‘Alonso is more accurate than Vettel’ – Hamilton

F1 Fanatic round-up

Lewis Hamilton, Sebastian Vettel, Barcelona, 2012In the round-up: Lewis Hamilton says other drivers would do as well as Sebastian Vettel if they had his car.

Links

Top F1 links from the past 24 hours:

Hamilton: Alonso is better than Vettel (The Telegraph)

“I think lots of people in the paddock wish they could have Adrian [Newey?s] car so they could show that they?re just as competitive as Sebastian. Fernando, for me, is more accurate. He hits all the apexes. Sebastian misses four apexes on a single lap and still goes quickest. He goes off and he still goes quickest. And I think ‘Holy crap, I couldn?t do that lap even if I was on the limit?. His car is just that far ahead of everyone else’s.”

Hamilton sceptical of McLaren pole chance (BBC)

“Asked if he had a chance of pole, Hamilton said: ‘Honestly, no. But I’m going to give it my all. The last four races have been won by a certain guy. But if we get ahead it will be a huge bonus.'”

Teams told trick brake systems illegal (Autosport)

“The team contended that attempts to use either a bimetallic strip – which would change shape to open and close off cooling ducts depending on the temperature of the brake friction material – or a thermal actuator was a breach of the regulations.”

Martin Whitmarsh feels the pain of not winning a title for McLaren (The Guardian)

“Arguably we have been too conservative and risk-averse in regulation interpretation. Given our brand and our position, I think we are more risk-averse. There are things that have happened which, had our engineers come to me and said we’re going to do this, I’d have said forget it. I’d rather campaign for clearer, less ambiguous regulations.”

Formula One teams face fee hike for 2013 (Reuters)

“The new measure should raise at least $16 million in extra revenue for the governing body, whose own budgets are under pressure.”

The payment structure is described in the latest version of the 2013 Sporting Regulations which can be found here.

Thoughts of the future (ESPN)

Heikki Kovalainen: “The fact is I don’t bring any money, I told my management not to collect money, I don’t want to do that. If somebody was coming and backing me and supporting me then fine, but I don’t like that idea. If I’m not good enough here to stay just with my own skills then so be it, it doesn’t bother me too much. That’s life. That’s how the world is going nowadays, that’s what the teams need, they need money so if that’s what our team is going to do then it’s their decision and there’s nothing I can do about it.”

Lotus drivers happy on day one (Sky)

Kimi Raikkonen: “It didn’t feel nice, the car, but the lap time seems to be pretty okay. Hopefully we should improve and it should mean that we should get a bit more closer than we were today.”

Q&A – Franz Tost on STR retaining Ricciardo, Vergne (F1)

“I am not entirely satisfied. The performance of the car is not on the level I would want it to be, or that I had expected. The car is too slow. Period. We definitely have to sort that out because next year we should have drivers with enough experience to get somewhere with a good car, preferably at the front of the midfield.”

F1 chief Bernie Ecclestone ??not concerned? about Bahrain GP despite ongoing protests, violence (The Waskington Post)

“I wasn?t concerned this year and I?m not concerned for next year.”

Yas Circuit chief Richard Cregan has unfinished business in Abu Dhabi (The National)

“You look at the places like Spa and Monza or Suzuka and they are incredible circuits that have an amazing heritage and have been at it for more than 20 years. This is only our fourth grand prix, so while they all have a great status in the business, what we have achieved here in four years is quite amazing.”

Ferrari break F1 curfew to help Fernando Alonso title bid (The Independent)

“A Ferrari spokesman said the staff had arrived after daybreak and, extolling the quality of the team’s espresso coffee machine, suggested with a smile that they had simply wanted to enjoy a ‘nice Italian breakfast’.”

Gov. Rick Perry today helped kick off the Formula 1 United States Grand Prix (KWKT)

Governor Rick Perry: “The U.S. Grand Prix will bring 1.2 million visitors to Central Texas, and is an opportunity to demonstrate to people from around the world everything we have to offer in the Lone Star State as a tourism destination, and as a place to live and work”

Post Race Analysis: 2012 Airtel Indian Grand Prix (Alfons Jose F1)

“At the main grandstand, I encountered a person in his late seventies trying desperately hard to convince a security personal to allow him to carry water to his seat. He begged and tried to reason with the guard that he would have to traverse three flights of stairs every time he was thirsty and all this, despite paying 30,000 Rupees for the “comfort” a watching a race at the prime location.”

