean, its pretty much an evolution of last years car (which had Ferrari's suspension, gearbox, engine and everything they legally could use). Only big change from last years car are sidepods, but then again several other team copied Ferrari's sidepods.

22pts lost for Haas, that is awful lot of money. Awful lot.

[Vasconia]

Yes, will be interesting to see if the SF71 can live with low DF setups. Still they won't have much of a choice. With a Laptime optiised high DF setup they won't have a chance defending against Merc on the straights of more overtaking- friendly circuits. That will on the other hand compromise their Qualifying Laptimes.

AFAIK they have aero balance problems as the rear don't generate expected DF levels so they had to set down the front.

Vettel is suffering a lot form this because he likes a very stable rear on the car

They need to introduce some serious updates on the rear because the car lacks balance, plus the already mentioned consumption problem. They are two serious problems so I think it was pretty good to be second and third in the qualy. Anyway, the change in the wheelbase´s lenght is causing them more problems than benefits so far.

[johnny comelately]

It seems that you havent realised that HAAS actually use a Dallara chassis.

Yeah it looks pretty similar to Ferrari 2017, but that´s just a coincidence


Anycase, I was refering to aero, the chassis is basically the survival cell

I don't see it at all. I mean, its pretty much an evolution of last years car (which had Ferrari's suspension, gearbox, engine and everything they legally could use). Only big change from last years car are sidepods, but then again several other team copied Ferrari's sidepods.

22pts lost for Haas, that is awful lot of money. Awful lot.

In business there is often a rebate to lubricate deals.
Are you related to farcanal? BIG

[johnny comelately]

Yes, will be interesting to see if the SF71 can live with low DF setups. Still they won't have much of a choice. With a Laptime optiised high DF setup they won't have a chance defending against Merc on the straights of more overtaking- friendly circuits. That will on the other hand compromise their Qualifying Laptimes.

AFAIK they have aero balance problems as the rear don't generate expected DF levels so they had to set down the front.

Vettel is suffering a lot form this because he likes a very stable rear on the car

They need to introduce some serious updates on the rear because the car lacks balance, plus the already mentioned consumption problem. They are two serious problems so I think it was pretty good to be second and third in the qualy. Anyway, the change in the wheelbase´s lenght is causing them more problems than benefits so far.

Dont the long wheelbase cars lose it when they do go (example Bottas)

[Wass85]

Is it me or is Lewis the only driver leading a race who doesn't like to run-off into the distance. Even Bottas last year when leading pulled a good gap on Ferrari. I can understand why Lewis does this but yesterday it bit them hard. I suppose each GP is different but i don't think Mercedes had that much pace in hand especially on the Ultra Softs.

[Mansell89]

I think Bahrain will reveal more in terms of true pace- Lewis looked mega when he closed down 4 second gap on Vettel after he ran wide so on a more open track he’d surely have had a chance to pass and he had time up his sleeve.

Bahrain fascinates me for a couple of reasons- firstly Red Bull and the high speed corners to reveal a bit more about their chassis but secondly, tyre management. I think if the front 6 cars are within a decent parameter, someone bolting on some fast tyres late on could cause havoc and a chain reaction. I think Kimi once did something similar when grabbing 2nd there a couple of years ago?

[outsid3r]

AFAIK they have aero balance problems as the rear don't generate expected DF levels so they had to set down the front.

Vettel is suffering a lot form this because he likes a very stable rear on the car

They need to introduce some serious updates on the rear because the car lacks balance, plus the already mentioned consumption problem. They are two serious problems so I think it was pretty good to be second and third in the qualy. Anyway, the change in the wheelbase´s lenght is causing them more problems than benefits so far.

Dont the long wheelbase cars lose it when they do go (example Bottas)

It should be the other way round - Long wheelbase makes the car more predictable if it goes, and should make it easier to correct if it goes. At least that is my understanding in normal road cars...

[Just_a_fan]

In qually the Merc is in a league of its own

Interestingly, Vettel isn't so sure:

"We do get a bit of data, GPS data and stuff like that," he said. "I think they did turn it up for Q3 but not by seven-tenths.

