2019 Hungarian Grand Prix - Hungaroring, August 2-4

[sAx]

I still think RB messed up by not pitting Max the lap after Ham. Yes Ham would have been in front, but Max would have been right on the gearbox of the merc for 20 laps. The RB suffers less from turbulence, would have had DRS advantage, and Max is an overtaker.

Given such a scenario, my money would be on Max.

That wouldn't have worked either....according to Max the Merc had much more pace.

I agree. At no point in the entire GP did Max/Redbull look like the faster package. Ergo, the logical conclusion is, he wasnt.

Also, doing practically the same stint on the softs would have been difficult and i doubt RedBull felt they’d have the delta to attempt an ovetake against Lewis in the W10.

It was a much safer bet to hold on to track position and the tracks characteristic (being Monaco 2) to retain the lead. That was under the assumption that the tires would make it. They didnt. It’s that simple.

Closing in on that 20s was a tall order to the point even Lewis doubted it...

Certainly with 14 laps to go and 15secs behind, it didn't look like Hamilton had any chance of pulling it off. Constant arguments over driver 'given' fast car sort of negates the fact it also requires a fast driver to deliver it. Delivering the pace is one thing, but doing so when there zero margin for error is completely something else. Shades of Schumacher's 3-stop strategy Hungary 1998.

[sAx]

That wouldn't have worked either....according to Max the Merc had much more pace.

I agree. At no point in the entire GP did Max/Redbull look like the faster package. Ergo, the logical conclusion is, he wasnt.

Also, doing practically the same stint on the softs would have been difficult and i doubt RedBull felt they’d have the delta to attempt an ovetake against Lewis in the W10.

It was a much safer bet to hold on to track position and the tracks characteristic (being Monaco 2) to retain the lead. That was under the assumption that the tires would make it. They didnt. It’s that simple.

Closing in on that 20s was a tall order to the point even Lewis doubted it...

Certainly with 14 laps to go and 15secs behind, it didn't look like Hamilton had any chance of pulling it off. Constant arguments over a driver 'given' the fastest car sort of negates the fact that it also requires a fast driver to deliver it. Delivering the pace is one thing, but doing so when there zero margin for error is completely something else. Shades of Schumacher's 3-stop strategy Hungary 1998.

[sAx]

I agree. At no point in the entire GP did Max/Redbull look like the faster package. Ergo, the logical conclusion is, he wasnt.

Also, doing practically the same stint on the softs would have been difficult and i doubt RedBull felt they’d have the delta to attempt an ovetake against Lewis in the W10.

It was a much safer bet to hold on to track position and the tracks characteristic (being Monaco 2) to retain the lead. That was under the assumption that the tires would make it. They didnt. It’s that simple.

Closing in on that 20s was a tall order to the point even Lewis doubted it...

Certainly with 14 laps to go and 15secs behind, it didn't look like Hamilton had any chance of pulling it off. Constant arguments over a driver 'given' the fastest car sort of negates the fact that it also requires a fast driver to deliver it. Delivering the pace is one thing, but doing so when there is zero margin for error is completely something else. Shades of Schumacher's 3-stop strategy Hungary 1998.

[Pyrone89]

That wouldn't have worked either....according to Max the Merc had much more pace.

I agree. At no point in the entire GP did Max/Redbull look like the faster package. Ergo, the logical conclusion is, he wasnt.

Also, doing practically the same stint on the softs would have been difficult and i doubt RedBull felt they’d have the delta to attempt an ovetake against Lewis in the W10.

It was a much safer bet to hold on to track position and the tracks characteristic (being Monaco 2) to retain the lead. That was under the assumption that the tires would make it. They didnt. It’s that simple.

Closing in on that 20s was a tall order to the point even Lewis doubted it...

