Ferrari team principal Maurizio Arrivabene said after the bittersweet Monaco GP that his team won’t give up on this year’s championship as the season is still in its early phase. The team is preparing developments for the forthcoming race in Canada.
It was fascinating to me that RedBull didn't need a monkey seat and yet Mercedes did... i'd love to know how comparable the downforce levels really were between the 2 cars!Andres125sx wrote:Lewis said on Sky, after the race, RBR was using more downforce than they (Mercedes) can. He used the word "can", so I take it as RBR highest DF setup provide more DF than Mercedes highest DF setup
I found it quite interesting as it does explain RBR perfomance and specially perfomance difference with Mercedes in this race. It might be that RBR chasis is not that good compared to Mercedes (one might think RBR chasis is the best by far for any track), but it was that good only for this track where RBR can use more DF.
. What would be 3/10 or 0/10? Name is B. Anderson and this is sponsored promotion not journalism. As expected Perez didn't get a single headline from usual suspects (AS, Amus etc.) there was one though about Vettel/Ferrari almost winning another race (as every other one), clearly more important event that didn't happen. F1 is worse than games industry.
Perez could win and lap the entire field and AS would speak about the second driver of the race.iotar__ wrote:Why are they making one bad pitstop into greatest tragedy in motorsport history and Ricciardo the biggest victim? I (and everyone else) have seen worse, done unquestionably on purpose by own teams or FIA, many times. No one blinked. So he was second instead of first and still has second best car in F1, boo hoo. "Where do I go from here?!" "Should he leave or retire?!" Cut the dramatics.
Comic relief AS gave Verstappen for crashing in FP3, crashing in Q and crashing in the race in the best car note 5/10
DF is hugely relevant to tyre temperature managment, so I´d say it´s the other way around, it´s DF wich made a difference between Mercedes who was forced to use US, while RBR could use SS.PhillipM wrote:That and respective performance was more about tyre temperature management than downforce.
Too late and doesn't matter, that was after two collisions and dangerous driving with a broken car on the racing line (event begins when he crashes and starts driving which they skipped). They're using unsafe release excuses from Aus '15"The Team advised the driver that he needed to stop the car as soon as possible." and "driver stated that he wanted to stop the car in a safe place and the first available place was the runoff area at Turn 10."
that don't fit, avoid basic facts (collisions) replacing it with thoughts, statements and radio messages. Driver can make a decision to stop himself an the first safe place was the place of the crash. This is Whiting's record in, let's call a spade spade, cheating: 3 in 1.Around Monaco, under multiple VSCs, to have tyre temp within seconds?Andres125sx wrote:DF is hugely relevant to tyre temperature managment, so I´d say it´s the other way around, it´s DF wich made a difference between Mercedes who was forced to use US, while RBR could use SS.PhillipM wrote:That and respective performance was more about tyre temperature management than downforce.
But since it was Monaco, (no overtaking ) Lewis could nurse his tires to the end without worrying about Ric passing him. At any other track, Ric would have fly pass him.
Lewis also said his tires reached the cliff in last lap, so only 2 more laps and victory would have been for RBR
A. Who cares what he thought?! Are they judging thought process or events that followed? "I thought I could squeeze 2 m of a car into 2 cm space". OK off you go, fair enough. He thought wrongly - a penalty.iotar__ wrote:After re-watching: Raikkonen, crashed on his own, caused the collision with Massa - first penalty, caused the collision with Grosjean - second, continued driving with a broken car slowly on the racing line before, after and during collisions - third. Three events that unquestionably happened, with clear reason (Raikkonen's driving) and they gave this "reason": http://www.fia.com/file/42567/download? ... ote]driver stated that he thought initially that he could safely proceed to the pits to replace the nose"
Too late and doesn't matter, that was after two collisions and dangerous driving with a broken car on the racing line (event begins when he crashes and starts driving which they skipped). They're using unsafe release excuses from Aus '15"The Team advised the driver that he needed to stop the car as soon as possible." and "driver stated that he wanted to stop the car in a safe place and the first available place was the runoff area at Turn 10."
that don't fit, avoid basic facts (collisions) replacing it with thoughts, statements and radio messages. Driver can make a decision to stop himself an the first safe place was the place of the crash. This is Whiting's record in, let's call a spade spade, cheating: 3 in 1.[/quote]
There I disagree, for the simple reason he should not have waited for the team to tell him to pull over.Phil wrote:Apparently, Kimi was informed by the team to stop the car, but by then he was already in the tunnel, so he decided to continue to where he then stopped. Sounds very reasonable given the circumstance and probably why the stewards didn't punish him.
I'm not disagreeing. I just relayed on what I heard from the post-race interview. From the moment he broke his wing to when he collided with, I think Grosjean, , there were two corners. He said that the wheel at the time started turning again, so at that point, he was unsure of what exactly was happening or what was causing it. That led him to continue on and next thing you know, he is in the tunnel and the team is radioing him to stop the car.turbof1 wrote:There I disagree, for the simple reason he should not have waited for the team to tell him to pull over.Phil wrote:Apparently, Kimi was informed by the team to stop the car, but by then he was already in the tunnel, so he decided to continue to where he then stopped. Sounds very reasonable given the circumstance and probably why the stewards didn't punish him.
[/quote]iotar__ wrote:After re-watching: Raikkonen, crashed on his own, caused the collision with Massa - first penalty, caused the collision with Grosjean - second, continued driving with a broken car slowly on the racing line before, after and during collisions - third. Three events that unquestionably happened, with clear reason (Raikkonen's driving) and they gave this "reason": http://www.fia.com/file/42567/download? ... ote]driver stated that he thought initially that he could safely proceed to the pits to replace the nose"
