“It’s unbelievable how close it is” – Hamilton

F1 Fanatic round-up

Lewis Hamilton, McLaren, Montreal, 2012In the round-up: Lewis Hamilton says the championship is “unbelievably” close as he leads seven drivers covered by 25 points.

Links

Top F1 links from the past 24 hours:

Canadian GP – Conference 4 (FIA)

“It?s unbelievable to see just how close it is. We got a win and 25 points and I only have a two point lead, so it?s incredible how close it is and I think it will stay that close throughout the year. Again, it just highlights how important consistency is.”

Mercedes apologises to Schumacher (Autosport)

Ross Brawn: “He suffered a hydraulic issue which left his DRS jammed open and it was not possible to fix it in race conditions. I can only apologise to Michael for a further technical failure.”

Red Bull ready to solve tyre mystery (The Telegraph)

“[Christian] Horner said he felt his team were well placed to win this year?s ‘race within the race'; understanding this year?s rule changes, and in particular the extremely sensitive Pirelli tyres.”

Q&A with Mercedes? Nico Rosberg (F1)

“Everybody is really close out there. Take Monaco. We had the best car there whereas here it wasn?t the case. So it is bit up and down from track to track. I think in the end it is just important to be as consistent as possible and then there will come a track where you again have the fastest car. And then there you will win again. Hopefully!”

James Allen via Twitter

“Ron Dennis says ‘Lewis last contract was signed at a time when the economy was slightly different.’ Different expectations this time…”

Timo Glock’s 2004 maiden F1 race memorable (Montreal Gazette)

“‘You?re going racing, son,’ [Eddie] Jordan told his 22-year-old test- and practice-session driver in as many words.”

Jacques Villeneuve is still a spoiled brat (The Vancouver Sun)

“You could put everything Villeneuve knows about the struggle to pay tuition ?ǣ the struggle of life in general ?ǣ in a thimble, with room to spare. This is the privileged Little Prince who got his education at a Swiss boarding school, then parlayed some talent and his father?s name into a ride with what was then an excellent Williams team.”

Comment of the day

Lots of praise for yesterday’s race but also a lot of criticism about DRS. Guilherme makes two points:

The DRS zone was silly. Quite a few of those passes would have happened anyway, but they would be more exciting without the DRS as they would be battiling till the braking zone for position, but no, they just storm past 400 meters before the corner.

I bet it would be much better if the zone was in the pit straight or in the run for the final hairpin.

While we?re talking about DRS, didn?t they all say last year that, if the DRS failed while opened, then it would be shut down automatically purely form the aerodynamic pressure on the wing? I guess Schumacher must be wondering that too…
Guilherme

From the forum

Happy birthday!

No F1 Fanatic birthdays today.

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Jo Bonnier, who scored his single F1 win for BRM in the 1959 Dutch Grand Prix, was killed 40 years ago today during the Le Mans 24 Hours.

Image ?? McLaren/Hoch Zwei

Advert | Go Ad-free

108 comments on “It’s unbelievable how close it is” – Hamilton

  1. icemangrins (@icemangrins) said on 11th June 2012, 0:16

    This is incredibly cool for the 2012 formula 1 season to have a brand new 7th different race winner. I’m still routing for a Iceman, Schumi and a Felipe win this year. That would make a world record 10 winners in a single season.

    I guess for Michael and Ross – Time is running out and they have to make a decision sooner than later. With the various excuses regarding the technical issues with the car, the other guy has a 65 points lead. Extreme bad luck… very unfortunate.

  2. marcusbreese (@marcusbreese) said on 11th June 2012, 0:22

    Well said The Vancouver Sun. All weekend on Sky Villeneuve seemed to be having contrary (and bizarre) views. Especially on Sunday, all that guff about the Lotus being far and away the best car and the drivers radically underperforming. Certainly a good car, certainly they should be doing a little better, but nowhere near as good as he was making out.

    Keith, just wanted to say how much I enjoy these round ups, I think they are great.

    • matt90 (@matt90) said on 11th June 2012, 2:18

      He said Raikkonen was under-performing and the Lotus was brilliant, based purely on Alonso crushing Grosjean in 09, assuming Grosjean is no better now and that if Raikkonen is good then he should also be crushing him. Hard to take somebody saying that seriously.

    • xeroxpt (@) said on 11th June 2012, 2:34

      I think that Villeneuve is right and listening to Jacques live is much different from the papers he didnt say something wrong actually I though he was quite reasonable Lotus could have already won several times

      • Fer no.65 (@fer-no65) said on 11th June 2012, 4:44

        @ukfanatic It wasn’t REALLY because of the drivers only, was it? The team failed strategically many times and somehow they didn’t make it stick. Afterall, it took Hamilton 7 races to finally win a race, and which such unpredictability, it’s not hard to see why. Team errors appart, winning isn’t as straightforward as before. All has to come together that day, and for Lotus it has not happened yet.

        JV was making assumptions about Kimi and Grosjean that don’t quite work. As @matt90 says, he said Grosjean wasn’t particularly good based on his performances back in 2009 (a midseason drive) and that Kimi isn’t even beating him, thus implying he’s not “that good”, maybe.

