Lewis Hamilton has won the Singapore Grand Prix in a dominating fashion, with only Verstappen briefly looking into a chance for victory. The Dutch Red Bull driver eventually finished 9s down in second, while Vettel ended up third, 30s further down the road.
I think lots of people are blowing the whole Pérez race out of proportion. He had a bad race, that went from bad to worse. He has proven his speed more then once and for the team he has delivered on several occasions where his teammates didn’t. Sometimes drivers have these off days, especially when your surroundings aren’t stable. Don’t forget that team is in a big shake up, people aren’t sure about their jobs including the drivers. New management, new owners and you see that stress and off balance on track. These are also times that it’s very important to be ahead of your teammate, especially when you both haven’t got a seat for next year.
He knows he effed this one up badly, extra punishment from the team would only destabilize a destabilized team even more.
He hasn't been exiled from Red Bull, he's only being excluded from meetings talking about anything to do with next years car. SO if they speak with Honda, Max sits in, Ricciardo doesn't. If they were to have a meeting about updates drivers want, do they want more front end, do they want stiffer suspension, do they want changes on the steering wheel, etc, again Max is in those meetings and maybe Gasly too, but not Ricciardo.
Ricciardo is excluded from absolutely nothing when it comes to normal day to day business when it comes to getting the best out of this year's car.
So all the performance data, the upgrades, the every day marginal gains (most of which go into next year's car) he's kept fully up to date with? He's in the garage, looking at all the feeds, chatting with the engineers in detail about what they are working on and how that can help him? The discussions about where they are taking the car tomorrow, which strongly indicate where they will be taking the car next year, he's given all the details of?
Maybe he is. Maybe every driver that's leaving to go to a rival is. Maybe progress made this year has little relevance to next year. Maybe when Maclaren switched to Honda, Mercedes were quite happy to keep sharing every detail of their progress. Maybe Red Bull is doing the same with Renault. I honestly can't remember who I heard it from originally (I suspect it was Marc Priestly but I'm really not sure), but it makes a lot of sense. At the very least, who do you give the 'test mule' role to, if there was a new engine spec available but it was a bit dicey? Or the less optimal strategy? Would you choose the guy who you've made the face of my product for the next few years? Of the guy that's leaving you to go to a rival? Remember that there is no chance you can either gain or lose a place in the WCC.
Ricciardo just can't match Verstappen and unless Verstappen is busy making a silly mistake then Ricciardo just isn't on his level.
Verstappen is faster over a lap, no question. He's not great over a season though...not yet at least. Verstappen's speed also has nothing to do with Ricciardo being involved in the day-to-day or not.
I trust the person who planted the thought (I appreciate I've not provided evidence of who that was so don't expect others to do the same) and I think it makes sense in a business with such a vast amount of continuity and intellectual property to protect. If my points above haven't swayed you, let's agree to disagree.
There was a piece on sky I think where they interviewed a couple of drivers about that moment, when they know that they would be driving for that team the year after (Damon Hill and Mark Webber among them) and they all made it pretty clear they were pushed out a lot of the operation from that day on. So yeah, Ricciardo doesn’t get the same support anymore and has no role in the development of the ‘19 car.
Also to counter your argument; What in gods name would Perez have to gain by steering right into the car next to him? At that point, he was completely alongside. The chance of getting damage is IMO too high. Same applies to Perez's steering into Sirotkin. It was worthy of a penalty, yes, but he completely missed he was there. He wanted to block him and thought he was sufficiently ahead to do so.
Even watching that video, I am totally staying on my view point that Perez did not see/realize Ocon.
If, on multiple occasions, Perez has no idea a car is right next to him (both at the start and when overtaking said car) then I'm not sure he should be allowed to race. Maybe he was paying no attention to other cars at the start. It's a gutsy call for a driver to make, but perhaps he was thinking about other things. However, he was literally in mid-battle with Sirotkin. He went around the outside, neck-and-neck, giving Sirotkin room just a second before. Where did Perez think Sirotkin had gone? It's not as if it was a chop where he drove over Sirotkin's front wing with his rear tyre. He's even leaving the racing line (which is odd when you are in a drag race, you'll not only lose traction by turning further than you need to but you are also going onto the dirty side of the track).
I normally find your views interesting and insightful but this one seems just incomprehensible to me.
Personally, I suspect he wanted to bang wheel face to wheel face. Make the point but no damage to either car. It reminded me a lot of Vettel on Hamilton in Baku (except Vettel didn't mess it up). If someone had said 'Maybe Vettel didn't see Hamilton' I'd be no less incredulous than I am now.
