Drivers manipulate their driving styles in order to maximize the result from a given vehicle/tyre combination. I don't see why the pace from the front runners today is any different from Prost driving conservatively to make sure a manual gearbox didn't 'splode (industry term), fairly certain this is expected from a driver. Don't break this multi-million dollar piece of machinery because you over-drive.notsofast wrote: ↑23 Sep 2019, 01:16During the first stint, some back markers were going faster than the race leader.Zarathustra wrote: ↑22 Sep 2019, 19:59Ok- so the real question basically is, what do the proffesional forum posters from F1technical think of the out come of this race?
The driver in P2 complained on the radio that he couldn't go any slower.
I had no problem whatsoever with Monza Q3, but there's something wrong when driving slowly is considered a viable option in F1.
Instead of C3, C4, C5, why not bring C1, C2, C5 to a track like this? That would probably make a 2-stopper a better strategy, in which case tyre management is less of an issue.
It wasn't stellar, but it wasn't a snorefest. How would multiple stops make the race any better besides introducing the same, fairly predictable, cat and mouse game of what's effective undercut or overcut?
Ricciardo yo-yo through the most of the race, Norris scored today meaning McLaren increases their margin ahead of P5 and below, Alfa scored despite clearly struggling throughout the weekend, Albon got P6 which was his bare minimum goal I'm assuming, needless to say there are interesting threads to follow throughout the field. Hell to say nothing of the fact that Ferrari scored a random-ass 1-2 at a track everyone said would be either Mercedes' or RB's stomping ground.