        And really, it’s hard to give an opinion about something you were lucky not to go through. Maybe the protests are wrong and he’s right, but for someone as “lucky” in life as JV, he’s not really in a position to make such remarks.

        • xeroxpt (@) said on 11th June 2012, 22:10

          I said that he was quite reasonable, despite that I dont like him much but i thought i was going to disagree with his philosophy sometimes i get the impression that he doenst watch enough F1, and you know learning how he grew I have the same impression as you, he can’t make such remarks, I actually agree with you about Lotus but i also agree with Villeneuve, Hamilton or Alonso could have won with that car lotus didnt screw up the pit stops did they?

    • Mike (@mike) said on 11th June 2012, 3:52

      It’s not well said at all, it’s a rambling rant that throws out any insult it can find in an attempt to belittle.

      For example. using Monaco as a tax haven, name an F1 driver who doesn’t?

      About his views about Lotus, I’m sorry, but not only is he allowed to have his own personal opinions, but if someone puts a microphone in front of him, you can’t hold it against him when her airs those views.

      And we do the exact same thing, how many people blame Red Bull’s car for Vettel doing so well? What if Vettel really is every bit as good as Alonso? What if he is better?

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 11th June 2012, 15:16

      Hm, I actually thought it was nice to hear a different voice and he did have something to say @marcusbreese, a lot more than other ex-drivers would have. Not that I agree with everything, or even most, of what he had to say, but hey, its his opinion and gets the discussion going.

      The article’s writer really seems to have a bit of a grudge with JV. Come on is this a guy who grew up in the jetset life? Sure, but don’t forget that at first they had been spending years in a trailer a snowmobile races before Gilles got a break in F1. I do think he might have missed a father in his life during his teenage years, but that is hardly something we should hold against him, is it.

      • bosyber (@bosyber) said on 12th June 2012, 12:06

        Well said @bascb, JV was an interesting addition to the Sky team, it caused good discussions on tv, though he was certainly not always right (I recall Andretti sr. having quite a different opinion of things like DRS …), but that doesn’t mean he should go away.

        And I also think it is nice to have a Candadian GP+WDC winner at a Canadian race. For me the whole Canada sky show worked really wel with him in it. I do agree that it seems as if he doesn’t follow F1 very closely, but that also gives a bit of an outside perspective I suppose. As long as Herbert and Brundle correct him, that’s fine (they should do that more though, esp. Brundle: be critical of what people say, including their team, but that’s another matter).

        The article is a bit like JV: outspoken, certainly not always with words/tone you agree with, but an interesting read with some truth to it, but probably on the whole lacking in specific knowledge to fully credit what’s been said. Reading the rest of the article, the tone seems to be a feature, nothing against JV in particular (again, a bit like JV ;)

    • HewisLamilton said on 11th June 2012, 17:30

      The Vancouver Sun simply described the way it is for any F1 driver. How many have had hardship and struggle for cash to live? Zero.

      And to imply JV only won a WDC because of his name and that he drove a dominent Williams is more tripe. So if one were to use this logic, then Damon Hill falls in the same category that the Sun paints JV into? It takes more than a name and a good car to win a WDC.

      It sounds to me as if a jilted reported decided to blast JV.

      • Jay Menon (@jaymenon10) said on 12th June 2012, 1:42

        Absolutely agree with HewisLamilton.

        Why cant JV express his opinion? Everybody has a right to one. Most F1 drivers come from reasonably affluent families, there is no way a poor person can afford to race, the cost of the sport doesnt allow that.

        This guy from The Sun has a bone to pick with JV, reading the rest of that article he appears to be whinging just about everything else, seem like a bit of tosser to me.

        I like JV, he isnt afraid to voice his opinion, he never has been and never will be. Its sad that F1 has lost a bit of that character, where drivers these days are so PC PR coached. People never like drivers that have forth right..i.e. JV, Eddie Irvine, David Coulthard, Montoya etc..I miss those guys!!

        • Ben Curly (@ben-curly) said on 12th June 2012, 9:09

          JV can express his opinion all he wants, but we have the right to call him out on it. He can say whatever he wants, but if he says something stupid, he should expect criticism.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 11th June 2012, 22:01

      @marcusbreese Thanks very much!

      • Robbie (@robbie) said on 12th June 2012, 14:31

        I didn’t hear a lot of the JV quotes, but what I heard I agreed with. And I think the Vancouver Sun just comes across as bitter. It is not JV’s fault as to his upbringing. As has been pointed out, his early memories are of travelling across Canada in a motorhome while his Dad struggled to eek out a living racing skidoos. So he definitely was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth. And then we all know what happened to GV in his career and in his death. And that happened to leave JV and family wealthy and advantaged. What was JV to do about that. Refuse it all? As a kid?

        I think it is ridiculous of the Sun to try to tell us who is qualified and who is not, to have an opinion on the protesters in Montreal. The fact is, they have the lowest tuition fees in North America, and they are protesting a hike of about $250 per year, and rather want it for free. As JV pointed out, that ‘free’ education would have to be paid for by someone. Namely the taxpayers. Anyway, I could go on and on about that, but this is about JV, and JV is entitled to his opinion no matter his background. Makes me wonder how skewed the Vancouver Sun’s reporting is when they obviously qualify who is allowed an opinion and who isn’t. And here I thought Canada was a free country.

