Daniel Ricciardo has won his second race of the season in what turned out to be an absolutely thrilling Hungarian Grand Prix. Ferrari's Fernando Alonso finished an unexpected second, closely followed by Hamilton and Rosberg.
He was denied the right of the first stop because of the SC. It would be ridiculous to not pit Hamilton.iotar__ wrote:If what Hamilton did was OK according to audience and team than Austria Ham pitting first should not have happened. Leading driver gets the choice of strategy, why would he give unfair advantage to his team-mate and let him close the gap of points or maybe even give him a chance to attack him for the sake of team result?
If it's up to a driver to decide strategy and not Lowe or Wolff like in Hungary, they should have asked Rosberg if it's OK by him and he should have said NO. Team result doesn't matter only driver's. Look, TW: "We cannot ask either driver to give up positions or jeopardise their own championship chances for the benefit of the team." Clearly it wasn't a fair treatment and Rosberg lost because of it. He was denied the right of the first stop he had as a leading driver for the benefit of the team and his rival. He didn't get the same in Hungary - that's unequal treatment.
Probably no about number of laps each compound will last, but yes about if primes last longer than options, wich was the debate therelangwadt wrote:I'm not sure the data from the FPs mean much after the tracked had be washed clean and had rubber from the inters on itAndres125sx wrote:Anycase the indications come from FP1, FP2 and FP3, that´s the reason Dela Rosa said that, they knew they last longerSectorOne wrote: Yes if the Top 5 longest stints was on Soft then it´s safe to say Mediums never gave any indication of being the best long run tire.
Your reasoning fails at one point. Softs are 1 second faster when new, but since mediums last longer difference is smaller each lap, to the point they will be faster than softs. Don´t know what lap will be the inflexion point, but teams sure know much better than us so if they took mediums, I guess difference was much smaller than your guess, or all teams who used mediums would be plain stupid. Obviously they´re notWaywardism wrote:Rosberg's stop was only slow because they were removing tape from the brake ducts, something they were going to do with Hamilton too. After Hamilton had cleared Vergne, him and Ricciardo were the fastest guys on track by around a second a lap. It makes no sense to pit him with that pace.ringo wrote:Yes but it would still mean that he would have been able to go on softs. Sometimes i feeel when they ask questions, they do it to divert lewis from the better strategy. After rosberg pitted Lewis should have came in with 2 laps at most.
But then they ask him a strange question, i don't have it now, but the way the question was asked he simply answered ok i can go for a few more laps. Surely they should have been more definitive and say lewis come in, rosberg had a slow stop.
Bam put on softs, do 2 stints and there you have it, an easy win from pit lane to checkered flag.
This I agree with. Softs were absolutely the right call to make, they've been quoted as being worth anything from 1s to 1.5s all weekend. That's 31s - 46.5s over a 31 lap stint, easily enough for a pitstop. They obviously didn't think of that at the time.Someone need to ask toto why both cars weren't on the same strategy like mercedes said they would be if both are in the same race. Medium tyres just seems very odd, especially considering the advantage of track position even if those tyres wore out.
I meant and wrote "Austria".MercedesAMGSpy wrote: He was denied the right of the first stop because of the SC. It would be ridiculous to not pit Hamilton.
Safety Car was deployed just as Vettel and Alonso (P3 and P4) were passing the pit lane entrance. Rosberg was at the start of the pit straight in the lead and so the safety car came out just ahead of him and picked him up straight away. Everyone behind except Magnussen pitted immediately, so they all got a to do a lap to the delta time whereas Rosberg, Bottas, Vettel and Alonso were stuck behind the safety car for the entire lap. They all pitted and fed back out into the pack, Rosberg came out in 4th.WilliamsF1 wrote:What was wrong with Rosberg's brake by wire?
I did not watch the first part of he race......
When the caterham crashed on lap 9, P5 and cars behind pitted.
P1-5 - where they behind the safety car? or were running to delta?
If they were running to delta, the P5 car which came out of the pits first would have been the first car behind the safety car. How did P1 -5 not end up in the lead?
That was very unlucky.Waywardism wrote:
Rosberg was at the start of the pit straight in the lead and so the safety car came out just ahead of him and picked him up straight away.
In Austria there wasn't a problem at all. They pitted Hamilton first to jump Bottas and Nico won the race.iotar__ wrote:I meant and wrote "Austria".MercedesAMGSpy wrote: He was denied the right of the first stop because of the SC. It would be ridiculous to not pit Hamilton.
Mercedes is happy with their drivers. And who knows how good the Mercedes car is in 2015/2016/2017? We have seen with Red Bull how quickly things can change.CHT wrote:The drivers can whine all they want about Merc strategist being unfair, at the end of the day they will know better than anyone else that at the moment they are well paid and there are no cars on the grid that can challenge a Merc to the championships (at least for sometime). And if they decide to quit, there will be many very capable drivers waiting in line.
Rosberg got first choice in China and Malaysia. Hamilton in Austria.iotar__ wrote:If what Hamilton did was OK according to audience and team than Austria Ham pitting first should not have happened. Leading driver gets the choice of strategy, why would he give unfair advantage to his team-mate and let him close the gap of points or maybe even give him a chance to attack him for the sake of team result?
I voted for Alonso. Would've voted for Hamilton if he did not have the spin, which i think cost him a clear shot at the win. Starting from the pits dead last, that would've been truly heroic. He has only himself to blame for the blunder. Nevertheless, he pulled some good moves throughout the race, and his swashbuckling move on JEV was pretty impressive.Kiril Varbanov wrote:
Great drive by most of the lads, what a thriller. You can cast your vote for the driver of the day now - http://www.f1technical.net/poll/index.php?dispid=281
Redbull won 4 consecutive double championship due to the lack of rule change and restrictions. Unless FIA is going to open up engine and aero development, its most unlikely Merc is going to lose their 1 to 2 sec per lap advantage in the next 1 to 2 years.MercedesAMGSpy wrote:Mercedes is happy with their drivers. And who knows how good the Mercedes car is in 2015/2016/2017? We have seen with Red Bull how quickly things can change.CHT wrote:The drivers can whine all they want about Merc strategist being unfair, at the end of the day they will know better than anyone else that at the moment they are well paid and there are no cars on the grid that can challenge a Merc to the championships (at least for sometime). And if they decide to quit, there will be many very capable drivers waiting in line.