Certainly with 14 laps to go and 15secs behind, it didn't look like Hamilton had any chance of pulling it off. Constant arguments over driver 'given' fast car sort of negates the fact it also requires a fast driver to deliver it. Delivering the pace is one thing, but doing so when there zero margin for error is completely something else. Shades of Schumacher's 3-stop strategy Hungary 1998.

1. Traffic
2. Max was pushing hard to keep that delta but after a number of laps the rubber was simply gone and then you saw the huge drop-off (or cliff if you will).
3. Michael was driving AGAINST that seasons superior car, Lew was driving IN this seasons superior car.

[Zarathustra]

After this race both ‘camps’ (Hamboys and Maxipads) have to admit that these two drivers are currently the top drivers of F1- with Hamilton being the current Champ and Verstappen being the future Champ.

So let’s all agree that we should be happy that we are witnessing something ‘special’- unless you’re a Grosjean fan, then this season must be terrible...

Furthermore Ferrari has been lucky so far- everybody is talking about the Hamilton/Verstappen battle and not ‘really’ talking about another ‘failure’ at the Scuderia..

[sAx]

I agree. At no point in the entire GP did Max/Redbull look like the faster package. Ergo, the logical conclusion is, he wasnt.

Also, doing practically the same stint on the softs would have been difficult and i doubt RedBull felt they’d have the delta to attempt an ovetake against Lewis in the W10.

It was a much safer bet to hold on to track position and the tracks characteristic (being Monaco 2) to retain the lead. That was under the assumption that the tires would make it. They didnt. It’s that simple.

Closing in on that 20s was a tall order to the point even Lewis doubted it...

Certainly with 14 laps to go and 15secs behind, it didn't look like Hamilton had any chance of pulling it off. Constant arguments over driver 'given' fast car sort of negates the fact it also requires a fast driver to deliver it. Delivering the pace is one thing, but doing so when there zero margin for error is completely something else. Shades of Schumacher's 3-stop strategy Hungary 1998.

1. Traffic
2. Max was pushing hard to keep that delta but after a number of laps the rubber was simply gone and then you saw the huge drop-off (or cliff if you will).
3. Michael was driving AGAINST that seasons superior car, Lew was driving IN this seasons superior car.

The relative performance of 1998 Ferrari/McLaren and 2019 Merc/Red Bull is not really the point. The key issue is can a driver deliver a marginal if not sub-optimal race strategy to beat the opposition...in both cases the answer was yes.

[Pyrone89]

Certainly with 14 laps to go and 15secs behind, it didn't look like Hamilton had any chance of pulling it off. Constant arguments over driver 'given' fast car sort of negates the fact it also requires a fast driver to deliver it. Delivering the pace is one thing, but doing so when there zero margin for error is completely something else. Shades of Schumacher's 3-stop strategy Hungary 1998.

1. Traffic
2. Max was pushing hard to keep that delta but after a number of laps the rubber was simply gone and then you saw the huge drop-off (or cliff if you will).
3. Michael was driving AGAINST that seasons superior car, Lew was driving IN this seasons superior car.

The relative performance of 1998 Ferrari/McLaren and 2019 Merc/Red Bull is not really the point. The key issue is can a driver deliver a marginal if not sub-optimal race strategy to beat the opposition...in both cases the answer was yes.

Ofcourse it is completely relevant. Delivering “a marginal if not sub-optimal race strategy to beat the opposition” is way harder if you are fighting against a better car than when you yourself have a better car

[Sierra117]

1. Traffic
2. Max was pushing hard to keep that delta but after a number of laps the rubber was simply gone and then you saw the huge drop-off (or cliff if you will).
3. Michael was driving AGAINST that seasons superior car, Lew was driving IN this seasons superior car.

The relative performance of 1998 Ferrari/McLaren and 2019 Merc/Red Bull is not really the point. The key issue is can a driver deliver a marginal if not sub-optimal race strategy to beat the opposition...in both cases the answer was yes.