  3. While we’re talking about DRS, didn’t they all say last year that, if the DRS failed while opened, then it would be shut down automatically purely form the aerodynamic pressure on the wing? I guess Schumacher must be wondering that too…

    Yes, I seem to remember watching a video in which Schumacher explained exactly that mechanism, just before DRS made its debut!

    With regard to the tires…I know it’s not cool to say things like this, but I can’t help thinking it anyway after today: When two of the guys on the podium are like, “Whoa, podium, seriously?! Never saw that coming!” and two guys who normally *would* have been on the podium are like, “No, for real — THIS TIME we’ve totally learned the ways of the tires! Everything will be different next time! Honest!” I can start to see the point people are making when they criticize the lottery-like nature of the current season… Still, never a dull moment! Maybe we’ll end up with twenty different winners! ;-)

      • Funkyf1 (@funkyf1) said on 11th June 2012, 5:17

        That video deserves COTD, MSC will be watching that one in his sleep.

      • subsailorfl said on 12th June 2012, 20:59

        The failure he had appears to be the positioning of a solenoid operated three way valve that stuck and didn’t reposition which kept it open. On a loss of hydraulics he was right but he didn’t lose hydraulic pressure. Two solenoids in series would provide that failsafe so that if one failed the other one should still work.

    • Fer no.65 (@fer-no65) said on 11th June 2012, 2:24

      @aka_robyn Maybe, but it’s all about strategy… there was a time when sometimes 3 stops were better than 2 stops because of the fuel load. And sometimes the 3 stopper looked like the good one, only that they lost to the 2 stopper because of a safety car or whatever. Or simply on pace alone.

      Nowadays, there’s an strategic element to the tyres, in which you have to make your strategy work if you want to be up there. Grosjean and Alonso had the exact same strategy, but Alonso killed his tyres early on, and Grosjean was able to look after them and finish second.

      I think it’s not really fair to judge the Pirellis after such a race in Canada. Both strategies worked reasonably well, and that’s two ways to go for every car in the grid. I think the balance is pretty okay now.

      If only they got the DRS right…

      • bananarama (@bananarama) said on 11th June 2012, 10:15

        @fer-no65
        I am a big fan of different strategies, if possible there should be people with one two and three stop strategies in contention for the win until the end! BUT: I want them to be able to think of different strategies before the race, and going into the race with a plan (that might change durig the race, but still based on a plan). What we have now is everyone going into the race with a plan, then finding out if it wors or not and then gambling on a new strategy that they might find out was good or bad but don’t really know why (for their car and that driver it worked, for the other driver or a driver with same strategy in different car it doesn’t). The situation we have is more of a lottery than strategy and I don’t particularly like that.
        If at least it would produce interesting racing but it only produces people either storming past with new tyres or flying past with DRS and those two don’t excite me either.

        But thats how it is and I accept it and I believe in the end it will always be the best few drivers finishing somewhere up there because they can make anything work you throw at them and THAT is actually something I enjoy.

        • matt90 (@matt90) said on 11th June 2012, 11:49

          Where was the lottery element in this race? I really didn’t see it at all. I saw two divers lose out because their cars weren’t as good at managing their tyres, particularly having used tyre-life by keeping pace with somebody who was doing 2 stops. And I saw two drivers succeed because their pace was likely a bit calmer and they were drivers cars notorious for managing their tyres well. A lottery suggests it was random, but it all makes perfect sense. Hamilton would have had the same problem, but McLaren were wise to it and actually understood their rivals tyre performance better than they did. Both Massa and Webber had to pit in the same cars as their ailing team mates. And Raikkonen and Kobayashi both made 1-stopping work (although I don’t know if they were struggling at the end or not, only that they made it to the end).

          • bananarama (@bananarama) said on 11th June 2012, 15:19

            Whitmarsh said after the race that they guessed the tyres wouldn’t last until the end and Ferrari guessed Alonso might have a few more laps of life in his tyres than his teammate managed to have. Lotus guessed Grosjean should drive at a certain pace when actually his car preserved the tyres so that a lot of life was left in them at the end (so they guessed the possible pace of the car wrong and got lucky in the last couple of laps. Seems like a load of guesswork and little strategy to me.

          • matt90 (@matt90) said on 12th June 2012, 0:49

            Guessing is all it ever is. It’s just that the predictions are a little harder than normal because teams are still building their knowledge. And two of those guesses were correct. And of course there was strategy. There is always strategy- you can’t have a race without strategy.

          • Ben Curly (@ben-curly) said on 12th June 2012, 9:34

            @matt90

            Guessing is all it ever is.

            I disagree. Strategy shouldn’t be based on guesswork. In fact it should be anything but that. It should be based on capabilities of the car and the driver. It should be based on in-depth knowledge of your team and on observations of your opponents. It definitely shouldn’t be based on a coin toss. When you make a guess based on luck, you may come out on top and some of your predictions might be correct, but that isn’t a good foundation for strategy.

