2016 Hungarian Grand Prix - Hungaroring, 22-24 July

[iotar__]

- Rather forgettable except for brief weird pace by leading Mercedes. Rosberg lost a bit behind and with pitstops but that's normal
- Raikkonen - Verstappen - classic F1 A.D. '16 . Raikkonen is slow and incompetent and rules don't apply to Red Bull drivers. If you expected anything out of it I've got a bridge for you.
- If better drivers were in the second-third best cars F1 would be more interesting.

[turbof1]

Why? I think the strategy was perfect. Merc had no chance to pit that early and not the pace (at least 1.5, maybe 2 sec advantage) at the end to attack the Bulls if the undercut had worked. The signs were really good: Right before the stop, the Mercs were slower than the Bulls and were running into traffic. The problem was, that the Bulls got really slow on the last set of tires. Ric could only do one 24 lap, the rest was in the 25s. On the other hand the Mercs, that seemed to struggle into 26s, could get back to pace and do 24s.
And what did they loose? There was no chance for Vet to overtake Ric with that small tire deficit. Ves did not look different, he was on a fast strategy as his laptimes dropped before his stop.

Except it put Verstappen behind a Raikkonen with old tyres, completely whiping out any advantage of the undercut and even allowing vettel to jump him, throwing away a 3-4. If not for that mistake Red Bull would be in front of Ferrari now. So yeah: bollocks strategy.

I thought your problem is the second stop...
Ves had a 21s gap on Rai to come out in front of him only for two laps. But then the problem was that Hulk and Gro would have been in the way. I think it was pure luck for Vet, that the two slowest SS runners pitted in the same lap. After they pitted Rai was too fast (2sec faster). So it was only one lap to go and they missed it. With two cars to pit they always had to choose...either they put Ric behind Hulk or leave Ves in danger for the undercut.
The Bulls did not have the pace to hold a 3-4. This was not strategy.

I mean the whole of all stops were basically bad calls. Regarding the first stop: I know the intent was undercutting, and for the matter they did reasonable with Ricciardo. Verstappen however got the poor end of it. Red Bull should have known that above else they could not get stuck behind Raikkonen.

The second stop was too early. I don't recall exactly the gap in laps there was between the ferrari pitstops and the red bull pitstops, but it was I think 6-10 laps. Yes, track position is important, but so is having a small enough offset in tyre life. Verstappen had to break off Raikkonen's wing in order to keep his position. Being in such a riskful position surely cannot be the intend. In the end Red Bull did not loose out there, but I still feel it was way too much risk as they could have still undercutted a few laps later, which would have made quite a difference.

I know this sounds quite like hindsight. However, if you are going to sacrifice tyre life for undercutting you need to use some foresight. It's not difficult to calculate safe margins in order not be stuck behind a car on old tyres, or to have a reasonable tyre life expectancy in your final stint. Even on a circuit like the Hungaroring you can overtake when the difference in tyre life is big enough.

[foxmulder_ms]

Massively worrying precedent set this weekend after the stewards didn't penalise Rosberg for speeding through double waved yellows. Jules Bianchi's death can be mostly attributed to not slowing down for yellow flags. Very worrying.

O totally agree. Now, there is no difference between yellow and double yellow.

[Sonador]

What kind of a f***ing joke is FIA stewardship?
1. Spain collision. Action taken? Joke.
2. Austria qualifying. Hulkenberg issue. Action taken? Joke.
3. Austria collision. Action taken? Joke.
4. Britain - Driver coaching. Action taken? Joke.
5. Hungary qualifying - Violation of double waved yellow flags. Action taken? Joke.

In all these cases what would you have done?

[FoxHound]

The strategy was sound imo, they knowingly sacrificed the end of the race trying to gain track position on the Mercs.
The problem was Ricciardo on fresh tires was slower than the Mercs on old.

Only, they didn't need to pit so early, and risked falling off a cliff at the end of the race.

But as you pointed out, they were slower on new tyres than Merc were on old. Realistically, they were nowhere near Mercedes around a track that favoured them.

