2016 Austrian Grand Prix - Spielberg, Fri 01 – Sun 03 Jul 2016

[PlatinumZealot]

Hey guys where is the ignore button?

The people who think Nico was right, rammed it off the server.

[PlatinumZealot]

Lauda & Toto says he had a break by wire issue. Nico is adamant he was in complete control.

These two pr lines don't jive with each other, even a child can tell someone is lying!

Until proof that someone is lying, I am going to use common sense. Both can be true.

If Nico had a BBW issue that prevented him from being able to stop the car in time and caused the accident the stewards would not have penalised him. The telemetry would have shown any such incident. It did not, the BBW issue was media spin quickly put out by the Mercedes team to try and cool the initial situation. Much in the same way Pirelli put out tweets almost immediately after Vettel's tyre exploded blaming it on debris. They later deleted these tweets because they realised how silly it looked considering they can't have possibly concluded that as Vettel's car wasn't even on a recovery truck!!!

Don't believe everything you read.

Another thing too, the BBW fault never once showed on Nico's display as it did in races where it failed. He may have had hot brakes but that was about it.

[cooken]

The people who think Nico was right, rammed it off the server.

Page after page of senseless banter, all made well worth it for this comment. Well done to you kind sir.

Having a BBW failure does not preclude having full control of the car. If the issue happened in T1 as reported by the team, he likely would have known about it going into T2 and could have adjusted for it and remained in full control.

[TAG]

Maybe I spent too much time back in the day browsing craig's list personal ads but BBW always makes me think twice. Now on to the Silverstone thread and it's escapades where I'm sure Brexit won't be mentioned once.

[Dazed1]

Hard to say. If his BBW system was sound, there is an excellent chance the collision would not have happended, so I would say yes might have in fact stayed on the track. He did in fact stay on the track, BTW.

There was no problem with his BBW system, it was quite clear that was just a lie to initially diffuse the situation.

Sorry, Diesel, but it's not all all clear to me that it's a lie. To say that it is a lie is pure conjecture.

Note that both cars went down to virtually the same speed at virtually the same spot and both had reduced speed enough to make the corner so BBW problem or not it was the line taken by Nico that caused the issue. If Nico was the driving equal of Lewis I would be happy to see him win WDC. He is not.

[GPR-A duplicate2]

Here is a beautiful overlay video of Rosberg's lap 70 and 71.
http://www.formula1.com/en/video/2016/7 ... ained.html







Look here... Lewis was away from Racing line (the one Rosberg was on, in lap 70 was racing line). If Lewis would have taken the racing line that Nico took on previous lap, the contact would have occurred slightly ahead of the actual contact time. So, Lewis took time, being mindful of the fact that Nico is inside, moved slightly away from racing line and then he turned in, expecting that Nico is also going to turn in. All this while, Rosberg was clear that he is going straight to push Lewis out.


This should have been the better, alternate racing line to take then push Lewis out.

[GPR-A duplicate2]

Also, Nico made a mistake in 1st corner by going deep on to right apex curb, that bumped his exit out and he landed up on the left apex. Whereas Lewis took just the right amount of apex. Toto was clearly lying about the BBW wire issue as both the drivers denied it. From the pictures below (taken from F1.com video, clearly evident in video), the issue with Nico was clearly that, he went for turn 1 earlier than he should have. Mistake under pressure.

[Nickel]

Here is a beautiful overlay video of Rosberg's lap 70 and 71.
http://www.formula1.com/en/video/2016/7 ... ained.html

https://s31.postimg.org/o29anshmz/compare1.png

https://s31.postimg.org/e1ip3653f/compare2.png

https://s32.postimg.org/jerst3kfp/compare3.png

Look here... Lewis was away from Racing line (the one Rosberg was on, in lap 70 was racing line). If Lewis would have taken the racing line that Nico took on previous lap, the contact would have occurred slightly ahead of the actual contact time. So, Lewis took time, being mindful of the fact that Nico is inside, moved slightly away from racing line and then he turned in, expecting that Nico is also going to turn in. All this while, Rosberg was clear that he is going straight to push Lewis out.
https://s32.postimg.org/cwd5h1lx1/compare4.png

This should have been the better, alternate racing line to take then push Lewis out.
https://s32.postimg.org/n41ph5mcl/compare5.png

Had Nico taken your "better" line, there's a good chance Hamilton would've cut back underneath him. I think this is what he was trying to prevent by closing him out on corner entry.

Sainz did something almost exactly the same in the early stages of the race, maybe on Perez? Can't quite recall. The only difference was that Sainz, on the inside, was the attacking driver. Martin Brundle called it surprisingly aggressive at the time. In this scenario the defending driver on the outside backed out after being run right to the track limits on corner entry.

Lewis on the other hand, waited until very close to the track limit then turned in. Serves Nico right, that was very ugly defending.

[iotar__]

Had Nico taken your "better" line, there's a good chance Hamilton would've cut back underneath him. I think this is what he was trying to prevent by closing him out on corner entry.

Sainz did something almost exactly the same in the early stages of the race, maybe on Perez? Can't quite recall. The only difference was that Sainz, on the inside, was the attacking driver. Martin Brundle called it surprisingly aggressive at the time. In this scenario the defending driver on the outside backed out after being run right to the track limits on corner entry.

Lewis on the other hand, waited until very close to the track limit then turned in. Serves Nico right, that was very ugly defending.