Assuming you are all right, what did he gain in hitting his team mate? Having to apologize to the team? Costing the team points? Points, that got erased 2 races ago? Seriously?
Ocons move was opportunistic. As someone else pointed out - he put his car into a gap on the outside of a corner on a street circuit with zero tolerance. Even worse; he did it at the start of the race, a time when pretty much everything around you is unfolding in an unpredictable mess. Drivers have two eyes, with a pretty narrow and limited point of view facing forward, not backwards. The track was pointing left, so his eyes likely will not have been to his right at that time when Ocon darted for that space.
As i said, fair play to Ocon for putting his car there, but it was always going to be at a certain risk and putting his car in a vulnerable spot. If the car on the inside doesnt see him, locks up, oversteers, overcooks the corner just a bit... BOOM, in the wall. Just as it happened. Not a miracle. Not rocket science.
I fully blame Perez for the shunt with Sirotkin. But with Ocon? No chance.
Also: Perezs seat is supposedly pretty secure. The main goal of Force India isnt to see who is the better driver - it’s to score as many points as possible to recapture the best possible finishing WCC position to get more price money. Perez knows this, so does Ocon. But at the end of the day, it’s Ocon who is left without a seat next year.
Speaking at Monza about why Vettel was racing Kimi (or why Kimi was defending so hard against Vettel), why was Ocon racing his team-mate for position in a place with zero tolerance?
One can bash Vettel for making mistakes this year, but guess what - despite the good run he had at the start vs Verstappen, he decided to slot in behind him rather than to put his car in a vulnerable position. Wonder why? Ask Ocon.
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
Just to show your younger teammate who's the boss...
If that's the only way you can beat your teammate that's what you do. He did it before and he will do it again. The "punishment" from the team is not that bad for Perez. He and Ocon are not allowed to race each other anymore. That may be just fine for Perez.
Why does someone take a gun and shoot five hundred people in a parking lot? People do irrational things when they're angry. Checo said in a post race interview that he'd had a horrible Saturday and Race day was more of the same, he was already pissed, and both he and Ocon have a... history shall we say? In the end does it really matter?
Assuming you are all right, what did he gain in hitting his team mate? Having to apologize to the team? Costing the team points? Points, that got erased 2 races ago? Seriously?
Ocons move was opportunistic. As someone else pointed out - he put his car into a gap on the outside of a corner on a street circuit with zero tolerance. Even worse; he did it at the start of the race, a time when pretty much everything around you is unfolding in an unpredictable mess. Drivers have two eyes, with a pretty narrow and limited point of view facing forward, not backwards. The track was pointing left, so his eyes likely will not have been to his right at that time when Ocon darted for that space.
As i said, fair play to Ocon for putting his car there, but it was always going to be at a certain risk and putting his car in a vulnerable spot. If the car on the inside doesnt see him, locks up, oversteers, overcooks the corner just a bit... BOOM, in the wall. Just as it happened. Not a miracle. Not rocket science.
I fully blame Perez for the shunt with Sirotkin. But with Ocon? No chance.
Also: Perezs seat is supposedly pretty secure. The main goal of Force India isnt to see who is the better driver - it’s to score as many points as possible to recapture the best possible finishing WCC position to get more price money. Perez knows this, so does Ocon. But at the end of the day, it’s Ocon who is left without a seat next year.
Speaking at Monza about why Vettel was racing Kimi (or why Kimi was defending so hard against Vettel), why was Ocon racing his team-mate for position in a place with zero tolerance?
One can bash Vettel for making mistakes this year, but guess what - despite the good run he had at the start vs Verstappen, he decided to slot in behind him rather than to put his car in a vulnerable position. Wonder why? Ask Ocon.
100% with you on this one Phil,
Perez was more concerned about Grosjean on his inside after Romain cut T1. Its a left hander so you are lookeing over towards your Left front wheel.
I even feel personally that Ocon would have been foolish not to go for the gap, At the point of contact there was enough room, they were 2 wide, and if you watch every car there are multiple cars going 2 wide right there on that lap.
At the point of this photo, Ocon had just crept up on the outside, and Perez is just about to clear Grosjean while turning left, Perez has to be looking more left than right , and seeing Grosjean close, he jumped right a little and wiped Ocon out.
Looking at the other people on the outside here, you have Alonso , Leclerc and Gasly. (A legend, A ferrari driver and a Red Bull driver)
It was just a racing incident that was unlucky for Ocon. Neither to blame.
As for Perez vs Sirotkin, needs a ban, like Vettel should have had last year. But it looks like the trend is now, only a small penalty for that.
Last edited by NathanOlder on 18 Sep 2018, 11:16, edited 2 times in total.
