Rate the race: Malaysia

What did you think of the Malaysian Grand Prix? Rate the race out of ten and have your say below.

Rate the 2010 Malaysian Grand Prix out of ten

  • 1 - Terrible (2%)
  • 2 (1%)
  • 3 (2%)
  • 4 (4%)
  • 5 (10%)
  • 6 (19%)
  • 7 (32%)
  • 8 (20%)
  • 9 (6%)
  • 10 - Perfect (4%)

Total Voters: 3,294

Loading ... Loading ...

2010 Malaysian Grand Prix

Advert | Go Ad-free

170 comments on Rate the race: Malaysia

  1. Rohan said on 4th April 2010, 11:31

    Terrible race again, just like the previous 2, and just like how the rest of the season will be because there’s no refuelling.

    • Australia bad? Did you even bother to watch the race in Aussie?

    • DanThorn said on 4th April 2010, 11:40

      So, if the McLaren’s and Ferrari’s had started with a huge wadge of fuel, overtook nobody and the lept up the field after their pitstops you’d find that more exciting than them actually passing cars on track? Wow.

    • David A said on 4th April 2010, 11:46

      If you comprehensively know the rest of the season will be boring, then why are you bothering to watch and whinge?

      • Rohan said on 4th April 2010, 11:53

        That’s a very good point. Mau well have to stop watching until refuelling is re-introduced. Seems a shame to waste 16 odd years following a sport only to stop because of some misguided rule changes.

        • David A said on 4th April 2010, 12:10

          Seriously, there was quite a good deal of overtaking this weekend and last weekend.

        • If refuelling meant that much to you it kinda sounds like you are a bigger fan of refuelling than F1.

        • DanThorn said on 4th April 2010, 12:11

          Introducing refuelling in the first place was the misguided rule change, not banning it again.

        • Daffid said on 4th April 2010, 15:15

          When you say following, did that include watching? How was this race worse than the average race with refuelling?

    • Patrickl said on 4th April 2010, 11:57

      We saw lots of great overtaking (Hamilton and Alguersuari), we saw different strategies (with a few drivers starting on harder tyres and Button coming in early)

      Basically there was a fight going somewhere along the field in almost every lap and yet … this race was boring?!?!?!?!

      *sigh*

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 4th April 2010, 12:04

      We saw a lot more passes than we did in many of last year’s races. And these were proper passes on the track, not random shuffling of the order because of fuel strategy.

      • That’s true but we might remember that we saw so many passes because of a wet qualifying session that produced an anomalous grid not because of a lack of refuelling.

        • Abuelo said on 4th April 2010, 12:39

          It just goes to show, that if the big boys don’t get prime slots in qualy, then they have to fight to get in the points. It makes the sport more entertaining, and shows that some drivers can’t cut it through the pack, whilst others push the car to destruction. And a few can pick up positions and nurse the car. All races should be started with the grid positions in reverse of the previous GP finishing order.
          As for rain, well, in qualy or the race actual, it proves to be a leveller for the newer,underperforming teams to compete against the top 5, so bring on the rain, and lets see racing. I don’t want to see F1 become a short version of the Le Mans procession again, thank ya very kindly.

          • All races should be started with the grid positions in reverse of the previous GP finishing order

            Absolutely not. F1 should be a meritocracy that rewards good performances, technological and sporting, not punishes them.

            There is more to F1 than overtaking and people should try and appreciate all aspects of F1.

          • Scribe said on 4th April 2010, 14:35

            Don’t know what you’d think about this but as an experiment what would people think about F1 running the GP2 format, minus the points for pole and fastest lap?

            Qualy run in normal fashion, for a feature race of roughly 150miles or 3/4 that tracks race distance. Top ten or 8 reversed on the grid for a sprint race of 50miles or 1/4 the race distance. 15 points for the feature win 10 for the sprint.

            You’d get messed up grids, purist grids, overtaking at the front, strategy, then flat out sprints, pit stops, an lasting the whole distance. Two race starts an first laps a weekend. Chances for minnows to shine without unfair disadvantage for the big teams. An you’d be forcing desingers to think more about overtaking, which I maintain is the the best way to solve that problem. If the designers have to really think about getting their cars past others the problem will start to go.

            This idea gets rubbished a lot but I don’t see why, what do you guys think?

          • I don’t like it.

            1 qualifying session. 1 200 mile race. Simple.