          • matt90 (@matt90) said on 12th June 2012, 9:44

            I never said it was a guess based on luck. It’s an educated guess, based on what you think you know, but in F1 that is never certain, therefore is a guess, at least to an extent. And while teams are still building the knowledge of both tyres and the capabilities of their cars, that guess will be far less certain.

          • Ben Curly (@ben-curly) said on 12th June 2012, 10:27

            @matt90
            It’s our second year with Pirelli and everyone is still uncertain. What’s assured is that tyres are overly sensitive to outside conditions, that their performance is often independent of the car or the driver, and that they are the crucial component of the whole package.

            Predicting behaviour of the tyres is in essence a coin toss. About half of the teams get it right, while the other half is wrong, sometimes quite dramatically. It varies from race to race, with no clear pattern emerging. Sure, the races are exciting, but Mario Kart is exciting too. It’s not the kind of excitement many F1 fans want.

          • bosyber (@bosyber) said on 12th June 2012, 12:14

            Well, in a way it doesn’t matter all that much: even if you carefully plan your strategy, as best as you can predicting everything, and fine tune it; if your car and driver do exactly the same as what you thought would happen, but someone else does something different (and they all are independent actors …) and either crashes (canada, remember), perhaps even into you, or just has much better pace/tyres than you knew/they expected, you might still not win.

            Imagine how frustrating that would be: everything done right, got all the guesses right, but it wasn’t enough.

            Not sure that’s better than knowing there’s a clear margin on unpredictability to the strategy really.

            In a way, that’s where RBR were with Vettel I think: got pole, got away clean, but had to pit earlier than HAM,ALO, and from there on, they must have known they’d be fighting for podium at most unless someone made a mistake, bc. they didn not have the pace on those tyres. [Note how ALO before race says he is wary of HAM, HAM worried about ALO, not so much about VET: Friday showed they had more pace/tyre life] Others were there last year too very often. Not a great place to be really.

    • damonsmedley (@damonsmedley) said on 11th June 2012, 3:46

      @aka_robyn That comment basically sums up how I’ve been feeling about the races. I’m nonplussed. I cannot make my mind up as to whether I like it or not. It’s fun, but is it right when races are won and lost so easily when it’s not the driver’s fault?

      • Mike (@mike) said on 11th June 2012, 3:56

        Well, that’s the nature of having tires that wear, Grosjean was able to make them last and work late in the race, whereas Alonso wasn’t. It’s the teams job to learn and understand how the tyres work and it’s to Pirrellis credit that it’s difficult.

        Personally, I’m actually disappointed Alonso didn’t win it, those laps before his first pit stop were the stuff of legends.

    • vjanik said on 11th June 2012, 9:02

      I had an argument on this site about this before the DRS was raced. I was suggesting that we could see the flap “stuck” in the open position and that it could be a safety concern. I was assured that this was impossible by many people. They were saying that the closed position is default and that the aero would push the flap down in case of failure. Not very convincing if you understand anything about hydraulics and how powerful it is.

      It put a smile on my face seeing Schumi’s failure yesterday. And its not because i dont like Schumi..

  4. Matty No 2 (@mattynotwo) said on 11th June 2012, 0:27

    I think we need to take all of the latest round of DRS critisim with a grain of salt. It’s pretty obvious, that thier is going to be a bunch of grumpy, upset, ALO and VET fans looking to point fingers, at something, anything, as to why thier favorite drivers could’nt have a nice, easy,cruise to podium finish.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 11th June 2012, 0:40

      Not a backer of ALO and VET, missed the race as well ( pvr failure) but it does sound from the race report that there were very few protracted battles for position but plenty of DRS passes, not my idea of “racing”, it also appears that the teams favouring ultimate top-speed over ultimate downforce were rewarded with podiums.

      • Matty No 2 (@mattynotwo) said on 11th June 2012, 0:52

        @hohum Thier was heaps of battles, all through the field, it was really good. Obviously, if thier was’nt battles, people would have said the race was a bore-fest.

        • Matty No 2 (@mattynotwo) said on 11th June 2012, 2:43

          I will also add that, thier were plenty of times, when a trailing car had DRS activated, and did’nt get past, that don’t get spoken of, like when VET, I think it was, tried to pass HAM, and HAM defended his position, once again, debunking the myth that DRS guarantees easy passes.

        • David-A (@david-a) said on 11th June 2012, 12:36

          @mattynotwo – There are plenty of non Alonso/Vettel fans who don’t like DRS as you can see in the replies. It’s not about having a “cruise to the finish”. It’s about passing being too easy when you already have a good slipstream. These battles would have occurred without DRS.

          • Matty No 2 (@mattynotwo) said on 11th June 2012, 20:17

            @david-a ‘These battles would have occurred without DRS.’

            No.

            Once again, I ask, where were all these battles before DRS was introduced?

            I dont expect an answer,
            you anti-DRS protester’s repeatedly don’t have answer’s to relevent questions about your anti-DRS protest’s.

            All these anti-DRS protest’s have ruined for many, what should have been a celebration.

          • David-A (@david-a) said on 11th June 2012, 21:44

            @mattynotwo

            Once again, I ask, where were all these battles before DRS was introduced?

