thanks for the answers to my daft Q - I see they ditched it for qualifying 😀 😳
In car footage of LH's lap was impressive. He seemed to be switching screens on his display every corner to adjust something (brake balance?), while doing the fastest lap ever.
Yeah rich, mostly brake balance adjustments and perhaps changing diff settings for the slower corners. It's a heck of a lot of work. Of course in the old days they had a brake balance bar to adjust on the left of the cockpit, a gear lever on the right and a clutch pedal...
Anyhow, faster than the vaunted v10 era is no mean feat. Hope he can get it off the line this time!
Sexy lap!
Anyhow, faster than the vaunted v10 era is no mean feat.
and using about half as much fuel and 4000 rpm less 😯
Oh dear Jensen. Out qualified by the rookie replacement driver who had to fly in from Japan at short notice and then missed lots of the practice due to a mechanical.
Jbs never been much of a qualifier though, and stoffel is absolutely the real deal who should have a full time f1 seat already. He's just demonstrated that quite well. I hope he gets a good race result too.
And 2016 cars are a good 100kg heavier than in 2005 too, or about 16%.
The new qualifying means the mid field runners get one lap. Any errors and you are out.
It doesn't work. When will they realise?
When they realise won't be until their cut of the cash dries up but by then it'll be too late, if it's not already!
I haven't watched any F1 this year.
Is it exciting driver vs. driver racing? Or scalelectrix boring?
If ever you needed a demonstration that F1 is a bit rudderless at the moment...
There's a lot of talk of the 'greatness' of various drivers, with this one compared to that one etc. For me, Senna was great in a way that others never were; for me he was simply a better driver than Prost, who is a 'great'. Damon Hill, Jacques Villeneuve and Jenson Button won WCs simply by being in the best car. A lot is said of Vettel having the best car, but I'm pretty sure Red Bull wouldn't have won 4 WCs with someone like MArk Webber leading the team. Hamilton's first WC was very, very lucky, and his last two have been achieved mainly through mechanical superiority (a bit like Hill, Villeneuve and Button). So what does make a driver 'great'? Would we be talking about the 'great' Fillipe Massa, had Timo Glock not slid off the track? Some commentators refer to Raikkonen as 'great', yet he was clearly outclassed by Alonso, and now by Vettel. There's a gulf between those pairings that's a lot bigger than between Hamilton and Rosberg, in my opinion. Rosberg, who outclassed an 'aging' Schumacher.
And then, Stirling Moss never won a WC.
So who are the true 'greats' of F1?
Rule of thumb for me is, they've won a lot but have they won races in cars that shouldn't have won, when it's not been handed to them on a plate (the Olivier Panis stipulation)? Senna, Prost, Villeneuve (senior), Moss, them's greats - that's not a criticism of those who won in the best car because that's just part of the game, someone like your Fangio (another great) was almost always in the best car because that's the easiest way to win, but it's when the chips are down (Fangio, N'ring in '57) or your car's gash (Villeneuve, Spain '81 I think? Senna, Portugal '84 - Moss, Monaco '61 - Prost, pretty much any win where he finessed a fragile Renault to the flag), that's where greatness shines.
Schumacher. It's easy to forget how rubbish Ferrari were before he started driving for them. His skill wasn't just in driving it was being a major force in their resurgence.
I've somewhat warmed to Hamilton but won't be fully convinced if he doesn't jump ship to a less competitive team and make things happen.
I agree Pondo. Of the current crop, Alonso is the one who has proved he can really drive a car beyond it's expected capabilities. I've yet to see Hamilton really perform in an underperforming car, in the same way. I think Vettel is capable of such as well. I think that the current top 3 in terms of ability are Alonso, Hamilton and Vettel. There will always be the comparison with the Sennas, the Fangios etc, but we'll never know.
And each season, we'll see the Verstappens, the Perez's, the Johny Herberts. Drivers who are tipped for the top, show loads of promise, even get some good results, but then fade away. Would like to see a more level playing field, to let natural talent emerge more organically.
but won't be fully convinced if he doesn't jump ship to a less competitive team and make things happen.
He did. Mercedes. And a great deal of 'experts' said he was bonkers.
Even the Great Schum couldn't win with them.
A sport so poor we cannot even say who is the best driver- surely that is the point?
We can definitely say who are the best engineers though.
Who is the best cyclist?Junkyard - lazarus
A sport so poor we cannot even say who is the best driver- surely that is the point?
Me.
TJ?
Can you give an example where we would be discussing hamilton and Alonso and the difference in results is so wide apart in cycling due to equipment?
You know what i said was true.
Examples?
Does the "best" rider win the TdF?
I'd argue it's a team effort, from the bikes, the fitness trainers, the coaches and, of course, the rest of the riding team.