            All the rule changes are the biggest problem in F1, it sets a bad precedent. Take tennis for example.

            Tennis rules have been pretty much the same for the best part of one hundred years. No matter how technology has evolved (rackets, balls, television etc.) the rules and format have been steadfast. No matter how much one person has dominated (Federer, Sampras, Court, Graf) the integrity has remained and the rules unchanged. Technology has been added to aid the application of the rules. The tie breaker the one change of note 80 years since the rules were formalised.

            Tennis fans don’t moan about the rules of tennis. When there is a boring match they accept it. When the fast court men’s game became dominated by big servers they appreciated their art. Even when they question individual domination never do they call for a change in the rules, instead they place the onus on the other competitors to rise to the challenge.

            Every day there are hundreds of F1 fans calling for the rules to be changed because of the precedent set by the rule makers. It detracts from their enjoyment of the sport; most would be better off accepting the rules and enjoying what there is.

          • Scribe said on 4th April 2010, 16:15

            K,
            Tennis rules, well not exactly. In the days of Pete Sampras grass courts an Wimbledon was considered the height of boring because the courts were too fast an it was all serve and volley. What did they do, they slowed down the courts, serve an volley became less usefull and grass court tennis returned to popularity, Wimbledon is again producing some of the best tennis in the world. So there’s an example of them tweaking the rules to “improve the show” so to speak. An they did moan, oh did they moan, then the authorities fixed it. It was a massive problem an alternatives where tried, for the better.

            Also tennis isn’t really a comparable sport because the technology is limited, an the sport isn’t faced with masive problems directly related to technology. Humans haven’t really changed much since tennis began, but you’d have to say cars have been almost completly different every 10 years since the championship began.

            An you haven’t given reasons apart from, change is bad, to my idea. F1 does need to change unfortunately, in someways simply because as drag comes down an downforce goes up, drivers are going to start fainting in the corners again.

            My personal preferance would be to ban wings entirely. Then unban all the mechanical, an political mechanical bans implemented over the years. An give them four cylinder turbos. Overtaking, greener, quiker straights slower corners, larger overtaking zones, no dirty air problem. Make the cars just slightly more relavant to the rest of the industry this way an you’ll everyone will be happy.

          • Wimbledon is only one of the Grand Slams and serves now are pretty much just as fast as they have been. The courts have been slowed down but I’m not sure I’d consider that a rule change (it was actually in 2001 when they slowed the Wimbledon courts down after Sampras domination had ended). I don’t recall that much moaning, I don’t recall it being a massive problem (many players lamented the slowing of the courts) and I don’t recall them trying anything else. Initially they tried to deny doing it. On top of that Federer has been more dominant than Sampras, it is not considered boring, there are no calls to change the rules.

            But I mean you can’t tell me there has been anywhere near as much meddling as in F1 and I think this is noticeable in the attitude of the fans who appreciate Federer and don’t call for rule changes after every tournament.

            My initial point that F1 should be a meritocracy directly contradicts the idea of a sprint race with a reverse grid derived from the finishing order of the previous race.

            Historically such a change of format makes no sense.

            Conceptually I think people relate better to the single race; You have one race and the winner is the winner. Why confuse things by then having a second race?

            It would no-longer be a Grand Prix.

            The idea that all the designers have to do is think about how best make their car suitable for over taking and it will happen is misguided. They are already doing that by making their cars as fast as possible within the rules. After that it is the rule makers who need to change if they feel the need but there has been no real change in the average number of overtakes per race for the last 16 years.

            Personally I would like to see a loosening of the technical regulations with a view to green technologies, more stringent safety regulations and maybe something like the Hanford device.

            When you say “drivers are going to start fainting in the corners again” when have they ever fainted in corners? As far as I know they never have and the current G-forces are well within human tolerance particularly because they are not sustained.

          • Scribe said on 4th April 2010, 18:33

            Okay, my point is that tennis has changed, they slowed down the courts because of a perceived problem. I never said anything about dominance and the fact they denied doing it is irrelavant. There was lots of moaning about two ball points. Serve, return volley score. Not enough rallys boring games. Players lamenting the slowing of the courts is also irrelavant, we’re not talking about the players or indeed the drivers, we’re talking about the spectacle an the fans. I don’t remember any fans moaning about the slowing of the courts, because it made the tennis better, dominance never had anything to do with it, the tennis was good once they changed it so dominance doesn’t matter. Nor does it currently have a relavance in F1.