Ofcourse it is completely relevant. Delivering “a marginal if not sub-optimal race strategy to beat the opposition” is way harder if you are fighting against a better car than when you yourself have a better car

sAx's post had absolutely nothing to do with RedBull (i.e. no direct comparison or argument involving RB's performance). He (hope I got that right) didn't say RB or Max were somehow not up to the job they had to do or not. He was talking about how the very argument you responded with about being in a fast car does nothing and is basically a non-argument. It's more of a fact. Like, okay, driver A has a better package than driver B. Ok. What about it? That's life - nothing is truly equal. The point was that being given the correct tool needs to also be used correctly and Lewis did that. Most other drivers have the correct tools but have made errors that cost them the chance to make full use of said tool. For instance, 2017 Ferrari should have won the championship, if not the 2018 Ferrari. I'm not gonna say Vettel made mistakes because yes he did but that will be another tangent and I'm not accusing him at all, just illustrating how Lewis' personal performance has far exceeded most others. Had he not been on top of his game, then being in the best car is useless. An example is how many people who win the lottery suddenly go broke. Because despite having the best tool (lots of money), they don't use it properly. It had nothing to do with RB or Max, so bringing in that Max had traffic and that he had a delta etc. is irrelevant. Plus, logically the traffic Max faced everybody behind him also faced.

TL;DR: sAx was talking about Lewis using his machine the way it should have been used, otherwise it would not have made a difference if he were in the best car or not and this has nothing to do RB and Max.

[sAx]

1. Traffic
2. Max was pushing hard to keep that delta but after a number of laps the rubber was simply gone and then you saw the huge drop-off (or cliff if you will).
3. Michael was driving AGAINST that seasons superior car, Lew was driving IN this seasons superior car.

The relative performance of 1998 Ferrari/McLaren and 2019 Merc/Red Bull is not really the point. The key issue is can a driver deliver a marginal if not sub-optimal race strategy to beat the opposition...in both cases the answer was yes.

Ofcourse it is completely relevant. Delivering “a marginal if not sub-optimal race strategy to beat the opposition” is way harder if you are fighting against a better car than when you yourself have a better car

I am an not making an argument about Schumacher/Hamilton and/or who faced the hardest task, my point is more about the quotation you have highlighted in parenthesis,

[sAx]

The relative performance of 1998 Ferrari/McLaren and 2019 Merc/Red Bull is not really the point. The key issue is can a driver deliver a marginal if not sub-optimal race strategy to beat the opposition...in both cases the answer was yes.

Ofcourse it is completely relevant. Delivering “a marginal if not sub-optimal race strategy to beat the opposition” is way harder if you are fighting against a better car than when you yourself have a better car

sAx's post had absolutely nothing to do with RedBull (i.e. no direct comparison or argument involving RB's performance). He (hope I got that right) didn't say RB or Max were somehow not up to the job they had to do or not. He was talking about how the very argument you responded with about being in a fast car does nothing and is basically a non-argument. It's more of a fact. Like, okay, driver A has a better package than driver B. Ok. What about it? That's life - nothing is truly equal. The point was that being given the correct tool needs to also be used correctly and Lewis did that. Most other drivers have the correct tools but have made errors that cost them the chance to make full use of said tool. For instance, 2017 Ferrari should have won the championship, if not the 2018 Ferrari. I'm not gonna say Vettel made mistakes because yes he did but that will be another tangent and I'm not accusing him at all, just illustrating how Lewis' personal performance has far exceeded most others. Had he not been on top of his game, then being in the best car is useless. An example is how many people who win the lottery suddenly go broke. Because despite having the best tool (lots of money), they don't use it properly. It had nothing to do with RB or Max, so bringing in that Max had traffic and that he had a delta etc. is irrelevant. Plus, logically the traffic Max faced everybody behind him also faced.

TL;DR: sAx was talking about Lewis using his machine the way it should have been used, otherwise it would not have made a difference if he were in the best car or not and this has nothing to do RB and Max.