            There weren’t quite as many battles before DRS, but 2010, the last seaosn before DRS, had more overtakes per GP than any season since 1991 . What you haven’t realised is that DRS being introduced is not the only variable that has changed.

            In 2012 we’ve got tyres designed to degrade a la Canada 2010 (a pre-DRS race where there were plenty of on track battles, considered a classic by many), various aerodynamic aids have been banned (like the exhaust blown diffusers, double deck diffusers, and all those winglets and vanes from the pre-2009 cars) that made it harder for cars to follow one-another and battle, and for a couple of years, refuelling has been banned.

            Given that the amount of DRS overtaking is falling , it is fair to say that we do not need DRS to be able to have overtaking in F1.

          • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 11th June 2012, 21:58

            @mattynotwo

            Once again, I ask, where were all these battles before DRS was introduced?

            The new tyre philosophy introduced in 2011 when Pirelli replaced Bridgestone has helped increase the amount of racing for position and diminished the role of aerodynamics in reducing passing.

            On top of that are the other improvements such as the refuelling ban as @david-a mentions.

            DRS is working against that by ending battles for position as soon as drivers hit the DRS zone.

            Clearly, DRS is doing more to harm racing than help it.

          • Matty No 2 (@mattynotwo) said on 12th June 2012, 3:47

            lol, I did’nt ask about after DRS had been introduced. You two guys are just pointing your fingers at anything to avoid answering the question.

            That being said, I’ll try to do what I can with what you have given me.

            ‘There weren’t quite as many battles before DRS, ‘

            ‘Canada 2010 had good battles’ – yep, thier’s 1 race.

            You two have brought up some interesting points, that are certainly worth looking at a later time, but, I’m struggling to see much more out of your either of your comments that has any relevance to the question I asked.

          • David-A (@david-a) said on 12th June 2012, 13:06

            I’m struggling to see much more out of your either of your comments that has any relevance to the question I asked.

            Well, I said that there was more overtaking in the season before DRS was introduced than there had been for almost 20 years, which suggests that there was overtaking before DRS was introduced.

            By asking “where were all these battles before DRS was introduced?”, and constantly accusing everyone of finger pointing, you’re clearly suggesting that the increase in overtaking we’ve seen in 2011-12 is purely down to DRS, and that is why we’re pointing out what else has happened since DRS was introduced.

      • I also think it has to do with the fact that Hamilton seemed to benefit from the DRS although in reality he would have passed everyone without it.

    • Dizzy said on 11th June 2012, 0:44

      Or maybe there are just race fans out there that cannot stand the artificial easy & boring passing DRS constantly produces?

      Also maybe those against DRS just enjoy watching good, hard fought & exciting overtaking rather than the sort of push of a button crap DRS gives us?

      My views on DRS certainly have nothing to do with who gains/loses from DRS, I just can’t stand what it does to the racing.

    • F1_Dave1 said on 11th June 2012, 0:47

      If that was the case then why did a poll done on this site not long ago clearly show that majority of fans here do not like the way DRS is currently been used?

      Thats a lot of Alonso/Vettel fans who can see into the future to vote about DRS before the event.

    • sato113 (@sato113) said on 11th June 2012, 1:21

      I dont like VET, or ALO to a lesser extent but i criticised DRS during this race.

    • damonsmedley (@damonsmedley) said on 11th June 2012, 3:41

      I’m not a fan of Alonso and Vettel and I was actually very pleased with the result. But Hamilton’s pass on Alonso was set to be quite nail-biting. He pulled out of the slipstream, lost momentum, and they were neck-and-neck. Lewis eventually would have got him, but Fernando had the straight-line speed to defend. Then the DRS kicked in and that was that.

      • Mike (@mike) said on 11th June 2012, 4:02

        Except… without DRS, would he have been able to get next to him?

        • Mike (@mike) said on 11th June 2012, 4:04

          @damonsmedley

          but Fernando had the straight-line speed to defend.

          And of course DRS counters that! That’s what it was designed to do! Don’t you remember when everyone was upset because cars couldn’t pass due to the leading car having “the straight-line speed to defend.”

          • damonsmedley (@damonsmedley) said on 11th June 2012, 4:07

            Well, that’s when it comes down to different teams running different gear ratios. For example, we saw Felipe breeze past Rosberg at the start without DRS, with Mercedes being known for their straight-line speed. Ferrari were obviously running a longer 7th gear.

            I think the battles would have been tense. I like seeing a driver try over a few laps before he succeeds rather than simply catching and breezing past. But I can understand what you’re saying.

          • Mike (@mike) said on 11th June 2012, 6:32

            There is a balance needed… I think however, when you have DRS being complained about to no end in Montreal, yet Monaco gets criticized for lack of passing. You can see how it could be difficult to keep everyone happy.

          • damonsmedley (@damonsmedley) said on 11th June 2012, 10:13

            @mike It’s baffling. Still can’t quite believe people moaned about lack of passing in Monaco, if I’m honest.

        • Julian (@julian) said on 11th June 2012, 8:31

          He was like 3 seconds a lap faster. It was inevitable.
          But I can’t help but feel like we missed out on a battle that could have lasted a lap or two extra because of the DRS.