            A reason I suggested the GP2 format is because it provides both a pure grid, often with little overtaking because the fastest cars start first, an a mixed grid, where the faster cars have to fight there way foward, pleasing you would have thought, everyone.

            Tennis is still a very poor sport to compare F1 with though, everything about them from the excitment it provides to fans to the way it is played and watched could not be more different to F1. The cars change everyear, get more advanced and faster through the corners, pulling 5g now. At the end of the ground effect years drivers started experiancing tunneling, like fighter pilots an a few fainted. Tennis players don’t hit the ball 4km faster year on year, so obviously the rules don’t need to change. F1 changes at an incredible rate it’s part of the thrill, but also part of the problem.

            What do F1 fans want to see. Wheel to Wheel racing and overtaking, what is preventing this aero based cars. The designers find too much performance in this area to stop using it. An the more performance you gain from aero the more you loose behind another car. This idea, is less “misguided” an more common knowledge, the designers can’t think about overtaking aero is too good. So strip aero way back, by banning wings etc, or try my idea, where designers know they will loose lots of points if they only design there car for starting from the front.

            Also I don’t know what you mean by “Historically such a change of format makes no sense.” Historically qualifiying was flawed an they changed it till they got it right, which made sense. An sunday has never really been changed so the statement makes no sense.

            A Grand Prix as I understand it, to the modern defination which doesn’t really exist anyway, is a motor race, with racers using vehicles built to a formula, around a predetermined course racing no more than 200miles and for no more than 2hrs. People don’t exactly care about this, they care about the racing, if spliting this makes the race better people will understand. Some might prefer one race or the other just like some don’t watch qualifiying. It may well pull in an audience who don’t like the current format. An the feature race will still satisfy those that like the old format. And it would still be a Grand Prix, because a Grand Prix in the definition that matters is a race weekend.

            An F1 would stay a meritocracy, with the team who had done best leaving the weekend with the most points an bettered championship position you underestimate the public saying they wouldn’t undersatnd this, it’s not hard. It might not be as pure but over a championship the results would stay largely the same.

            Still my favoured idea is still the one at the bottom of my previous response. Aero has run it’s course in F1. It now ruins the racing an has lost it’s technological relavance.

          • Maybe my tennis example was a bit too distracting, my point is that constantly changing the rules adversely effects the enjoyment and appreciation of those who follow the sport. The fact that almost every F1 fan thinks they know the best set of rules by which to govern the sport means that many never have realistic expectations of the sport.

            The 2010 Bahrain GP is a case in point. Recently much has been made of F1′s attempts to encourage overtaking. One major rule change that was supposed to help this was the removal of in-race refuelling.

            When the season started everyone was excited to see F1 again and to see the results of the new overtaking friendly rules. At the end of the race many were very disappointed with what they perceived to be a severe lack of overtaking. This despite the fact that Bahrain has a high overtake average and this race was in itself higher than (the already high) average for this circuit.

            Based on a false perception people declared that the ban on refuelling was exasperating the difficulty in overtaking and serious calls for refuelling to be reintroduced were made (at the next race!). This was only deemed reasonable because rules are so frequently and flippantly changed in Formula 1.

            But we know that a race can be exciting for more reasons than overtaking, we want action, drama, incidents. Bahrain generally isn’t like this and we can look at past races and see it isn’t. Because people tuned in expecting to see the “new rules designed to specifically produce more overtaking” we forgot about this. At the end we were left disappointed by was actually probably a better than average Bahrain GP.

            If however the season opener had been staged at it’s more regular venue in Melbourne the chances are we would have seen an action pact incident filled race because that’s what Melbourne usually produces. People would have been happier and the ridiculous rule changing debates would not have been perpetuated.

            What do F1 fans want to see. Wheel to Wheel racing and overtaking

            I don’t dispute this but I’d also add that fans want high technology, a connection with the sports history, with famous drivers, teams and brands automotive or otherwise. Arguably these things are more important to it’s success than overtaking and “wheel to wheel racing”. F1 is after all already the most popular form of motorsport and one of the most popular sports on the planet.

            What I find misguided is blaming designers when they are so heavily restricted by the rules. There are lots of solutions some better than others but while they are prohibited by the rules there is nothing designers can do. The rules are so tight they practically design the car themselves. One of the few areas for expression is the aero. In such a climate to blame the designers is wrong.