Precisely...couldn't have worded it better myself!

[Sierra117]

Ofcourse it is completely relevant. Delivering “a marginal if not sub-optimal race strategy to beat the opposition” is way harder if you are fighting against a better car than when you yourself have a better car

sAx's post had absolutely nothing to do with RedBull (i.e. no direct comparison or argument involving RB's performance). He (hope I got that right) didn't say RB or Max were somehow not up to the job they had to do or not. He was talking about how the very argument you responded with about being in a fast car does nothing and is basically a non-argument. It's more of a fact. Like, okay, driver A has a better package than driver B. Ok. What about it? That's life - nothing is truly equal. The point was that being given the correct tool needs to also be used correctly and Lewis did that. Most other drivers have the correct tools but have made errors that cost them the chance to make full use of said tool. For instance, 2017 Ferrari should have won the championship, if not the 2018 Ferrari. I'm not gonna say Vettel made mistakes because yes he did but that will be another tangent and I'm not accusing him at all, just illustrating how Lewis' personal performance has far exceeded most others. Had he not been on top of his game, then being in the best car is useless. An example is how many people who win the lottery suddenly go broke. Because despite having the best tool (lots of money), they don't use it properly. It had nothing to do with RB or Max, so bringing in that Max had traffic and that he had a delta etc. is irrelevant. Plus, logically the traffic Max faced everybody behind him also faced.

TL;DR: sAx was talking about Lewis using his machine the way it should have been used, otherwise it would not have made a difference if he were in the best car or not and this has nothing to do RB and Max.

Precisely...couldn't have worded it better myself!

I aim to please

[ringo]

So what is it what your trying to achieve here? Oh my driver is so much better then yours and vice versa bs. We had a great fight and some nice couple of last races. This topic always is about defending or offending the winners and losers based on personal favourite drivers and your always one of them, grow up please, thanks.

Agreed. I joined this forum hoping to get way from the MAX is a better driver than HAM rubbish that you see on lesser fora. It's not just about the drivers, F1 is a TEAM sport and the winners are the team who get their car(s) over the line first. Sun Tzu in 'The Art of War' said that "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting" and that's exactly what Mercedes did in Hungary (at least with one car) and it was well done.

Surely we all realise that you're NEVER going to be able to compare any two drivers unless they are in exactly the same car with exactly the same tyres and exactly the same setup, and even then the driver in front will always have an advantage due to clean airflow. We are fortunate as spectators to have them both in cars where they will give us many battles to enjoy.

Had HAM managed to get past VER on the hards then Red Bull would have used the same second stop tactic. The real reason why Mercedes were able to get way with that second stop, and why Red Bull would have done it too, was because neither GAS nor BOT were where they should have been. Red Bull lost, not because of anything VER did or didn't do, they lost because GAS didn't do his job....

Good post but not necessarily, HAM had enough pace that had he been able to pull off the epic "around the outside" t4 pass, he would have gapped VER enough that the undercut wouldn't have worked and also HAM's gap would give him enough time to pit the next lap after VER pitted.

max made an error near the end lap 38 from the on board video of hamilton. He had an oversteer moment, maybe lost him 3 tenths. I think this setup hamilton for the overtake attempt the following lap.
I agree with Ham having enough pace to stay ahead if max pitted. Merc would simply pit him. Also max would also be in dirty air if Lewis got past making things even worse in terms of pace to regain p1.

[Just_a_fan]

a bunch of stuff from the race :

Those are great. Thanks for taking the time to do these and making them available to us on here.

[Just_a_fan]

Does the FIA still publish the lap times for each lap for each driver? They used to make this available but I have no idea where to find it these days.

[GPR-A]

Does the FIA still publish the lap times for each lap for each driver? They used to make this available but I have no idea where to find it these days.

https://www.fia.com/file/86816/download
https://www.fia.com/file/86818/download