Tweets

Comment of the day

The Limit on McLaren’s lack of championship success in recent seasons:

Everyone already has written off Mercedes even before the 2013 season has started, so for me, the pressure is on McLaren next year and on Martin Whitmarsh especially.

The Lewis Hamilton fixation the media has has deflected attention away from McLaren?s quite embarrassing decline this season, from a front running team in Australia to nothing but an also ran.

Jenson Button has a point. Hamilton?s departure is a loss to the team, but a bigger concern must be why their cars have been so inconsistent for the past several years. Button mentions Hamilton?s championship title of 2008, McLaren?s sole achievement since 1999.

We were led to believe that the Whitmarsh era, more open and apparently relaxed than that of Ron Dennis, would bare fruit. It has, so far, failed miserably and garnered more scandals than actual results.
The Limit

Paul di Resta, Force India, Yas Marina, 2012And if you were wondering why the Force India cars are running with the slogan “Wendy & Keith Murray” this weekend, have a read of the comments here and here.

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

Three-times world champions Nelson Piquet’s F1 career came to a low-key end on this day 21 years ago.

Piquet’s final start came in the 1991 Australian Grand Prix which was red-flagged and abandoned after just 14 laps due to heavy rain.

Piquet tried to persuade chief engineer Giorgio Ascanelli (latterly of Toro Rosso) to let him turn some unofficial laps after the race was called off, but was not allowed to, and the curtain came down on a career which included three world championship and 23 Grand Prix wins.

Images ?? Jamey Price for F1 Fanatic, Sahara Force India F1 Team

Advert | Go Ad-free

95 comments on ‘Alonso is more accurate than Vettel’ – Hamilton

  1. dpod (@dpod) said on 3rd November 2012, 0:20

    Hamiltons opinion about Vettel pretty much sums up what I feel about him. I remember watching various on board laps a while back and felt that Seb wasn’t as precise as some of the other drivers.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 3rd November 2012, 0:35

      With a car like the one he’s driving now, Vettel doesn’t need to be accurate.

      • ivz (@ivz) said on 3rd November 2012, 2:09

        Missing apexes during the race is also what helps Vettel conserve tyres.

        • phmer3 (@phmer3) said on 3rd November 2012, 2:38

          How so?

          • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 3rd November 2012, 2:48

            I would assume ivz means that when Vettel misses the apex, he does not travel over the kerbs. This decreases wear because the kerbs are made of different materials to the roadway, and therefore would have a different effect on the rubber.

          • plushpile (@plushpile) said on 3rd November 2012, 4:42

            Use Vettel at Hockenheim this year as example, he drove past the apex of the hairpin to drive the car ‘staright’ and save tyre wear by using less slip angle by accelerating in a straight line.

          • raymondu999 (@raymondu999) said on 3rd November 2012, 6:06

            @phmer3 going on kerbs does increase wear slightly. What happens is kerbs, despite how they might look on TV, are always slightly higher than the tarmac. The resulting effect is when the car goes off the kerb and returns to the tarmac, the car will have “jumped” slightly as the kerb would have served as a ramped launchpad.

            What happens is you’re usually braking or getting on the power – and as such, by the time you land again, your tyre is no longer spinning at the speed that the car is moving at – because while you were in the air for that microsecond, your engine was accelerating the tyres, or your brakes were decelerating them, and that adds a bit of slip. It may seem like a tiny thing, but add it up 20 times over a circuit and it really adds up.

          • infy (@infy) said on 3rd November 2012, 15:50

            The effect goes both ways. Missing an apex requires more steering angle to take the corner at the same speed, which wears the tires.

            While the energy absorbed by the tire when the car lands could have an effect, it would be very minimal as the tyres that do touch the rumble-strips are not under load, as the weight is on the other side of the car due to the g-forces, which results in the wheel almost lifting off of the ground.