            Do you have any specific example and a reference for a driver experiencing “tunnelling” and/or passing out? It’s just that I find it hard to believe. 5G is under braking not cornering and is well within average human tolerance either way. In 1960 NASA studies found that untrained humans can sustain horizontal g-forces of around 15G for several minutes. The idea that an F1 driver might pass out under 5G of breaking or 3G in turning I find hard to believe without a specific example.

          • Scribe said on 5th April 2010, 15:37

            First the example, Nelson Piquet famously fainted on the podium due to what was later diagnosed as blood preassure problems due to lateral g. Other factors at play there but consider paribolica, the lateral g in that corner during ground effects would require blood restrictor suits eventually. An i’m sure the 15g Nasa test would have been wearing blood restrictors in there legs. 15g would result in blood being drain from one half of the body, unless blood restrictors were worn which im sure they must have been.

            An i’m not blaming the designers, I said that they can’t stop using aero because of the gains to be found in it. Which seems to be what you’ve said this time, due to the rules. Well because the fastest qualifier tends to have the best aero it’s aero thats exploited, hence the overtaking problem. So clearly theres two answers, one massively restrict aero in favour of mechanics, in my opinion banning wings would be the best way to do this an there are many mechanical rules which can be loosened. This would be the best option.

            Or change the format, so that designers are forced to consider that their car will have to overtake to win in everysingle race. I belive my format idea is a good way of doing this without having to consider ridiculous ideas like ballast an fully reversed grids. Each weekend you get a pure three quarters grand prix distance race. An a mixed up sprint race, giving the veiwer both pure racing an exciting sprinting.

            I realise that the rules get changed too much but there is a very definate problem in F1. Currently the formula, through a myriad of mistakes, neccassary saftey rules, political bans, knee jerk changed and suppliers interests has left us with a form of racing where you need to be going about 2.5 seconds a lap faster than the car in front of you to overtake, an strategy is serveley limited meaning gambles that might produce that kind of descrepency are equaly limited. Now freeing up tyre rules will help change this but it still leaves the aero problem.

            Now you say that F1 fans want to see the height of technology on F1 cars. An I agree, however areo isn’t really an important part of that. If aero was stripped way back, by banning wings, although not necessarily diffusers as they are much less sensitive to dirty air, I don’t think to many tears would be shed. F1 aero is amazing but not really relavant outside F1. However if mechanics where to be freed up, an lots of F1 mechanical technology does find itself onto everyday cars, F1 could stay or become much more the technical pinicale in an area that matters, while cutting way back on area that no one really cares that much about and ruins the racing.

            I would dispute though that high technology is more important than good racing, or indeed historic teams. Good racing is whats important an good racing means faster cars must be able, through drivers skill be able to pass. Tension, strategy, drama are all heightened if this is possible. The historic teams an brands where made historic because they participated in good racing.

            Now Australia was a great race, not because of the track, though it is a great track but because of the rain. Australia an to an extent Malaysia merley masked the problems F1 has. When the track dried out, the problem was still there. I don’t think midseason rule changes are a good thing, but I do belive the rules should be changed because of the problem aero now causes, it is the elephant in the room the teams an FIA all ignore. Remove aero an loosen the regs in every other area except saftey an you’ll have a better formula.

          • Do you ever worry that your posts are becoming too long? I know I do ;)

            The 15G figure relates to lateral G which is what F1 drivers most commonly experience. Tolerance figures for vertical G are much lower, around 5G without a g-suit but this needs to be sustained to induce G-LOC. So for example Turn 8 at Istanbul Park sees lateral G up to 5 but only for a very very short time. After 40 laps of this your neck might go but it wouldn’t cause G-LOC. To pass out you’d need to continuously experience such forces vertically for a sustained period, not laterally for a couple of seconds.

            Everything I have found on Piquet sights high cockpit and ambient temperatures coupled with the gruelling nature of the race, not G force. But I think we can both agree that F1 drivers were not as fit then as they are now.

            http://www.redbullairrace.com/cs/Satellite/en_air/Video/G-Force-021238615470551?p=1238611393596

            I would dispute though that high technology is more important than good racing

            So why isn’t Formula Renault or GP2 more popular?

            Australia was a great race, not because of the track

            Melbourne is unique in sharing qualities with both regular circuits and street circuits and often produces action packed, incident filled races (11 safety cars in the last 9 races) and anomalous results.