      • Fer no.65 (@fer-no65) said on 11th June 2012, 4:48

        @damonsmedley he could’ve got past him many times before the back straight, he looked at it a couple of times before the DRS zone. He had a massive grip advantage anyway… why rush things up if he was going to overtake him anyway?

        • damonsmedley (@damonsmedley) said on 11th June 2012, 4:50

          @fer-no65 I agree. There was no need to rush. The DRS is there, so you can’t be upset with drivers for taking advantage of it. But I would rather have seen a more exciting overtake than a highway-style pass.

        • matt90 (@matt90) said on 11th June 2012, 12:01

          I thought he could have passed into the hairpin, but backed out because it would be silly to pass before the DRS zone. He was alongside on the inside, so seems to me that if DRS wasn’t there it might have actually been an earlier pass. Not that I’m defending DRS, just that in this case the battle was over before it started.

          • kbdavies (@kbdavies) said on 11th June 2012, 20:10

            @matt90 – He said exactly that in his bbc interview. He his first choice was to pass him in the hairpin ( i suspect because it would have been more fun), but he realised Alonso would simply take it back on the straight via DRS, so he cose to do it on the straight instead. Shows you the real effect DRS is having on true racing.

    • ratel-br said on 11th June 2012, 3:58

      What bothers me about DRS is that it makes almost no sense to risk a traditional overtake, when you know that you have an almost guaranteed one next lap. It makes the overtake more predictable.
      Eg. Hamilton last overtake on Alonso.
      Without the DRS zone the overtake risk/reward ratio would improve at the rest of the circuit.
      (even though the Casino Straight would still be the main overtake zone).

      • Mike (@mike) said on 11th June 2012, 4:06

        I don’t think it would have stopped him trying earlier if he could. However, without Alonso making a mistake, I don’t think it was possible.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 11th June 2012, 12:17

      You might be right for part of the critisizm @mattynotwo, but I agree with @guilherme, that a few battles we saw could have lasted longer without DRS.
      Doesn’t mean the race was boring or anything, but it does mean that it could have been better without. I certainly think its worth trying to do a race without using it at all (or just during qualifying?).

    • Julian (@julian) said on 11th June 2012, 14:41

      I think we have started to overlook the purpose of the DRS. As far as I’m aware, it was brought into the sport to help the attacking driver get alongside the car in front to help them make an overtaking move into the following corner. I’m sure that most of us would agree this is a good thing. The driver now has a chance to make an overtake, but it isn’t guranteed.

      But what we are seeing in its practical use is that DRS is going above and beyond its purpose, instead of just getting alonside the car in front the attacking driver is also getting comfortably past, and essentially getting a free overtake as there is little the defending driver can do to prevent this.

      And that is the problem which seems to be dividing those in favour and those against the DRS.

      Do I like it? Yes, but only because it is better than the alternative of no DRS.

      Is it the ideal solution? No, I don’t think so. It is going beyond it’s purpose and I think that the FIA definitely needs to review it’s use and effectiveness.

      • ivz (@ivz) said on 11th June 2012, 15:55

        Not sure if it would work, but what if each driver could have 3 or 5 shots at using DRS to defend each race? Then the guy infront at least has a say who and when he fights to stay infront.

  5. Alex Brown (@splittimes) said on 11th June 2012, 0:27

    Comment of the day +1.

    Sure it’ll have been mentioned elsewhere, but BBC shuffling coverage from Radio5Live (though advertised on Radio5Live Sports Extra) to internet shortly after the start, then back to radio (this time on R5Live Sports Extra) was a bit salty. Seemed as if they weren’t that bothered about those people who wanted to experience the race live despite it not being televised so.

    • KeeleyObsessed (@keeleyobsessed) said on 11th June 2012, 23:51

      @splittimes Unfortunately, during Euro 2012, this is likely to be what they are gonna do.. Football commands more viewing figures, particularly when it’s a big international championship like the Euro or World Cup..
      I assume that this is also the reason they didn’t choose to show Canada live, as it would clash with the Euro 2012 game (Germany v Portugal on Saturday, can’t remember who it was on Sunday), and I can’t say I blame them.. I just hope they try and get Canada on their list for the 2013 live races..

  6. ivz (@ivz) said on 11th June 2012, 0:31

    What is the record for most different drivers to win in a season?
    As for the DRS, the FIA really are not thinking about the best place to put it. There are two other shorter straights which would have been good to use it for almost the full part of it, and create a second passing opportunity on the track.
    And poor Michael, talk about bad luck! The impossible became possible!? Would be interesting from a technical point of view to find out just how a system that should simply revert to a closed wing by the natural force of the air over it managed to jam it open!

    • Antonio Nartea (@tony031r) said on 11th June 2012, 0:49

      What is the record for most different drivers to win in a season?

      11 in 1982. Reachable, but I don’t see it falling soon though. And it shouldn’t fall. One of a kind generation back then. :)

  7. Stjuuv (@stjuuv) said on 11th June 2012, 0:46

    As for the MSC issue with DRS, I got the impression that it wasn’t really a case of the DRS failing that caused it to be stuck open, but rather a loose pipe moving to a position where it happened to block the wing that would otherwise been forced shut by the airflow. True, the pipe was itself a part of the DRS system, but it could very well have been a piece of debris from the track finding the worst place to land on the car, so I think this doesn’t really give reason to blame the fail-safe of the DRS system.

    • AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner) said on 11th June 2012, 8:19

      @stjuuv That’s what I was thinking. Nothing is absolutely fool-proof and it would be a bit naive to think otherwise. Like you say, anything could have got caught.

    • vjanik said on 11th June 2012, 13:30

      Mercedes confirmed that it was a hydraulic failure that caused the flap to stay opened. It wasn’t debris.

      Interestingly, because the Mercedes’ DRS also stalls the front wing, Schumi wouldn’t have any balance problems. he would only lose overall downforce. In Canada that might not be that bad actually. The reason why he stopped wasn’t safety or inconceivability, but a rule that doesn’t allow you to use the DRS outside of the specified activation zone.

  8. StefMeister (@stefmeister) said on 11th June 2012, 0:57

    Totally agree with the COTD regarding DRS.

    The ‘It was tyres, would have happened anyway’ argument regarding some of todays DRS-ing may have a point, However just because it may have happened anyway doesn’t make it happening the way it did due to DRS any better.

    If you look at the latter part of the race when Alonso’s tyres were going off, In that case it would have been far more exciting without DRS to see him been able to try & defend against Lewis.
    Watching Lewis’ OnBoard, He was pulling alongside Alonso slowly before the DRS line but it didn’t look like enough to get him by which meant we would have seen a nice side-by-side fight down the straght with a good fight into the final chicane.
    As it was as soon as they passed the DRS line Lewis just drove clean past & was quite a way ahead into the braking zone.

    Do not also forget that we also saw a situation today where Schumacher pulled a proper overtake on Kobayashi into the hairpin, However Kamui was then in the DRS detection point on the exit & immediately & easily DRS-ed his way back past Michael & I’ve seen that happen quite a few times over the past year.

    I like to watch good racing, Cars fighting for position, Cars been able to do something to try & defend there place & I want to see good, competitive & hard fought overtaking. I don’t think DRS produces any of this & this is why I am so against DRS.

    The way F1 is using DRS really needs to be looked at & they either need to adopt a better way of using it or ban it completely if they can’t.

    • mantresx said on 11th June 2012, 3:12

      No, don’t ban DRS completely, the fact is that the FIA got into it’s head that EVERY track needs it when in reality some would do fine without it, so I say for next year ban it only in the races where it’s easy to overtake, 2 years with DRS should give them a good idea where.

    • Claidheamh (@aseixas) said on 11th June 2012, 3:15

      Yes, the DRS detection point was pretty unreasonable in this race, but I don’t think it detracted much from the racing. When the drivers were matching pace, and one was overtaken with the help of DRS, the other driver could defend on the next lap, since the DRS activation zone wasn’t as long as usual, and didn’t make for that big an advantage.

      But I do believe the rules on DRS need a major overhaul. They make little sense as they are now. I don’t think the system should be banned altogether, though, seeing as it improves the performance of the cars in a clever way. The FIA has too much of a history of banning those.

    • Julian (@julian) said on 11th June 2012, 7:49

      I think you make some great points and agree that the FIA really need to review their use of the DRS.
      It really wasn’t needed at this race. The tryes provided almost all the overtaking, the drivers just used the DRS because it is the safer, more guranteed overtake.

      Thats the one thing I really don’t like about the DRS, it takes away the risk of overtaking. Why should a driver take a risk overtaking into a corner where it can go horribly wrong when he can just bide his time for half a lap and breeze past them on the straight.

      Imagine the last 10 laps of the race without a DRS and Vettel and Alonso driving super defensivly against Hamilton who has so much more grip. They can cover him almost everywhere on the track and the only way Hamilton can really overtake is by making a make or break overtake at one of the chicane’s.

      It’s a shame I dont have the artisitic flair to explain that last paragraph better, but that is the sort of racing I’d prefer to see, regardless of who wins and who loses.

    • JCost (@jcost) said on 11th June 2012, 9:12

      I too think DRS zone should never be placed at the best overtaking zone, a secondary overtaking zone should be DRS zone and leave a long straight for pure racing. However, a good alternative should be ban DRS zones and establish a limited number of uses per race, so drivers ahead still could use DRS to defend their position.

  9. PeteF12012 said on 11th June 2012, 1:06

    im starting to feel that drs is now really taking away from the racing rather than halping it.

    one such example today was when alonso came out the pits in the lead after the 1st stop, we had a great fight shaping up between he & lewis untill we got to the drs area & lewis was driven easily past at the push of a button.

    that was a real anti-climax, got excited over the potential battle shaping up & then the drs ruined it :(

  10. Bullfrog (@bullfrog) said on 11th June 2012, 1:09

    DRS here is still too easy to pass, I agree with whoever said we should go from two zones to one to none next year…

    Hats off to Hamilton for trying to pass Alonso elsewhere on the circuit anyway. Alonso’s defensive driving was impressive, really positioning the car well. He had no chance against Lewis, but without the slam-dunk passes on the straight before the pits, he might have been able to hold off Grosjean and Perez, on older tyres, until the end.

