Here is Karuns video
https://streamable.com/m9yis.
It sucks that incidents like these affect the outcomes of races. In all honesty though, we would not be kicking up such a fuss if it was 7th and 8th places that were swapped around. When the guy crossing the line first isnāt declared the race winner, it unfortunately creates a bit more of a stink.
On another note, Iām really not enjoying the fall-off-a-cliff tyre design any more. Given the wear rate of especially the softs yesterday, you were better off deliberately qualifying outside the top 10 so you could start the race on mediums or even hards. If you have a car that is quick enough for Q3 but not fast enough to get there on a harder tyre, youāre effectively screwed for the race. Come race day, you last maybe 7 laps on the soft tyre, then pit, lose a whole lost of track position, and then have to nurse a set of hard tyres for 80% of the race distance which makes you a sitting duck pace-wise. So effectively, the fastest teams benefit from this rule while the ones trying to catch them are hamstrung by it.
The 1 guy during FP1 had a decent argument for forcing all 3 tires (ie mandated 2 stop race), which seemed quite good. That way the guys are not ānursingā tires home for majority of the race. As he says, the optimum strategy appears to be a 1 stop with 80% driving power to nurse cars being quicker than flat out and 2 stoppingā¦And flat out is what F1 is supposed to beā¦hence why Iām all for putting refueling back in, get rid of this engine mode/fuel management crap, thats not what this sport is meant to be.
my crappy 2c
Agreed. This endurance racing nonsense doesnāt work for me. I watched this video over the weekend and found it very insightful. The short version is, tyre degradation issues inadvertently caused one particularly exciting race in 2010, and the powers-that-be of F1 (doddering old Bernie, probably) looked at it and said: āHey, letās make every race like that!ā
Wouldnāt be at all surprised to find it was the same powers that be that thought the whole āknockout styleā qualifying would be āexcitingāā¦
How to make F1 exciting again. Give the pit crew cigarettes, bring back refuelling and remove access to hydraulic tools
I quite like the existing qualy though; itās the best one weāve had since the old 12 laps for the session rule. Can you remember when we had one-lap shootouts in 2005? That certainly cause a few unusual grids.
The tyre rules could use some tweaking though; there is simply no benefit for a midfield team getting to Q3 other than starting closer to the front, which these days means nothing in the long run.
No no no, what we have now is awesome. Iām talking about that Quali change that lasted like all of 3 or 4 races. Where every like whatā¦30 seconds? the ābottomā time would get eliminatedā¦much like in arcade game knockout style racesā¦This does NOT work in F1, where you need about 2 minutes just to prepare brakes/tyres for what will be your hotlap. They scrapped it pretty quickly since basically everyone would go out onceā¦and then watch the clock count down.
Oh crap yes, that was a total disaster. How that ever made it past the drawing board I have no idea.
exactly. here it is, found it:
The proposal will see qualifying split into three segments.
The first segment will last 16 minutes and after seven minutes the slowest driver will take no further part in the session. Every 90 seconds thereafter, the slowest driver will be knocked out until there are only 15 drivers remaining.
A 15-minute second segment follows a similar pattern with the slowest driver eliminated after six minutes and then a further driver knocked out at 90-second intervals.
The final segment will last 14 minutes with knockouts beginning after five minutes until the two final drivers are left to fight it out for pole position.
YES Forum I HAVE considered replying to more people. So what if Iāve replied to Sweepslag 3 times, youāre not the boss of me!!
Does this mean we canāt hang out after school anymore?
Get a room you two.
I love the current qualifying, possibly even more than the race itself.
interesting perspective on the vettel ham incident
Danny Ric on Vettelās penalty:
"If he pulls a little further to the left, heāll spin. When he brakes on the grass, heāll spin too. There was not much room for Lewis but still enough.I had an identical situation with Lewis in 2016 Monte Carlo. He had to go through the emergency exit and almost pushed me into the wall on his return. With me it was tighter than now with him. He didnāt get a penalty. That was a good thing. It was a hard racing.ā
Hereās the Monaco 2016 incident heās talking about:
And the thoughts of āOur Nige CBEā:
Oh, and then thereās this:
I still stand by my initial opinion from yesterday.
And has anything been said yet about Norrisā rear brakes melting his suspension? That was way weird too.
I made a mention of it, but there were so many talking points from yesterdayās race, that it got lost in the maelstrom. Rather crazy actually. I was really rooting for Norris and he had a great start, was up for some good points and wouldāve battled the Renaults until the very end. And then that happened. Like seriously, how is that even possible? How did his car fail so spectacularly but not Sainz? So wierd.
What is also worth talking about is how they just left his car there stricken next to the road. Didnāt even bother to get it off the track, just waved double yellows for a few laps, which may have spoiled some moves from being made, and every now and then run to the car to do something and wave those yellows again. Why?
Yeah, I clearly didnāt phrase that very well, sorry. I saw your note, was more asking if anything had been said by McLaren by way of some sort of explanation for it? Last I heard was Norris referring to it as āa mysteryā, which I donāt think qualifies as a formal technical term
https://www.mclaren.com/racing/2019/canadian-grand-prix/2019-canadian-grand-prix/
Only statement from them thus far
https://streamable.com/74yuw, - statement from vettel
He summed it up so well.
Best comment ever, the first one.