2016 Hungarian Grand Prix - Hungaroring, 22-24 July

[justmoi]

All I can say about qualifying yesterday, with the double yellow flags and all, is that rather unfortunately I suspect we were denied the opportunity to see what was looking to be a very very special lap indeed.

[ChrisDanger]

Seeing that this is a technical forum, here's some technical insight from Craig Scarborough related to this GP.



I just had to skip 10 pages of probably 99% trashposts. We're on 37 pages already and it's only Sunday morning!?

[Mattyw]

Guys 2 questions

1. A bit like yesterday, if you have a wet quali but a bone dry q2 all on SS - do the drivers start Sunday on those q2 tyres or do they get free choice come Sunday?

2. If it rains for quali so you set your car up for wet but it's dry Sunday can you change setup or are you bound by parc ferme ?

[ChrisDanger]

[turbof1]

A question that bears itself now: is the 107% rule actually still needed? We haven't had an exclusion under normal conditions for a few years now. Even when Manor showed up with a 2014 car last year they still were perfectly able to lap within 107% of the fastest laptime.

Maybe it's time to get rid of the rule, or to make it much more a judgement call for the stewards, where they have the choice to act or keep things as they were. There was no reason at all yesterday to refer to 35.1. It's bureaucratic nonsense.

[hollus]

Double burracratic nonsense, because it has always been interpreted is "if the car did set any time inside 107% in the weekend, it is OK". It was never used to judge if the driver was trying in that particular moment.

[jknights]

Guys 2 questions

1. A bit like yesterday, if you have a wet quali but a bone dry q2 all on SS - do the drivers start Sunday on those q2 tyres or do they get free choice come Sunday?

2. If it rains for quali so you set your car up for wet but it's dry Sunday can you change setup or are you bound by parc ferme ?

I think in this case you get a free choice but also you are bound by parc ferme conditions so no setup change.
Another dopey ruley!
Surely this is about racing and getting the cars to go fastest. IMHO they should be allowed to adjust setup.

[Jolle]

A question that bears itself now: is the 107% rule actually still needed? We haven't had an exclusion under normal conditions for a few years now. Even when Manor showed up with a 2014 car last year they still were perfectly able to lap within 107% of the fastest laptime.

Maybe it's time to get rid of the rule, or to make it much more a judgement call for the stewards, where they have the choice to act or keep things as they were. There was no reason at all yesterday to refer to 35.1. It's bureaucratic nonsense.

The rule is still needed and it works, when applied well. At the moment, with all cars and drivers able te stay within 103/4 it looks unnecessary but it prevents teams to sell a seat to some joker (although the new super license rules work as well) or prevent cars like the MasterCard Lola's.

[iotar__]

A question that bears itself now: is the 107% rule actually still needed? We haven't had an exclusion under normal conditions for a few years now. Even when Manor showed up with a 2014 car last year they still were perfectly able to lap within 107% of the fastest laptime.

Maybe it's time to get rid of the rule, or to make it much more a judgement call for the stewards, where they have the choice to act or keep things as they were. There was no reason at all yesterday to refer to 35.1. It's bureaucratic nonsense.

On the contrary: changes to the rule are not needed since you can make it up as you go along. Same with collision, track limits, driving with broken car, unsafe release. Not a joke - practical. About common sense that prevailed or "bureaucratic nonsense" as you called it :

- telling Perez his brakes are about to go so he doesn't end up in the wall would be against common sense.
- Mercedes telling Hamilton in Baku not to fiddle randomly with buttons so he doesn't mess something up - that's not helping driver at all so no penalty - common sense and matter of interpretation. How is that not an instruction?
- Rosberg getting called cheater here because his gearbox failed and he lost second place he deserved because of that - common sense too. They were shouting for higher penalties with no real world reference points (neither rules nor previous penalties) and only absurd criteria of some theoretical gains. Look how it should be done, previous reference points:

Session Qualifying
Fact Failing to slow for yellow flags.
Offence Alleged breach of Appendix H, Article 2.4.5.1 b) of the FIA international Sporting Code
Decision No further action.
Reason Although the driver went “green” in the sector where the double yellow flags were
displayed, the telemetry clearly demonstrated that he had decelerated on approaching
the flag point and that his speed reduced in the yellow flag sector.

That's Hulkenebrg in Austria The only cheating was that
- Rosberg was investigated three hours later when there was nothing to investigate.
- Rules were changed for Red Bull in Q1, make no mistake Force India were lucky, collateral lack of damage . That's the point of "bureaucratic nonsense", the same rules can and will be used against competitors. Like Raikkonen/Lotus broken on the kerb floor in Singapore - considered on purpose cheating. Common sense man.
- Alonso wasn't investigated for spinning on purpose. Common sense that applies here and differently to Rosberg Monaco '14.

[NathanOlder]

To this day, I never saw a driver faster than a car. I still will never see the day.

Massa and Raikkonen may not ultimately be up to Hamilton's level, but the chasm will never be as big as a host of other variables that faced all 3 in 2008.
The end result is that the Ferrari had 8 poles, and so did the McLaren. Therefore both as quick as the other.