Was Obree the "best" rider when he was setting world records? Was Boardman?
Both used engineering and design to help them go faster.
A sport so poor we cannot even say who is the best driver- surely that is the point
I don't think there's many sports where there is no dispute about who the greatest is, is there?
Great shout, ScotR - got no affection for Schumi but his second in a crippled Benetton in Spain '94 and his win there in the wet in '96 in a car that had no right to be first across the line... Out of the very top drawer.
Were boardman and Obree as far apart as Hamilton and Alonso due to engineering?
WHilst there is a modicum of truth in your point "marginal gains" in cycling the problem with F1 is , largely, engineering is all that really matters. Mercedes will win whomever is the pilot as their car is the fastest. The car will win.
That is not true of a "team" sport like cycling . Brad would not have won it on a chopper bike nor without Froome but his bike did not win it for him as it will for Mercedes this year
I would be surprised if you actually disagree with what I am saying and yes I can see your point
F1 has always been about innovation but it was also about racing
Of late it has very very little of the later. After the very first qualifier we can say who will win the title - certainly which team if not quite which driver.
Schu's wins back then? Right. Let's not go into the traction control software 'we didn't use it, honest but it was too expensive to remove'. The team manager later banned from F1, the numerous black flags, deliberately colliding with DH oh and other rumours around the car.
Do you honestly think a F1 car of any calibre could be stuck in one gear yet still be mysteriously so good, or the driver can magically get a similar car to others stuck in one gear in that situation OK like that? The car wasn't legal. I wasn't convinced at the time that he was THAT good. He's very good yes but utterly ruthless, win at with all means.
Damon was robbed of at least another title, maybe three crowns total.
This is awful. Murray Walker chuntering on, badly.
Thumb hovering on the power switch.
I've somewhat warmed to Hamilton but won't be fully convinced if he doesn't jump ship to a less competitive team and make things happen.
Everyone was staggered when he went to Mercedes, they all thought he was a bit mad to leave McLaren.
WHilst there is a modicum of truth in your point "marginal gains" in cycling the problem with F1 is , largely, engineering is all that really matters. Mercedes will win whomever is the pilot as their car is the fastest. The car will win.
The car will only win if the driver is good enough, the reverse is true.
I would be surprised if you actually disagree with what I am saying and yes I can see your point
Fantastic to have you both disagree and agree in such a short amount of text.
Of late it has very very little of the later. After the very first qualifier we can say who will win the title - certainly which team if not quite which driver.
Absolutely not of late - that's been the case for the thirty-odd years I've been following the sport. People talk as though it's unusual for a team to dominate, F1 kicked off in 1950 and whilst the dominant team hasn't always won, it's been the case for the majority of years.
Schu's wins back then? Right. Let's not go into the traction control software 'we didn't use it, honest but it was too expensive to remove'. The team manager later banned from F1, the numerous black flags, deliberately colliding with DH oh and other rumours around the car.Do you honestly think a F1 car of any calibre could be stuck in one gear yet still be mysteriously so good, or the driver can magically get a similar car to others stuck in one gear in that situation OK like that? The car wasn't legal. I wasn't convinced at the time that he was THAT good. He's very good yes but utterly ruthless, win at with all means.
Did you watch the race? Traction control tech back then was clearly audible, and from the on-car shots he was clearly stuck in a high gear and it was clearly not traction controlling itself. Maybe they invented some stealth TC that couldn't be heard, never seen anything that suggested that it had been - all I read about was that the software was still technically there but couldn't be used. Find me one bit of evidence that suggests Spain 94 wasn't legit.
And Spain 96? Thoughts? TC again?
The car will only win if the driver is good enough
ISH
To win the title this year you need to drive for mercedes
Its clearly more about the car than the driver.
If it was not we would not be debating who the best driver was.
Fantastic to have you both disagree and agree in such a short amount of text.
Utter comprehension fail- could you at least make your childish digs funny?
That Haas is awesome.
Williams, Sauber and Force India should stop complaining about them, those teams have had years and years to perfect their F1 craft. Even with Ferrari bits Haas are very much new boys.
That welsh **** is ruining the coverage for me and Susie doesn't seem to contribute much, but otherwise a great race.
That welsh **** is ruining the coverage for me
Steve Jones REALLY needs to stop talking - his 'off the cuff' remarks are just cringeworthy.
DC and Lee McKenzie are the only decent ones in there right now and the latter should be given a much bigger role.
I'm also struggling to see why you'd employ Karun Chandhok as 'technical analyst' when you've got Mark Webber and DC.
[Chandhok] did part of a season in 2010 and then one race in 2011:
'Chandhok’s one-off appearance was not successful: he ended the race last, two laps behind team mate Heikki Kovalainen after several spins.'