GoLandoGo
Lewis v2.0
King George has arrived.
New found love for GT racing with Assetto Corsa Competizione on PS5 & PC
Out of the next 8 races, Lewis only needs to win 3 races and come 2nd in the rest of 5 races to win the championship by 3 points ..............i think the championship will go down the wire.
Realistically Lewis can win Suzuka, Austin and Brazil.....rest he can scrape in 2nd at the minimum.
Do you expect Hamilton to be 2nd at the minimum in Singapore? Can be, but I would not bet on it.
good thing people jinxed this back during italian GP weekend
looks like Lewis just needs to finish one race ahead of Vettel and come behind 2nd in the next 5 race, even if Vettel wins the last five races.
Not sure if it has been commented on but there has been a lot of talk since qualifying and also post race about Ferrari apparently throwing away pole, i.e. that they had the potential for pole. Nobody truly knows, but I don't think Ferrari were as competitive at Singapore as many expected, or as many still seem to be suggesting.
To give background Ferrari were dominant at Singapore in 2015 and 2017 and seemingly had a car perfectly set up for the circuit and others such as Monaco and Hungary. At Monaco in 2018 Hamilton could of had Vettel in qualifying if he'd of not had a poor sector 3 on his final run and Vettel was clearly beaten by Ric. Going into this season Ferrari seem to have gone more towards Merc's philosophy of having a car that works on a wider spread of circuits, and therefore naturally losing some of their edge at slow speed circuits. They were beaten at Hungary and although they had the fastest car, practice 3 and the race suggested they weren't far ahead and their advantage was clearly from their new engine boost/magic out of corners (that nobody quite understands), i.e. they were fastest in sector 1 but I believe Merc were a match if not better in other areas of the track. Merc meanwhile had a big aero upgrade in Austria and this appears to have helped their slow speed corner performance. They were competitive in sector 3 at Hungary, and Spa aside, even at Monza they were reasonable in the slow speed corners and on traction.
Come Singapore through practice on Friday (and I'll return to this in a minute) Merc (and Hamilton in particular) looked very competitive in sector 2 and 3. Whilst Kimi narrowly beat Lewis in P2, Lewis was faster in S2 and S3 - something we wouldn't have seen in the past. Come P3, Merc didn't look so hooked up, probably because of the hotter temperatures, and Ferrari had a 0.5 second buffer at the end of the session, however, both Merc's had scruffy laps, but crucially between the two of them they set the fastest sector 2 and 3, and were losing about 0.4 in sector 1. I heard Toto say they were still losing a few tenths on the straights compared to Ferrari, which aligns with the sector 1 disadvantage.
Skip qualifying for a minute and looking at the race, Hamilton looked completely comfortable and as Christian Horner admitted after, he was just too fast for Max and had a couple of tenths in hand whenever needed. RB on race pace at least were meant to possibly be fastest, certainly given the fact Max should have matched Lewis' pole lap without engine issues. Ferrari meanwhile showed no evidence whatsoever of being ultra competitive. I realise Seb was stuck in traffic or in tyre management mode for almost the entire race, but it just didn't seem like the dominant car at any point in the weekend.
Finally, I return to qualifying - apparently Vettel had a time in him to get pole according to himself, according to e.g. Mark Hughes in his post race analysis for motorsport magazine, etc. It has started to frustrate me because I do not see the evidence that backs this up; to me Merc appeared to have a better car in sector 2 and 3 all weekend and Ferrari were only gaining on the straights, as they have largely for the past few races. Merc continually say they gain in the corners and lose on the straights. I realise they're better in high speed corners vs low speed, but fundamentally, I think Ferrari do not have such a good car this year compared with RB and Merc, they clearly do not have a bad car, but I think they clearly lose out in the corners on average and often gain on the straights in general acceleration out of corners (partly helped by this new electrical boost trick).
The other point I'll finish on was that I saw Mark Hughes comment on the fact that the Merc still was a handful round Singpapore and was not as well suited to the track as Ferrari. As an example he said Merc "still required more manhandling than ideal, still had an initial reluctance to turn in to the slower turns", whilst Ferrari had "beautiful flow, stunning rear-end grip". Looking at the on boards in both practice 2 and in qualifying I just do not see this and would say the Merc looked much better set up than the Ferrari - I didn't think the Ferrari looked particularly comfortable going through sector 2 and 3. I never saw an on board lap and thought wow, they have everyone covered. But as I previously wrote on here after practice 2, when I saw Hamilton's lap during that session I was astonished at how easily he could turn into the corners and how smooth he was through the tight, twisty sections of the track. He could attack the corners at ease but with an incredibly smoothness to his driving - a complete contrast to previous years. Dare I say it, his car looked to be behaving as Seb's often has in recent years here. So in summary, I think Merc should be given credit for simply having the better car at Singapore - in my opinion they simply had a better car than Ferrari. Just because Ferrari were dominant there in the past does not mean they are still the benchmark on those streets, and I expect Ferrari to be much more competitive at some of the upcoming circuits.