But on that philosophy,
An example : 1985
Lotus 8 poles.
Williams 3
Mclaren 2
Ferrari 1
Brabham 1
Toleman 1.

Does that mean the Lotus was the best car by a country mile ? Or did the driver outdrive his car ?

[turbof1]

A question that bears itself now: is the 107% rule actually still needed? We haven't had an exclusion under normal conditions for a few years now. Even when Manor showed up with a 2014 car last year they still were perfectly able to lap within 107% of the fastest laptime.

Maybe it's time to get rid of the rule, or to make it much more a judgement call for the stewards, where they have the choice to act or keep things as they were. There was no reason at all yesterday to refer to 35.1. It's bureaucratic nonsense.

On the contrary: changes to the rule are not needed since you can make it up as you go along. Same with collision, track limits, driving with broken car, unsafe release. Not a joke - practical. About common sense that prevailed or "bureaucratic nonsense" as you called it :

- telling Perez his brakes are about to go so he doesn't end up in the wall would be against common sense.
- Mercedes telling Hamilton in Baku not to fiddle randomly with buttons so he doesn't mess something up - that's not helping driver at all so no penalty - common sense and matter of interpretation. How is that not an instruction?
- Rosberg getting called cheater here because his gearbox failed and he lost second place he deserved because of that - common sense too. They were shouting for higher penalties with no real world reference points (neither rules nor previous penalties) and only absurd criteria of some theoretical gains. Look how it should be done, previous reference points:

Session Qualifying
Fact Failing to slow for yellow flags.
Offence Alleged breach of Appendix H, Article 2.4.5.1 b) of the FIA international Sporting Code
Decision No further action.
Reason Although the driver went “green” in the sector where the double yellow flags were
displayed, the telemetry clearly demonstrated that he had decelerated on approaching
the flag point and that his speed reduced in the yellow flag sector.

That's Hulkenebrg in Austria The only cheating was that
- Rosberg was investigated three hours later when there was nothing to investigate.
- Rules were changed for Red Bull in Q1, make no mistake Force India were lucky, collateral lack of damage . That's the point of "bureaucratic nonsense", the same rules can and will be used against competitors. Like Raikkonen/Lotus broken on the kerb floor in Singapore - considered on purpose cheating. Common sense man.
- Alonso wasn't investigated for spinning on purpose. Common sense that applies here and differently to Rosberg Monaco '14.

I'm sorry, but that post makes little sense. You have some points in there, but it is incoherent and some very subjective pieces woven throughout (rules changed for red bull?!?). If your main point is that decisions are made inconsistently, then I agree.

On the other hand: some of these rules are much too vague or don't take special circumstances into account. In this case of the 107% rule, they had to set precedent that 35.2 supersedes 35.1, but only for the ones advancing to Q2, while the ones staying in Q1 had their starting positions switched to the ones of FP3, which luckily enough were their original Q1 places (could you imagine if that was not the case?). All the while being fully aware several crashes and extremely quick changing conditions was the cause of having 11 drivers, over half the field falling out of 107%. This is typical force majeure.

I'm very glad the rules are bent in this particular case, and used inconsistently, as the rule that was supposed to be used was flawed to the bone in this case. In my eyes stewards should be given authority to overrule the sporting regulations in such extreme cases.

[SchuMassa]

What are the chance of rain today?
My android app shows 60% chance of rain at 12 pm
any info on it?

There is a slight chance of showers, but not much.

[KeiKo403]

No, we have to many people who don't want to hear, or can't handle the truth.

It shouldn't matter if it was Lewis, Nico, Vettel, Alonso, Ric, Max or any other driver. If you break a safety rule, the FIA should penalize you heavily period.

Maybe just let the people who deal with that worry about that, that's there job afterall. It's easy to shout and scream behind a computer screen because nobody can put a name to a face. What rule did Rosberg break? He lifted, and nobody was hurt so what's the problem now?

Pot Kettle

What are the chance of rain today?
My android app shows 60% chance of rain at 12 pm
any info on it?

Anyone care to answer this? can we go on topic now??

Looking to be no rain today. A shame really, it spiced things up quite nicely yesterday! At least we won't have a safety car start though

[RZS10]

[...] that post makes little sense. [...] it is incoherent and [...] very subjective [...]

'everything iotar_ ever posted'
_____________

How much better is the 'good' side after resurfacing and yesterday's rain?

[KeiKo403]

How much better is the 'good' side after resurfacing and yesterday's rain?

Looking at the schedule there seems to be:
A 30 minute GP3 race, 17 Laps - 23 Cars (Pirelli rubber)

Followed by a 45 minute GP2 race, 28 Laps - 22 Cars (Pirelli rubber)

Followed by a 30 minute Porsche Supercup race, 14 Laps - 26 Cars (Michelin rubber)

So plenty of running occurring prior to the F1 race, I'd think the 'good' side is the better side. Wonder what will happen at T1, it's a relatively short run down to the first turn here isn't it?