Despite having issues with his Red Bull a long way ahead of the halfway mark of the race, Daniel Ricciardo mastered the conditions and controlled from the front, winning his first Monaco Grand Prix. Sebastian Vettel finished second with Lewis Hamilton completing the podium in third place.
I can`t figure out how Vettel had lost this race, coz Ricci was 30km/h down at the end of the tunnel and Vettel couldn`t get near him not to mention pass him. The only reason I could see is that he was massively fuel managing bearing in mind we had no safety car ... I don`t think that crap excuse at the press conference when he said his front tyres were graining and he couldn`t get a good exit in Portier heading for the tunnel in order to have a good getaway ...
Vettel had problems with the tyres, Ricciardo was able to pull away in the twisted parts(almost all the track) so Vettel was too far to try to overtake him after the tunnel.
If this was made between Seb and Charles Leclerc… it would be talked for years.
The original article appears to claim that all team orders are illegal (which shows a slightly worrying grasp of F1) but, assuming it's accurate, this is pretty sad for the sport. Is it just Ocon? Or is it everyone who drives for Force India? I know there's always been suspicion but to have it confirmed and in such an offhand manner...
As far as I'm aware, there's no regulations about asking other teams to do stuff so equating the two would be a mistake.
I didnt like this, in fact is something I hate. As a fan I felt cheated the same way when TR has done with Red Bull many times. I can understand they won´t fight too much, but at least try to do it a non shameful way.
I haven't watched the race, but by the news, i guess i didn't loose a big show. Alonso even says that this was the most boring race ever. But i saw the hightlights of F2 race, and it was a nice race. Are the F1 cars, to big for the streets of Monaco?
In all honesty, no. It's not like they aren't able to take the corners, and overtaking was not hindered by the size as Verstappen duly showed.
Running in dirty air is the primary concern.
Sorry Turbo, but you can´t take the fastest car starting from the bottom of the grid as a reference for overtaking posibilities.
He finished 9th, behind Renault wich is more than a second slower, but couldn´t pass.
To me Monaco is boring to the point I fast forwarded most part of the race. Looking a sucession of cars lapping around 2-3 seconds slower than the could do because none can overtake so they don´t need to assume any risk is a gimmick
That is Monaco today, a gimmick
Of course I can do that. A faster car out of it's normal position drives overtaking in the first place. If we hypothetically determine the starting position by putting the fastest car 1st and the slowest car last, then overtaking will not happen under normal circumstances. Go back in history and check all overtakes and you'll never ever see a slower car overtaking a faster car under normal circumstances. And if there are abnormal circumstances, chances are that the originally slower car became the faster car due the circumstances. Overtaking is symptom of a grid out of its natural order basically.
Also you are loosing the point here: a question was made if the cars were too big for overtaking. The size is not hindering as Verstappen duly showed, because if size did matter then Verstappen would not have been able to go through, even with his faster car. Keep in mind this is no comment by any means on overall overtaking possibilities in Monaco. Overtaking remains very difficult in Monaco. I just don't think the size of the car plays any significant role in it.
When Ricciardo’s MGU-K failed the PU must have switched to a “carry on” mode ensuring that the MGU-H didn’t continue to generate and swamp the ES.
So somebody(s), somewhere, predicted this and took steps to make all the changes, fuel, spark, wastegate,etc to make sure the car could keep going with the maximum power available in the circumstances and ensuring all regulations were abided by.
So well done Ricciardo, buts let’s hear it for the engineers who looked into the future and worked to make it possible.
See my sig.
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus
In my opinion it should be mandatory to do two stops, so the drivers would not have excuses to drive faster, and consecualy make more mistakes which would make the race more interesting.
There should be a premium for a driver to drive faster. FIA should start adding bonus points if a driver finishes X seconds faster than driver Y. 10-15 seconds ahead should be one point and 15-20 seconds faster 2 points and 20-25 seconds, 3 points. Something like that, which would make a driver attempt to go faster to earn a few more points.
And not just the end of race, but at half point, if a driver A is ahead of driver B by X seconds, there should be points. Otherwise, with the kind of conservative racing that we see today to save the PU components, racing is always going to be, JUST BEING AHEAD.
I am not saying this is the way it should be, but there has to be some premium for a driver to go faster.
When Ricciardo’s MGU-K failed the PU must have switched to a “carry on” mode ensuring that the MGU-H didn’t continue to generate and swamp the ES.
So somebody(s), somewhere, predicted this and took steps to make all the changes, fuel, spark, wastegate,etc to make sure the car could keep going with the maximum power available in the circumstances and ensuring all regulations were abided by.
So well done Ricciardo, buts let’s hear it for the engineers who looked into the future and worked to make it possible.
See my sig.
There's a wastegate to ensure the mgu-h doesn't swamp the ES.
I think that Hamilton needs to say a big thank you for his engineers pegging him back to the slow pace of the race and just doing damage limitation. He complained about the slow pace early on but by the end his tyres were so shot he couldn't keep up with the slow pace being driven by the cars in front. If he had pushed as was his instinct he would've chewed up his tyres behind Vettel and had to pit losing positions and points. As it was, he lost 3 points to his championship rival on a weekend that could've been far more painful. He's been on the podium in every race this year and that consistency is what will win him the championship if it continues.
In my opinion it should be mandatory to do two stops, so the drivers would not have excuses to drive faster, and consecualy make more mistakes which would make the race more interesting.
There should be a premium for a driver to drive faster. FIA should start adding bonus points if a driver finishes X seconds faster than driver Y. 10-15 seconds ahead should be one point and 15-20 seconds faster 2 points and 20-25 seconds, 3 points. Something like that, which would make a driver attempt to go faster to earn a few more points.