    • mantresx said on 11th June 2012, 3:38

      “He might have been able to hold off Grosjean and Perez” well going 3 sec a lap faster and with some laps to go, they would definitely have passed him with or without DRS and other than Monaco I struggle to think of any track where that wouldn’t have happened.

    • JCost (@jcost) said on 11th June 2012, 9:23

      Perez was gaining a second per SECTOR!

  11. Stefanauss (@stefanauss) said on 11th June 2012, 1:24

    It should really ring an alarm bell that, without the reckless strategy from Alonso and Vettel, this race would have been easily at a Monaco level of boredom.
    At the track that has produced the most exciting races for quite a while.
    Only a newbie or completely clueless fan would find Hamilton’s, Perez’s and Grosjean’s return on Alonso and Vettel “exciting”. It’s not very often you see a F1 team/driver make such a big mistake and doubling it by taking too long to fix it.

    In the last decade we had the most dull races because there had to be a 2-3 seconds gap in performance between car to have whatever hope to attempt an overtake.
    And It’s STILL like that.
    DRS (in specific parts of the track and time ranges) and tyres (somewhat continuously during the race) provides that needed huge gap performance.

    I have a fear that unpredictability (which is nice, but not when it comes to a lottery) and closeness (which is what everyone REALLY need as a base, unpredictability will follow from that) will further hiding F1 real issues, even more than DRS and Pirelli are doing to most of the F1 watchers.

    • MylesW (@mpw1985) said on 11th June 2012, 6:04

      I actually thought this was the best, most exciting race of the season so far. Drivers pushing to their limits for fast laps on some strategies, others going for the one stop and trying to make the tires last. THIS is what F1 is about, not some bs artificial unpredictability that totally demeans the sport by not letting the best drivers and teams stand out. I hope the season continues a close-nit battle between Alonso, Vettel, and Hamilton. Then we’d be in for a real treat.

    • bosyber (@bosyber) said on 12th June 2012, 12:26

      In hindsight it might feel like that @stefanauss, but until HAM started setting those great laps in that last stint and it became obvious a few laps later that VET+ALO were indeed going to the end if they could, it wasn’t clear to the viewer that he would be able to do it; and even Ferrari thought they could still hold it. We didn’t know how it would play out, even if there was a high likelihood of HAM storming up and passing, that doesn’t mean nothing can happen to stop that: a mistake, back-markers in the way, debris on track, car issue, whatever, someone crashes and ALO/VET are at right spot to do a free tyre stop before SC catches them, you name it. Even the tyres holding up for either of them as they held for Grosjean. There were still 20 laps to go, and I was excited about it, and whether HAM could indeed do what he should be doing.

      • Stefanauss (@stefanauss) said on 12th June 2012, 13:39

        @bosyber, if you find excitement in the fact that ANYTHING can happen at any second, I’m genuinely happy for you, but as for me, it took two HAM’s sector time to realize what was gonna happen. And It did happen.
        You might call that hindsight, but I guarantee to you that I was genuinely bored _while_ watching, not post-race.

        • bosyber (@bosyber) said on 14th June 2012, 8:58

          Heh, yeah I’m happy with the little things, if I can manage, makes life a lot nicer :)

          @stefanauss, maybe with the foolish things McLaren were doing so far, and with HAM’s 2011 season like it was, I just felt that the potential for them not being able to do it right and pull of that win was making it anything but inevitable.

          I still think you overstate the certainty of it. I don’t entirely agree with the Wednesday Gary Anderson piece at BBC, but it shows at the least that both Vettel and Alonso might still have been able to salvage it, or come close to it.

  12. OmarR-Pepper (@omarr-pepper) said on 11th June 2012, 2:30

    Shouldn’t this DRS incident to Michael be the base for a real campaign aginst it, I mean, it’s impossible to ommit the idea that it was purely due to DRS that MSC’s race was ruined yesterday.

  13. xeroxpt (@) said on 11th June 2012, 2:37

    DRS was nullified when runing in packs and overdosed when running alone, today it spoiled the race cause everytime I watch the race winning maneuver i just watch a car going 10 mphs faster, i even believe that Hamilton wanted to make the move drs free but it wasnt to be.

  14. Kodongo (@kodongo) said on 11th June 2012, 2:41

    Did anybody else notice that the three drivers who overtook Alonso to make the podium were (in order): Hamilton – his former former team mate from his former former team; Grosjean – his former team mate from his former team; Perez – ¿ his future team mate at his current team ?

    • bosyber (@bosyber) said on 12th June 2012, 12:29

      Interesting statistic that @kodongo :)

      Hm, though it misses Massa also passing him (“was never near enough??”), and does it mean VET will be his team mate before Perez, with ROS being talked of of joining him too, but never quite making it? :-p

  15. Hare (@hare) said on 11th June 2012, 2:55

    Gotta love that Vancouver Sun article by Jack Todd, who apparently is ‘SPECIAL TO THE GAZETTE’.

    Sounds like a lovers tiff.

    To add insult to injury the article is filed under Tennis!

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.