          • Scribe said on 6th April 2010, 0:22

            I did say I thought Australia was a great track. But I do believe that the race we saw was made great by the rain an not the track. The race was great due to the overtaking that went on. Not the safety car, or the anomalous result. Kubica’s drive was only exciting when Hamilton came up behind him. Otherwise it was a magnificent drive but hardly great telly.

            An the fact that GP2 or Formula Renault isn’t more , well forgive me for saying so but that is a bit of a naughty question. Why is the Championship less popular than the Premiership, or better than that why is the Indycar series more popular than Indy Lights. It’s not the technology in Indycar. Technology, is more important to me an you than a great deal of formula 1 fans. Formula Ford is widely agreed to constantly produce the best open wheel racing, season on season race by race. An yet no ones heard of it. Because it’s not perceived to be the top class, all the same it’s not because the technology is worse, it’s because GP2 ect are feeder series to Formula 1. GP2 drivers are fighting to get into Formula 1, so why watch those struggling to make it when you can watch those who have made it? An they aren’t promoted in the same way, an the stakes aren’t as high, an the prize in the end is the top sanctioned prize in F1, an not in Formula Ford.

            Do you think the current set of F1 rules are good, or likely to keep the fans excited? What do you think of the banning wings loosening mechanics idea? How would you make F1 better for the viewers, both fanatic an casual?

            An yes, a wee bit long. Probably only us reading these posts but it’s been a great discussion, just what F1 Fanatic is for. Hope the forum comes back soon.

          • The safety cars in Australia are indicative of incidents which often for one reason or another provide excitement or interest. Anomalous results are good because they mean that people have the chance to see something different which is good. Yes I agree the rain played a part but I think Melbourne usually throws up a good race.

            Yes you’re right it is a bit of a naughty question because there are lots of factors but I’ll counter by saying that UI think the biggest factor is seeing the best drivers in the best cars. The idea that F1 has the best cars is central to it’s appeal and is what makes it the top class.

            Do you think the current set of F1 rules are good, or likely to keep the fans excited?

            In many regards I think they are better than they have been for a good while. It doesn’t matter what fans think of the current rules because they are definitely going to change for next season. Before we even know how good or exciting these rules can be we have committed to change.

            What do you think of the banning wings loosening mechanics idea?

            I’m pro-technology, with regards to F1, so I like rules (or a lack of rules) that allow for more innovation.

            The banning of wings by itself I’m less keen on; it depends what else would be done along side such a rule. Generally I’m against banning things on any grounds other than safety.

            How would you make F1 better for the viewers, both fanatic an casual?

            My own view of how F1 should be is very different from where we are. The first thing I would do would be to set up a new independent governing body free of nepotism, conflicting interests and with full transparency. The second thing I would do is liberate the commercial rights and give control to the governing body with all the profits going back into motorsport, any profits not going back into motorsport should be going to charity.

            I think this would go a long way to making the sport better for everyone in every way.

            After that I would have two main objectives for the sport.

            One: F1 must be the world leader in development of clean and sustainable technology.

            Two: F1 must be indisputably the fastest most competitive form of motorsport.

            Objective one: With F1′s hyper rate of development it could easily become the world leader of any technology it adopts. This would include 100% recyclable materials, clean production processes, clean emissions, clean infrastructure, clean by-products.

            Objective two: The only barrier to this is safety. Safety must be taken to a much more extreme level and would require radical innovation in this area. It would also require the sport to be designed around safety to a greater extent.

          • Scribe said on 6th April 2010, 23:23

            I would agree with most of your objectives for improving F1, especially making F1 greener an therefore a contributor to making the motor industry cleaner.

            I once wondered if it would be possible to declare that in 5 years the engines must emit zero green house gasses. The contructors get enough time to develop either hydrogen or battery engines, benefiting literally everyone.

            I would mention though that aerodynamics, specifically downforce is one of the least efficient and most polluting areas of F1. I remember saying Anothony Davidson saying during Free Practice for the Australian Grand Prix that if a F1 engine was placed in a standard hatch back, example he used being a Prius it would be more efficient than a Priuses engine (bit of an annecdotal example but I take his word for it). The drag created by all that downforce makes fuel consumption incredibly inefficient, another reason to slash downforce. If you banned wings and an freed up mechanics you’d gain efficieny as power is translated to grip more effectivley through mechanics than aero, which is simply wasted on straights. Banning wings wouldn’t stop F1 from being the best drivers in the best cars, as there would still be the same incredible technology elsewhere. But it would make the sport greener and improve the racing.