Yeah, great choice.
they had a chap (i can remember who) on radio 5 extra talking during practise 2 about a conversation he had with an engineer/s from mercedes. the gist was they (merc) think the ferrari engine is suspect and can't run at full tilt for very long, seems they may have a point.
[quote=Junkyard ]Were boardman and Obree as far apart as Hamilton and Alonso due to engineering?
WHilst there is a modicum of truth in your point "marginal gains" in cycling the problem with F1 is , largely, engineering is all that really matters. Mercedes will win whomever is the pilot as their car is the fastest. The car will win.
That is not true of a "team" sport like cycling . Brad would not have won it on a chopper bike nor without Froome but his bike did not win it for him as it will for Mercedes this year
I would be surprised if you actually disagree with what I am saying and yes I can see your point
F1 has always been about innovation but it was also about racing
Of late it has very very little of the later. After the very first qualifier we can say who will win the title - certainly which team if not quite which driver.
I get that you think there is an unhealthy influence from the amount of science and engineering in F1 - and I don't think it can now be "un-invented". I still think that only the very top drivers are capable of delivering.
However, your point that there is something unusual in F1 that makes it difficult to determine who is "best" just doesn't stand scrutiny - it applies to countless other sports. Some are, again, influenced by technology be that the material used for swimming costumes, the design of bob-sleighs, bows whatever. Team backup in things like nutrition, training methods, drugs (legal and illegal) also influences performance.
And then there's the whole pro-sport TdF thing. Could Froome have "won" without the team assembled around him? Could another rider in that team have "won"? How can you possibly determine who is the best rider each year? TdF history is littered with almost-winners who might have made the high spot if they'd had a better team around them. Truth is, the whole concept of naming a winner for that type of racing is complete nonsense.
Apart from it being unbearable dull these days, the biggest issue I have is about 90% of F1 chat in the media usually revolves around what happening OFF the track. The politics, the bickering, the arsed up new 'rules'.
For me, we want Jim Clark back 🙂 1967 Italian GP, leading for 12 laps, puncture, gets lapped by everyone. Then with 48 laps remaining, unlaps himself, then overtakes everyone to take the lead, only for a faulty fuel pump meaning he finishes 3rd. Bosh. That's what I want to see!
Ahhh! the 60' and 70's eh?! Like when real motoring was all about keeping a stock of parts, like propshaft UJ's, half shafts, a full ignition set, in the boot of the car along with tools and a bottle jack, because it wasn't real motoring until you had to change something at the side of the road! 😉
As for best driver, JY speaks sanely, motorsport at every level has long been all about the biggest chequebook. In this regard, F1 demands the latest and most expensive design and technology, which makes it a team effort, which kinda makes comparing F1 drivers over the years pretty pointless. Does it matter? They were / are all pretty awesome drivers.
Having said that, IMO, a fast car won't necessarily win without a good driver, who would also be able to be competitive in a not-so-quick car. In the realms of F1, if all these guys drove the same car, they would be within 10th's if not 100th's of a second of each other.
F1 is a series where teams design and build their own cars,with a championship for the drivers too. Always has been as much about the machinery as the man, but a big part of being a top level driver is having the ability to communicate to your engineers precisely what the car is doing, and to be able to differentiate between changes in components. But the engineers then need to be able to design bits to improve the car and fit with the drivers feedback. So a good partnership between driver and engineer makes the car better, and if you can understand that relationship then you can get why f1 racing is the way it is.
Which is why most of the time, one team dominates. If you want close racing watch a one make series.
where teams design and build their own cars
Haas don't.
Haas don't.
Depends on your definition.
They have designers who 'designed' the car. Ok, many parts have been supplied by another team, who no doubt also gave advise, but the car was designed by Haas engineers.
Romain Grosjean is the star of the paddock at the moment - Driving superbly in every area. What a marked change from just a few years ago. I remember Webber describing him as "First Lap Nutcase"
Is it just me, or is Rosberg just so unbearably dull? Vettel is always joking around as is DR, Hamilton is up and down and often petulant, but still worth watching, but Nico...I really want to like him, but....
Is it just me, or is Rosberg just so unbearably dull?
Not just you. I watched his post race interviews yesterday and just though he came across as trying too hard.
coogan - MemberFor me, we want Jim Clark back 1967 Italian GP, leading for 12 laps, puncture, gets lapped by everyone. Then with 48 laps remaining, unlaps himself, then overtakes everyone to take the lead, only for a faulty fuel pump meaning he finishes 3rd. Bosh. That's what I want to see!
So you want a series with one very dominant car that only fails to win due to mechanical failure? I thought we wanted racing, you've just described Lewis in his Mercedes!
What an amazing drive from Pascal Wehrlein! How did he manage that?!?