[FoxHound]

and before the V6 TH Mercedes wasn't a team with incredible traction. So it show the importance of the energy deployment

The W04 was probably the best car in terms of traction. A fact borne out of them getting pole and winning the race in both Monaco and Hungary in 2013, a V8 year.

[basti313]

What kind of a f***ing joke is FIA stewardship?
1. Spain collision. Action taken? Joke.
2. Austria qualifying. Hulkenberg issue. Action taken? Joke.
3. Austria collision. Action taken? Joke.
4. Britain - Driver coaching. Action taken? Joke.
5. Hungary qualifying - Violation of double waved yellow flags. Action taken? Joke.

So you want harder penalties? We had years when everyone was whining about much too hard penalties given too fast so strongly, that the 5s penalty was introduced and the stewards have a hearing now for every fly on the visor.

I know, of course, that this is a fanbase-lead discussion at the moment and so the question is stupid, but allow me the question: Are you serious? Are you nuts? Just imagine a 2015 season with hard judging and no 5sec: This could have looked a bit different and much closer with no Monza win, no Astria 2nd, a few drive throughs for running your teammate off the track...the same for Ros now.
I like it how they try not to interfere too much and keep the penalties low.

[cooken]

Alternate reality: Merc radio comms were a dummy to try and get RB to attempt the undercut.

[siskue2005]

I counted at least 7 times Kimi has left track limits.

If only FIA sensors and computers were that precise

[turbof1]

What kind of a f***ing joke is FIA stewardship?
1. Spain collision. Action taken? Joke.
2. Austria qualifying. Hulkenberg issue. Action taken? Joke.
3. Austria collision. Action taken? Joke.
4. Britain - Driver coaching. Action taken? Joke.
5. Hungary qualifying - Violation of double waved yellow flags. Action taken? Joke.

So you want harder penalties? We had years when everyone was whining about much too hard penalties given too fast so strongly, that the 5s penalty was introduced and the stewards have a hearing now for every fly on the visor.

I know, of course, that this is a fanbase-lead discussion at the moment and so the question is stupid, but allow me the question: Are you serious? Are you nuts? Just imagine a 2015 season with hard judging and no 5sec: This could have looked a bit different and much closer with no Monza win, no Astria 2nd, a few drive throughs for running your teammate off the track...the same for Ros now.
I like it how they try not to interfere too much and keep the penalties low.

I can agree with that, but the ruling is still a joke in my eyes. They gave Button a penalty because the team wanted to save his car, but Verstappen who weaved off Raikkonen's endplate was not even considered for investigation. Either you more lenient across the whole line, or more stringent across the whole line. Trying to punish an understandable message to get rid of a terminal problem, but neglecting a driver incident does not fit that.

[basti313]

What kind of a f***ing joke is FIA stewardship?
1. Spain collision. Action taken? Joke.
2. Austria qualifying. Hulkenberg issue. Action taken? Joke.
3. Austria collision. Action taken? Joke.
4. Britain - Driver coaching. Action taken? Joke.
5. Hungary qualifying - Violation of double waved yellow flags. Action taken? Joke.

So you want harder penalties? We had years when everyone was whining about much too hard penalties given too fast so strongly, that the 5s penalty was introduced and the stewards have a hearing now for every fly on the visor.

I know, of course, that this is a fanbase-lead discussion at the moment and so the question is stupid, but allow me the question: Are you serious? Are you nuts? Just imagine a 2015 season with hard judging and no 5sec: This could have looked a bit different and much closer with no Monza win, no Astria 2nd, a few drive throughs for running your teammate off the track...the same for Ros now.
I like it how they try not to interfere too much and keep the penalties low.

I can agree with that, but the ruling is still a joke in my eyes. They gave Button a penalty because the team wanted to save his car, but Verstappen who weaved off Raikkonen's endplate was not even considered for investigation. Either you more lenient across the whole line, or more stringent across the whole line. Trying to punish an understandable message to get rid of a terminal problem, but neglecting a driver incident does not fit that.

You are mixing up "rules" and "judging". Button's penalty is a stupidity in the rules, Ves vs. Rai is soft judging.