          • Modern F1 cars are a bit like down-force generating machines. They generate down force very aggressively. It is inefficient when an F1 car generates down force when it doesn’t need it but it is also wise to always generate enough down force to counteract any lift that could be experienced. Movable wings, stalled wings or F-Ducts etc are a good solution. Ground effect would also allow for less top side aero and consequently a cleaner wake.

            Development of clean and sustainable technologies would have infinite applications in the wider world outside of motorsport. Take for example 100% recyclable materials that are made by a clean process. If every component in an F1 car was made from such materials and manufactured by a clean process this could revolutionize manufacturing and design the world over. And because the pace of development is so high in F1 I think it quickly find feasible solutions.

            With regards to implementing change one of the best ways of doing so would be sporting incentive. For example:

            Lets say from 2012 we will open engine regulations to any manor or form of clean, sustainable energy (apart from nuclear). Ideally cars will have 100% clean emissions and by-products. Any car that achieves this will meet weight X with or without the use of ballast. Any car that utilizes hybrid technology as a fundamental component of their engine incurs a significant weight penalty (X + extra ballast Y). Any car that has neither a 100 % clean or hybridized engine has even more penalty ballast (X + Y + Z). In the first season of such a rule I’d bet every car would have a hybrid engine and from then on it would be only a matter of time before we had the ideal.

      • martinb said on 4th April 2010, 13:07

        Surprisingly few passes because of fresh tyres.

  2. masiullah said on 4th April 2010, 11:36

    I was a very nice drive from Hamilton, Alonso, Massa from the back of the field which made the race a bit of intresting. Its very hard to digest that many people praise kubica like any thing but I ask one question what is spectacular about kubica and as far as I know he is also not a good overtaker and just takes the car home without any mistakes?

    • George said on 4th April 2010, 11:50

      He had no chance to catch the guys in front of him, but he got the most out of the car and was very solid in 4th. Not as remarkable as his Australia result but still worthy of praise I think.

    • Patrickl said on 4th April 2010, 12:26

      Well a top 4 finish for Kubica would be a great achievement under normal conditions.

      I do hope we finally get some races where the actual car and driver strengths determine the finish result though.

      These “weather lottery” races might be fun to watch, but it’s quite unsatisfactory too.

    • Daffid said on 4th April 2010, 15:20

      He’s fast and doesn’t make mistakes. He can race against people in a faster car (as in Oz) and keep them behind. Give him the right car I daresay he could overtake pretty well too. what more do you want? No mistakes under pressure and consistent speed are the first two prerequisites of a good driver. How good we may not yet know, but he’s looked very strong to me this year.

      • Scribe said on 7th April 2010, 17:11

        An telling point of info on Kubica is how highly the other drivers rate him. Both Hamilton and Alonso praise him to the skies.

  3. K. Chandra Shekhar said on 4th April 2010, 11:39

    A boring race made spectacular by Lewis & Alonso. Still passing is very difficult.

  4. steph90 said on 4th April 2010, 11:41

    Gutted for Fernando but he was just epic today. I don’t know how he coped but he did.
    Massa pretty much done the job even if he couldn’t get round the STR. Soon as he was free he was impressive and had good pace and did get round Button. For me, Alonso is still a class ahead at this stage but Massa is getting the results and he doesn’t need to do much more. He needs a race win though for that peace of mind for him.
    Mclaren had the key ingrediants to charge with Hamilton and the F duct. Nice to see Petrov fighting back.

    • George said on 4th April 2010, 11:49

      Yes I feel so bad for Alonso, I cant believe he managed to keep his car on the track with that problem, only to lose his engine on the last lap.

      • Zahir said on 4th April 2010, 12:35

        I think that blow up isnt as bad for Alonso as some might think. That gearbox problem was obviously putting a strain on the engine and it was probably inevitable that it would blow eventually. Better for him that it blew at this race and only loosing him 2 points(i think) then Ferrari using that engine at the next race where he could have been leading and loosing 25.

        On the race, i think it was as good as it can get for a dry race with no safety car. As a Hamilton fan delighted with the result but I also dont think that people are giving Felipe enough credit. He made up just as many places as Ham and pulled off a great move on Button despite the straight line speed deficit, he was superb today.