About bold part: one reason, second reason, different braking point (brake-by-wire). This, long period of 50/50 side by side driving, long braking towards the corner, even though Hamilton is slightly ahead he's on the outside far from any pass plus chance to avoid it by other driver makes it completely different from Spain (obviously) and Schumacher - Villeneuve. Bad examples brought up earlier.

Of course it wasn't pretty, reasons: last lap and previous incidents when it was Rosberg avoiding collisions and going off track. The difference is he got a penalty, lost points and Hamilton didn't but gained in Spain. That's much uglier and unsportsmanlike for me. As is lying about the reason you lose and making up excuses (last part of '15 season).

[Phil]

My major issue with this whole incident is, is that it's okay to defend your position, when you're in a position to. When one is already *behind* though and has already effectively lost it, any defensive move is probably pushing the bounds of legality and only really works, if the other concedes it willingly.

Rosberg had already lost his advantage. Lewis had the momentum and the only way Rosberg had a hope to regain it and his position, was as he did, by trying to block out Lewis from making the corner. If they had been more side by side, it perhaps would have worked, as Lewis wouldn't have turned into his blind-spot and been effectively "blocked" out. Would such a move have been fair? IMO, it depends - if the cars are side by side or Rosberg slightly ahead, the situation is slightly different and the position not conceded. I think Rosberg was hoping on the fact that Hamilton would chicken out and simply go straight and then it would have been a done deal and everybody would have looked at it and said, Hamilton misjudged, came in too quick and that would have been the end of it. Didn't quite work out.

I don't expect it to be good racing when someone from an unfavorable position using bullying or blocking moves to muscle his way through to regain a position vs. another car. The same applies on a straight. You don't push others of the track, not when they are moving along side you. You can use a defensive move and if you can pull it off before without affecting the other car behind you, it's okay too. Neither of these things hold true in Barcelona nor here in Austria.

[PhillipM]

Yep, he'd already lost the place before the corner, he should haveconceeded that, run Hamilton wide and taken the fight to the next corner.

[TAG]

Had Nico taken your "better" line, there's a good chance Hamilton would've cut back underneath him. I think this is what he was trying to prevent by closing him out on corner entry.

Sainz did something almost exactly the same in the early stages of the race, maybe on Perez? Can't quite recall. The only difference was that Sainz, on the inside, was the attacking driver. Martin Brundle called it surprisingly aggressive at the time. In this scenario the defending driver on the outside backed out after being run right to the track limits on corner entry.

Lewis on the other hand, waited until very close to the track limit then turned in. Serves Nico right, that was very ugly defending.

I watched the race again last night and laughed, on lap 6 I think, Rosberg overtakes Hulkenberg in the identical manner and in the exact spot that Lewis tried on Rosberg. The only difference? Hulkenberg did what any driver that knew the position was lost would do.

IMO, it's the same reason the Barcelona crash took place. Only Nico can tell us for sure but he feared that position was lost contact or not.

[RZS10]

So my 'racing lines' fit what they show on the F1.com video ... Nico's previous ideal line, the line he ultimately took ... also shows that Lewis by far wasn't going for the 'ideal' line as claimed by some ppl in this thread

slightly off topic:
I always love when someone comes three days late to the party and starts regurgitating arguments that have been discussed way earlier in the thread - i know it's hard to go through 50+ pages of bickering but maybe, just maybe one could check whether it's something new you bring to the table (like that overlay vid posted by GPR-A) before making the thread an even bigger mess.

In addition: i always thought one could at least try to argue with facts, post screencaps, refer to interviews since this site is called 'technical' ... 1/4 of this thread wouldn't be here if people first gathered info and then posted ... 1/4 wouldn't be here if people went to the chat and posted all the subjective/emotional stuff there during the race ...

What i'm getting at: at least _try_ to be objective - do not compare very different situations and say they're exactly the same (just imagine the corner from above... hell take a piece of paper and draw it, if you then still think it's the same take a pic and post it) - do not claim something if the involved parties themselves have said the opposite or at least state things as "i think" and not as facts because you believe it (without having anything to back it up)

and finally another 1/4 of this thread wouldn't be here if it wasn't for a few members who just argue for the arguments sake (even though they're probably on the ignore lists of most people who know what they're up to) :^)

[Gothrek]

Bridgstone were contracted to provide the most durable quick tyres they could withing the specs at the time, whereas Pirelli have been contracted to provide tyres which degrade at different levels to the extent that they force on the teams a minimum of one and usually more than one pit stop within a race. I am sure Pirrelli could build the same durable quick tyres as Bridgestone if the FIA asked them to do so

Degrade, yes, but not explode, right?
Pirelli was already 1,5s slower then Bridgestone in their first year... I do not believe that Pirelli has the engineering skill to build quick & durable tires. At least they have not ever showcased it that they can build anything that is fast or durable, otherwise why would they complain about:
- Tire pressures
- Camber
- Mysterious cuts that noone ever complained about prior Pirelli?

[Juzh]

Bridgstone were contracted to provide the most durable quick tyres they could withing the specs at the time, whereas Pirelli have been contracted to provide tyres which degrade at different levels to the extent that they force on the teams a minimum of one and usually more than one pit stop within a race. I am sure Pirrelli could build the same durable quick tyres as Bridgestone if the FIA asked them to do so

Degrade, yes, but not explode, right?
Pirelli was already 1,5s slower then Bridgestone in their first year... I do not believe that Pirelli has the engineering skill to build quick & durable tires. At least they have not ever showcased it that they can build anything that is fast or durable, otherwise why would they complain about:
- Tire pressures
- Camber
- Mysterious cuts that noone ever complained about prior Pirelli?

This basically. +1