[Tom145145]

What kind of a f***ing joke is FIA stewardship?
1. Spain collision. Action taken? Joke.
2. Austria qualifying. Hulkenberg issue. Action taken? Joke.
3. Austria collision. Action taken? Joke.
4. Britain - Driver coaching. Action taken? Joke.
5. Hungary qualifying - Violation of double waved yellow flags. Action taken? Joke.

So you want harder penalties? We had years when everyone was whining about much too hard penalties given too fast so strongly, that the 5s penalty was introduced and the stewards have a hearing now for every fly on the visor.

I know, of course, that this is a fanbase-lead discussion at the moment and so the question is stupid, but allow me the question: Are you serious? Are you nuts? Just imagine a 2015 season with hard judging and no 5sec: This could have looked a bit different and much closer with no Monza win, no Astria 2nd, a few drive throughs for running your teammate off the track...the same for Ros now.
I like it how they try not to interfere too much and keep the penalties low.

I can agree with that, but the ruling is still a joke in my eyes. They gave Button a penalty because the team wanted to save his car, but Verstappen who weaved off Raikkonen's endplate was not even considered for investigation. Either you more lenient across the whole line, or more stringent across the whole line. Trying to punish an understandable message to get rid of a terminal problem, but neglecting a driver incident does not fit that.

I couldn't agree more. How can you penalise someone for getting assistance for a brake pedal hitting the bulkhead and slowing to the point of being plumb last, I thought the idea of the penalty was to stop performance improvements and coaching in race. Just very confusing for the fans.

[turbof1]

So you want harder penalties? We had years when everyone was whining about much too hard penalties given too fast so strongly, that the 5s penalty was introduced and the stewards have a hearing now for every fly on the visor.

I know, of course, that this is a fanbase-lead discussion at the moment and so the question is stupid, but allow me the question: Are you serious? Are you nuts? Just imagine a 2015 season with hard judging and no 5sec: This could have looked a bit different and much closer with no Monza win, no Astria 2nd, a few drive throughs for running your teammate off the track...the same for Ros now.
I like it how they try not to interfere too much and keep the penalties low.

I can agree with that, but the ruling is still a joke in my eyes. They gave Button a penalty because the team wanted to save his car, but Verstappen who weaved off Raikkonen's endplate was not even considered for investigation. Either you more lenient across the whole line, or more stringent across the whole line. Trying to punish an understandable message to get rid of a terminal problem, but neglecting a driver incident does not fit that.

You are mixing up "rules" and "judging". Button's penalty is a stupidity in the rules, Ves vs. Rai is soft judging.

I am not mixing them up. I am taking rules and judging as a whole. Trying not to interfere too much and keep penalties low is the same. Either you apply regulation stringely, or you don't. It's like in soccer: it is written you need to give a yellow card for hitting a player with a stretched leg during a tackle, but it is not applied everytime. Same happens here with Verstappen: no more then 1 move is allowed while defending according the sporting regulations. I'm ok with rules not strictly applied, and I felt it being rather ok that the stewards decided not to take action. But in my eyes that same curtesy of leniency should also have been given to Button.

It's also the reason why you'll get headlines like these:

Raikkonen: F1 rule enforcement "a joke", needs changing

Jenson Button furious over radio rules after Hungarian GP penalty

Lack of Rosberg qualifying penalty sends bad message, says Hamilton

All 3 situations show an issue within the chain of rules and judging. Both need to be more consistent and more objective. For instance where Rosberg did or did not slowed down sufficiently: there is a technical directive in place that you need to slow down half a second compared to your best sector time. It is not being applied, so either you get rid of the TD or you apply it consistently. All else is basically inviting discontent.

[domh245]

Merc takes the fastest pitstop again by a hundredth of a second from Williams.

http://imgur.com/a/36j3M

[Sonador]

Button was penalised because the team told him not to shift, because a lack of hydraulic pressure.

The brake thing was seperate, but i do think the radio rules have gone to far.
In the case of Verstappen, i looked at the replay several times.
It was Raikonen who weaved, Verstappen moved only once wich is allowed.


The thing with Rosberg i agree with Hamilton, it sends a bad message.