        • steph90 said on 4th April 2010, 13:09

          ” He made up just as many places as Ham and pulled off a great move on Button despite the straight line speed deficit, he was superb today.”
          Never thought someone would defend Massa more than me! :D Nice to see but maybe I’ve been harsh on him then… :P

    • Out of his 6 team mates Massa has partnered 4 World Champions and the other two were Heidfeld and Fisichella. I think he’s done pretty well on average and consistently improved. To me he’s doing pretty well whilst still not looking quite like his old self so I expect him to do better in the future.

  5. slr said on 4th April 2010, 12:12

    6/10.

    Enjoyed the race as a whole. Middle part was a bit processional, but still good

    My brother was annoyed about having to wake up to F1, and complained to me, begging to watch the race in different room in the house. He ruined the race a bit for me. I’ll have to go on BBC I Player later, and watch it in peace.

  6. jayb said on 4th April 2010, 12:35

    6/10 Good driving from lewis and alonso but it was a worry that lewis could not even get a sniff of a pass against Sutil for well over 20 laps.

  7. martinb said on 4th April 2010, 12:55

    I was hoping for a Hamilton/Alonso duel as they cut through back markers.

    Maybe next time.

  8. Abuelo said on 4th April 2010, 12:55

    I enjoyed the race in general:
    Despite the random ramblings of Ledgard.
    It just goes to show, that if the big boys don’t get prime slots in qualy, then they have to fight to get in the points. It makes the sport more entertaining, and shows that some drivers can’t cut it through the pack, whilst others push the car to destruction. And a few can pick up positions and nurse the car.
    All races should be started with the grid positions in reverse of the previous GP finishing order. Check out the final/grid positions. With the exeption of the top 5 all were improvers, which means “passing”. Look at Bahrain and Oz, no comparison. Although Oz was more entertaining in its own right.

    As for rain, well, in qualy or the race actual, it proves to be a leveller for the newer,underperforming teams to compete against the top 5, so bring on the rain, and lets see racing. I don’t want to see F1 become a short version of the Le Mans procession again, thank ya very kindly.

    Happy watching,

  9. martinb said on 4th April 2010, 13:02

    Not having Live Timing the first couple of laps was infuriating. (I “watch” with Live Timing and Keith’s live blog — don’t have a TV or broadband.)

  10. Abuelo said on 4th April 2010, 13:03

    I enjoyed the race in general:
    Despite the random ramblings of Ledgard.
    But if the big boys don’t get prime slots in qualy, then they have to fight to get in the points. It makes the sport more entertaining, and shows that some drivers can’t cut it through the pack, whilst others push the car to destruction. And a few can pick up positions and nurse the car.
    All races should be started with the grid positions in reverse of the previous GP finishing order. Check out the final/grid positions. With the exeption of the top 5 all were improvers, which means “passing”. Look at Bahrain and Oz, no comparison. Although Oz was more entertaining in its own right.

    As for rain, well, in qualy or the race actual, it proves to be a leveller for the newer,underperforming teams to compete against the top 5, so bring on the rain, and lets see racing. I don’t want to see F1 become a short version of the Le Mans procession again, thank ya very kindly.

    Happy watching,

  11. 7/10, would of been better if Alonso didn’t have problems with his car.

    Was a gutsy call by McLaren for Hamilton to stay out sooooooo long hoping for it to rain and then jumping the whole grid.

    also would of been more action in the middle if Rubens didn’t stall on the start line….again.

  12. BBT said on 4th April 2010, 14:43

    The grid order really didn’t make it any better IMO. It just made the race easy for RBR.
    I now realise that its not overtaking that makes the race interesting its people fighting for the podium. Even in Bor-rain there was overtaking but it was at the wrong end of the grid.
    Not a bad race but would of been better if Ferrari and Mclaren had been around the front to keep RBR honest.

    BTW nothing against RBR nice to see the 1 – 2 just disappointing they didn’t have to work as hard as you normally would for it.

  13. Icthyes said on 4th April 2010, 15:08

    Good race, plenty of bits of action, but aero rules prevented more overtaking. Not a classic, but better than Bahrain. I wish Webber hadn’t let Vettel by easier, or Red Bull pitted him first or had the pitstop not been screwed up, it would have probably made for a good scrap at the front

  14. zark said on 4th April 2010, 15:40

    Not bad, not bad at all. Maybe we should just have a grid lottery instead of qualifying…

  15. sato113 said on 4th April 2010, 16:11

    keith where have the descriptions gone next to the rating numbers? it was a nice addition but not that important, but i felt it helped me decided which rating to give.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.