"I don't think the gain that he had in time was down to engine. Probably a tenth, a little bit more, but not seven-tenths.

"So, the credit is for his lap that he did and not for the engine power. It's completely fine what they're doing because they didn't do anything special. Not more than they did last year, probably even a bit less by the looks of it. So, it was clear that he just had a very good lap and he drove well."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/43532673
This might be Vettel trying to play mental games with Hamilton - blowing smoke up his doo-dah - but it doesn't read that way.

We'll know next time out, I think, if it's all car or not. Roll on Bahrain.

[Mandrake]

How many laps did Vettel run on the Ultra Soft tyres, half the race? And doing so with the car at its heaviest. Surely that is too durable for what is supposed to be the second softest tyre?

And this being the evidence thus far, what on earth was the point of introducing a Super Hard, when I doubt we will see any teams running anything harder than a Medium.

In hindsight they perhaps could've used hyper, ultra and supersoft to force a 2 stop but given that's its the first race of the season and testing was in cold temperatures they opted for a conservative approach. Going forward maybe we can get 2 stop races at other tracks.

I doubt that this year with the fuel saving issues it is a viable strategy. The fuel is the limiting factor, not the tires. At least in Melbourne it was.

There's just one thing that made me think - both Haas cars had a similar issue ...

One driver, Magnussen, drove it to a place where it could be recovered safely with a simple double yellow (after the second DRS zone, corners 3/4).

The other driver, Grosjean, decided to just park it on the grass so poorly that the marshalls were unable to move the car into what looked like one of those emergency exits (was it a dedicated one though? aren't those marked somehow?) and had to get a crane which resulted in the (V)SC

I personally believe the first 'solution' was clearly the safer one since the cars have the improved/additional safety bolts/retainers on the nuts which are supposed to keep the wheel on the car, the latter way of doing things firstly was more dangerous for the marshalls who struggled to recover the car and secondly it had a major influence on the race ...

What's the exact wording on the rules regarding the unsafe release with a loose nut and what are the drivers supposed to do? Stop immediately? Bring it to a marshall post?

Or asking a different question: who acted correctly, Magnussen or Grosjean?

On German TV it was mentioned that the cars HAVE to stop the moment they realise a wheel is not properly secured. Grosjean in that instance was right to stop immediately. That is according to the rules.

Whatever it was that blocked the car from being pushed is another question though. But given the lack of clear instructions under yellow flags a VSC was not avoidable. That's why other series use Code 60 to neutralise the danger for marshals on track.

Hamilton won in China because the VSC ........ Erm..... No.

The guy who stuck it on pole, got away at the front and didnt pit under the VSC won the race due to the VSC.

It started wet, and was drying. Vettel pitted under VSC as a gamble. Giovinazzi smashed it in the wall and the SC came out. Who ever didnt pit before , now was able to pit and Lewis walked away from the rest and won comfortably.

Any your saying Lewis won because of VRS helping him like today with Vettel in Melbourne

The likelyhood of another SC AFTER the VSC was very small. Hence Vettel was massively disadvantaged and Hamilton was able to sustain the lead after the first round of pitstops.

The pendulum always swings both ways, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

Vettel's win was pure luck and after yesterday press conference it goes to show that sometime is better to be more humble and not so arrogant.

I found Vettel both on the radio as well as in the PC very much humble and knowing that it wasn't based on superior Ferrari pace. Care to elaborate or was it just the average rant?

[SiLo]

For people asking about the glitch, I'm wondering if they miscalculated how time gaps work once the cars slow down.

So Vettel was around 10-12 seconds ahead, but once they slow down suddenly that gap became 16 seconds.

IMO just unlucky for Mercedes and Hamilton. It was a gamble by Ferrari and they had that opportunity because neither driver binned it in qualifying. Still, slightly annoying that Grosjean couldn't find a good place to park it, or that the marshal post he did find didn't have a gap big enough to push a car through!