I personally think Ferrari underperformed in Q3, while Mercedes (in the hands of Hamilton) overperformed. Singapore is all about confidence. Vettel had a pretty messy weekend, starting with his shunt against the wall that damaged his car. This also compromised his long-runs. He was then on it again in P3, but in qualifying, Ferrari put their drivers under unnecessary pressure by sending them out in Q2 on the US that just never was going to work, while Mercedes gave their drivers two clean HS runs in preperation of Q3.
Then Q3 happened and Ferrari were caught out by the slow outlap of both Mercedes that compromised their tire preparation for their run. This IMO exaggerates the picture. Hamilton then delivers a perfect lap that not even the team anticipated. If Toto says they weren't expecting such a lap-time, I tend to believe him. The whole reaction by the team, the driver screamed that they couldn't believe that lap.
That must have put the Ferraris under a lot of pressure, not least because also Max delivered an amazing lap good for P2.
Long story short; I think Ferrari had the car to beat pole and win the race, but they compromised themselves with perhaps less optimal tire allocation (almost no running on the harder compounds), Vettels shunt against the wall costing data and confidence, then their compromised Q2 & Q3 runs.
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
Just had a thought about Ferrari's reluctance to bring soft tyres. Perhaps, it isn't quite the strategic blunder that people are suggesting because maybe it's more that their car simply can't use them very well. i remember earlier in the season the Ferrari really struggling on the soft tyres. Maybe they simply can't work them hard enough for them to be an effective race tyre which would mean they were forced into the strategy they took rather than being an error per se.
I personally think Ferrari underperformed in Q3, while Mercedes (in the hands of Hamilton) overperformed. Singapore is all about confidence. Vettel had a pretty messy weekend, starting with his shunt against the wall that damaged his car. This also compromised his long-runs. He was then on it again in P3, but in qualifying, Ferrari put their drivers under unnecessary pressure by sending them out in Q2 on the US that just never was going to work, while Mercedes gave their drivers two clean HS runs in preperation of Q3.
Then Q3 happened and Ferrari were caught out by the slow outlap of both Mercedes that compromised their tire preparation for their run. This IMO exaggerates the picture. Hamilton then delivers a perfect lap that not even the team anticipated. If Toto says they weren't expecting such a lap-time, I tend to believe him. The whole reaction by the team, the driver screamed that they couldn't believe that lap.
That must have put the Ferraris under a lot of pressure, not least because also Max delivered an amazing lap good for P2.
Long story short; I think Ferrari had the car to beat pole and win the race, but they compromised themselves with perhaps less optimal tire allocation (almost no running on the harder compounds), Vettels shunt against the wall costing data and confidence, then their compromised Q2 & Q3 runs.
Good explanation. I tend to agree with you but I sincerely think that Ferrari had not the pace to win the race, well perhaps on the pole they could have maintained the position. But I have in mind how easily Hamilton increased the gap in 3-4 seconds when he needed to do it. Vettel had no answer for that.
That's a good point. I am torn about what unfolded on lap 11. Hamilton dropped his lap times by nearly 2-3 seconds and started to pull away massively from Seb. At first, Seb was holding against it, but then the gap increased further to 3+. I am not sure if he was pacing himself or if his tires were really done for. Either way, Ferrari reacted (in my opinion a little too early) by bringing in Vettel and trying to force an undercut.
However, that undercut IMO was never going to work, because it was already clear that the harder tires were going to be difficult in get into the best temperature range. In other words, the undercut was going to be less effective.
There is a point though that Mercedes somehow aced the performance on the HS. They have put a lot of effort into not overheating their rear-tires. I think part of that is because Hamilton was nursing his tires to that extend in the opening of the stint, that he still had plenty of performance left on them after lap 11. Perhaps the Ferrari needed more energy in their tires. This could be seen during Q3 on their respective outlaps: The Ferrari's were driving a lot faster in their tire preparation on the outlap while the Mercedes both were extremely slow. Maybe by running at the front, Mercedes/Hamilton could optimally drive their own pace suited to their tires than Ferrari could behind.
I think we continue from Singapore on, probably knowing that Ferrari still have some kind of power advantage (acceleration wise), but Mercedes have definitely found something in regards to traction and tire wear...
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
