Sebastian Vettel won his easiest race of the year, leading the Canadian Grand Prix from start to finish. The German didn't put a foot wrong and kept Bottas at bay, who finished second. Max Verstappen completed the podium in third place after what essentially was a surprisingly dull race.
Fourth-fastest Hamilton was bedevilled by front brake locking in Q3 and was generally unhappy with a difficult oversteery balance. An odd barbeque smell was apparent in the pitlane each time he pitted – and later the remains of a bird was discovered in a brake duct. It may have played a part in him being a tenth down. He locked up into the hairpin on both his Q3 runs. On the first of them he was quicker than Vettel up to that point.
A lot of people quoted me so it's impossible to retort the same response to one and all separately so I'm going to put in a common response.
Let me first clear the air and just say, I love Monaco. Yes, I know there's no overtaking there and every 2-3 of 5 races will be a tad boring but it has it's own bits to love. I can't think of a qualifying session that can be more interesting than Monaco. You miss, I hit. There are very few such tracks left. Also, I'm a huge lover of tennis and how many RG has Nadal won? Trust me, there have been some very very boring slams but I sit through them just so to catch a RF vs RN playing a 5 setter at 30+. That's sport. Every event isn't going to be a roller coaster.
Now, let's come to the centrifugal point around which F1 problems revolve-
1) Formula 1 derives a very old school fan base. Complete petrol heads and people who generally have a very fair grasp of racing and dare I say most who've at least once in their life been in a kart race, even if for leisure.
Formula 1 needs to stop taking them for granted.
I just don't understand how we get away with plonking a thing as ugly as a Halo and not be heard. What's the biggest draw in a F1 season? I say, a classic European track absolutely soaking wet. For the love of God, we can't have a wet race because the tyres don't displace enough water. Has anyone heard something as absurd as that? The joke is that they're still using the same junk.
2) Surely, they get by now that more aero equals less overtaking. These clowns gave the drivers more grip in the wrong way. Increasing mechanical grip and reducing the effect of aero would have made the cars faster while allowing them to follow. But, but..
3) Staying on tyres. Pirelli are absolutely a joke. I've seen processions earlier in F1 as well and in every era but we at least got variation in stops and strategy to add some intrigue to the show. These days literally every strategy is a mirror copy of the other. The rule makers are to blame for this as well by introducing rules like compulsions to use so and so compounds. Just let the teams choose from 3 compounds and get on with it.
"Sebastian there's very, you're a member of a very select few.. Stewart, Lauda, Piquet, Senna, Prost, Schumacher, Fangio.. VETTEL!"
I have always said it should be a minimum fuel amount and not a maximum.
If the thirstiest engine can use 110l over a race make them all start with at least 120l.
Why make make them all start with enough for the most thirsty? Allow to start with whatever they like. If you make an engine that gets more performance per kg of fuel, you should benefit from that. Making them all carry fuel they will never need is bizarre.
I’m just sick of hearing ‘fuel saving’ which is the new 'lift and coast' as we have been hearing from Ferrari when they have been allowed to choose how much the want to carry.
Couple of things I feel would make racing interesting. Mandatory for all cars to start with full fuel(105 or 110 kgs) and remove fuel flow limit 100kg/hr.
But why then is there such a big gap between Red Bull to the damn works-Renault team and the other Renault team? And the same with the Mercedes customers and Ferrari customers. If it's due to PU differences, why are the top three all in different PU's, the three PUs that are used by 9 of the 10 teams, all almost equal in performance?
First of all, you talk about parity in 2008-2012, but I don't think it was as level as you suggest. In '08, Ferrari and McLaren were way ahead of everybody else. Thanks to clever exploitation of a loophole in the regulations, Brawn managed to dominate the first half of '09. From '10 to '12, RedBull reigned supreme, although Ferrari and McLaren were able to compete at some level.
I strongly disagree. You give 2012 as an example because it was a particularly dominant year for one team. Yet five different teams won the first five races, and 7 drivers won the first 7 races that year! Six different teams won races in 2012. The WDC won only 5 races, compared to 9 last year. So IMO it was far more competitive F1 back then compared to today. Could you imagine 6 teams winning races this season? Imagine Renault, Mclaren, and Force India all capable of winning races this year. They all have PU's that have won races this year but they're miles behind the leaders.
We can disagree, but I didn't give 2012 as a particular example for any reason. You talked about parity over the period 2008-2012, and I just went season by season through the period you mentioned.
I think the correct period would be 2006-2013, the duration of the V8-era engine freeze. But you said 2008-2012, so I went with that.
Anyway, 2018 is at least way more competitive than 2014-2017, so there's that.
Couple of things I feel would make racing interesting. Mandatory for all cars to start with full fuel(105 or 110 kgs) and remove fuel flow limit 100kg/hr.
How do you think the teams might get around this rule?
It’s odd to me that the Spanish Grand Prix was not heralded as dull when surely it had no more incident and an even bigger winning margin?
Perhaps a few more overtakes but hardly a bonanza and none of them that consequential.
Still, I would be willing to bet reasonable sums of money that Paul Ricard will throw up a Bahrain/Baku level of excitement - hopefully all the fickle commentary can stop then (when have there ever been F1 seasons without numerous processional races?)
Fourth-fastest Hamilton was bedevilled by front brake locking in Q3 and was generally unhappy with a difficult oversteery balance. An odd barbeque smell was apparent in the pitlane each time he pitted – and later the remains of a bird was discovered in a brake duct. It may have played a part in him being a tenth down. He locked up into the hairpin on both his Q3 runs. On the first of them he was quicker than Vettel up to that point.
I watched the race again and I wonder if Red Bull missed a trick by not going onto a 2 stop strategy. I wonder what would have happened if they went hyper, ultra, ultra instead of hyper, super. Sebastian did 37 laps on the ultra after all and maybe it might have made the race a bit more exciting. I'm starting to wonder how much the decisions of the teams in universally favouring 1 stop races has contributed to the boring races we see.
Couple of things I feel would make racing interesting. Mandatory for all cars to start with full fuel(105 or 110 kgs) and remove fuel flow limit 100kg/hr.
Why stop there? Just throw away all fuel limits. And bring back refueling even.
...These days literally every strategy is a mirror copy of the other...
The teams have the computational power to calculate everything, and hence they all converge on the same strategy.
Also, the teams have the ability to build cars that are very reliable. How often do we see an engine blow up? It hardly happens anymore.
Engines are rare but turbo's, mgu-k's, batteries, electronics and gearbox's are still causing issues. Maybe it is time for the FIA to start taking computers away from the teams instead of reducing the amount of engines used in a year.
well mclaren is the one who wanted the 2017 aero regulation and of course E.B is just the gift that keep given
May 9 2016 Boullier expects ‘more overtaking’ in 2017
Eric Boullier has rubbished suggestions that Formula 1's 2017 regulations will hamper overtaking, adamant they will actually allow for "more" passing out on track.
Next season Formula 1 will introduce a raft of technical changes aimed at increase downforce and speeds. There are concerns that while the cars will be faster, the changes in no way promote overtaking.
Boullier, however, says that is not true.
"I actually disagree with comments in the media from my competitors," he told Sky Sports F1.