And not just the end of race, but at half point, if a driver A is ahead of driver B by X seconds, there should be points. Otherwise, with the kind of conservative racing that we see today to save the PU components, racing is always going to be, JUST BEING AHEAD.
I am not saying this is the way it should be, but there has to be some premium for a driver to go faster.
I see your point and it could work in Monaco but for the rest of the season, taking into account how limited they are with the PU components, sadly.
Can't we just enjoy Monaco for what it is? Prior to the race, everyone knew there would be little to no passing. After the race, we can confirm this is still accurate. No surprises there. What makes Monaco an extraordinary venue, is that it emphasizes qualifying like no other track. But besides that, it offers a certain unpredictability with it's high potential for safety-car and its unique characteristics of overtaking being an impossibility. Combine these factors, and it's not a done deal to simply put your car on pole. Sometimes, you can do everything right (Kimi last year, Ricciardo in 2016), but things can still go against you due to circumstance.
The intriguing thing for me about Monaco is that strategically, it gives teams some options. Sometimes your actions (pitting early/aggressively) can impact the drivers around you. Either your actions cascade to others, or they don't. This can sometimes heavily influence the race and its result. There's no other venue like it (IMO, Singapore coming close though), but Monaco is just that bit more demanding due to the extreme narrow layout and the altitude changes.
I wouldn't want every race to be like it, but considering we have 20-21 races per season, I think it's nice to appreciate that there are some tracks like Monaco that offer a unique challenge.
In a simplistic sense; if we raced 20 races on ovals, but in 20 different locations (but same track layout), we'd probably/likely have identical winners and domination by a singular team/driver. The variety and different challenges is what makes it such a spectacle and one of a kind. And you just got to love the craziness of racing at speeds close to 300kph on such a narrow street track.
Not for nothing, Rosberg's Championship is the only thing that lends credibility to Hamilton's recent success. Otherwise, he'd just be the guy who's had the best car. — bhall II #Team44 supporter
Can't we just enjoy Monaco for what it is? Prior to the race, everyone knew there would be little to no passing. After the race, we can confirm this is still accurate. No surprises there. What makes Monaco an extraordinary venue, is that it emphasizes qualifying like no other track. But besides that, it offers a certain unpredictability with it's high potential for safety-car and its unique characteristics of overtaking being an impossibility. Combine these factors, and it's not a done deal to simply put your car on pole. Sometimes, you can do everything right (Kimi last year, Ricciardo in 2016), but things can still go against you due to circumstance.
The intriguing thing for me about Monaco is that strategically, it gives teams some options. Sometimes your actions (pitting early/aggressively) can impact the drivers around you. Either your actions cascade to others, or they don't. This can sometimes heavily influence the race and its result. There's no other venue like it (IMO, Singapore coming close though), but Monaco is just that bit more demanding due to the extreme narrow layout and the altitude changes.
I wouldn't want every race to be like it, but considering we have 20-21 races per season, I think it's nice to appreciate that there are some tracks like Monaco that offer a unique challenge.
In a simplistic sense; if we raced 20 races on ovals, but in 20 different locations (but same track layout), we'd probably/likely have identical winners and domination by a singular team/driver. The variety and different challenges is what makes it such a spectacle and one of a kind. And you just got to love the craziness of racing at speeds close to 300kph on such a narrow street track.
Monaco's real race is on Saturday, that is where Ricciardo won (and Verstappen gambled and lost). Maybe they should make more of a show of Saturday instead of Sunday
Can't we just enjoy Monaco for what it is? Prior to the race, everyone knew there would be little to no passing. After the race, we can confirm this is still accurate. No surprises there.
Can't we just enjoy Monaco for what it is? Prior to the race, everyone knew there would be little to no passing. After the race, we can confirm this is still accurate. No surprises there. What makes Monaco an extraordinary venue, is that it emphasizes qualifying like no other track. But besides that, it offers a certain unpredictability with it's high potential for safety-car and its unique characteristics of overtaking being an impossibility. Combine these factors, and it's not a done deal to simply put your car on pole. Sometimes, you can do everything right (Kimi last year, Ricciardo in 2016), but things can still go against you due to circumstance.
I do enjoy Monaco despite the lack of overtaking. But I complain with the low pace because of the conservative strategies. I want those drivers to push more and (in some cases) make mistakes which would bring more SF and unpredictability.
The problem with overtaking in F1 is also drivers not leaving space.
Now I read that sainz was actually not happy with the tyres his team put on his car so maybe thats why he was defending so aggressive.
Not that i am a verstappen fan but if a car is that much quicker then why keep defending that hard only leading to a collision.
At some point have to say ok time to give up the place.
Races in Le mans have different classes racing same time you dont see them fighting against a car which is clearly faster.
The problem with overtaking in F1 is also drivers not leaving space.
Now I read that sainz was actually not happy with the tyres his team put on his car so maybe thats why he was defending so aggressive.
Not that i am a verstappen fan but if a car is that much quicker then why keep defending that hard only leading to a collision.
At some point have to say ok time to give up the place.
Races in Le mans have different classes racing same time you dont see them fighting against a car which is clearly faster.
Then again, there's a much bigger speed difference between the WEC classes. If F2 was racing the same time F1 was, it would be ok to state that F2 cars should let F1 cars through. Asking for F1 cars to let F1 cars by just because one is slower, is I think a bridge too far.
Monaco's real race is on Saturday, that is where Ricciardo won (and Verstappen gambled and lost). Maybe they should make more of a show of Saturday instead of Sunday
Agreed. Monaco qualifying is a spectacle as we have silly-fast cars being hustled around a silly-tight track. Watching them really hang it all out for that last 1/10th is brilliant.
Then Sunday comes and it's all just pointless. They may as well just award points based on grid positions and have a nice lunch on Sunday instead.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