            Tyres dont wear out due to an event which lasts only a hundredth of a second (besides perhaps lock-ups). An F1 car is always sliding and when it slides for an extended period of time the tyres heat up to the point where they shed rubber. Going over a curb will not heat up the tyre enough (unless the rear end comes lose).

            So I don’t believe for a second that he is purposefully missing the apex to save tyres. That to me sounds like something someone has made up to protect their favorite driver from criticism.

        • also conserve the car. Back then Kimi was all over the apex and kerbs and his car broke down often. German people are well known in term of precision, if they want to..

      • Franton said on 3rd November 2012, 14:26

        You’re effectively saying that the longest way around the track is the fastest and best for tyres. Fairly sure that doesn’t work.

  2. Fer no.65 (@fer-no65) said on 3rd November 2012, 0:24

    Maybe Lewis thought: “let’s make it interesting” and said that about Vettel and Alonso.

    It’s a brave thing to say. Good for him… I agree, somehow, I always think of Alonso as the best driver on the grid today, regardless of Vettel’s “innaccuracy”.

    • F1 FunAttic said on 3rd November 2012, 6:08

      @fer-no65:

      “let’s make it interesting”

      Remember the math class -> If A>B and B>C, then A>C

      It’s just Hamilton’s way of saying that Vettel is C, and Alonso is B! … And he feels he did enough in 2007 to prove A>B part.

      • if B had same point, same victory and with the team against him how could A > B ???
        i think in 2007 we can fairly say A = B.
        the right equation is
        if A=B and B>c –> A>C …this is called mathematical implications…
        I’m waitng for Vettel vs Alonso in Ferrari to see how good Vettel is…

        • F1 FunAttic said on 3rd November 2012, 15:47

          @fanser

          …how could A > B ???

          well,don’t blame me ;-) … what I meant was that Hamilton seems to have decided to showcase Alonso, on the backdrop of ‘his’ perception that, despite having equal points in 2007, he(Hamilton) is regarded largely as the rookie that outclassed the champion(A>B).
          So, he could only get the maximum benefit by weighing in alonso heavier against vettel, a la the A>B>C way. Again not my opinion nor a universal fact, but what ‘seems’ to be an attempt of oneupmanship from hamilton.

  3. Todd (@braketurnaccelerate) said on 3rd November 2012, 0:45

    Teams told trick brake systems illegal (Autosport)

    I read the title of this article as:

    “Teams told innovation illegal (Autosport)”

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 3rd November 2012, 1:01

      @braketurnaccelerate – There’s innovation, and then there’s innovation that is in violation of the rules. The sporting regulations make it pretty clear that the teams cannot use devices that involve moving parts in the brakes that are outside the direct control of the drivers. And can you really blame them for not liking that? A brake failure is probably the scariest thing imaginable in a racing car.

      Sure, thsi system uses a bi-metallic strip that expands and contracts when heat is applied to improve braking efficiency, and it would probably be a non-event if it were to fail. But by allowing the device to be raced when it violates Article 11.4, the FIA establish a precedent whereby some devices are allowed and others are not. This will pave the way for more and more devices to be legal, and these devices will become increasingly complex. Should they fail, a heavy impact as a result of a collision or an accident is likely.

      But hey, who cares about that when it’s innovative?

      • Fer no.65 (@fer-no65) said on 3rd November 2012, 1:31

        @prisoner-monkeys Yeah, in this case, they are right.

        But sometimes they change the rules way too often, and ban stuff that IS innovative (to some extent). So teams leave them after, maybe, less than a year since its introduction… that’s a different matter, though.

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 3rd November 2012, 1:46

          @fer-no65 – They’re not changing the rules at all. Article 11.4 has existed for a long time. They’ve just decided that bi-metallic strips that expand and contract with the application of heat are in violation of it because they are components of the brakes that move without any direct input from the driver.

          • Fer no.65 (@fer-no65) said on 3rd November 2012, 2:09

            @prisoner-monkeys I know, I’m not talking about this decision in particular.

          • phmer3 (@phmer3) said on 3rd November 2012, 2:43

            I really don’t see how the expansion of a metal due to heat could be considered as a “moving” part.

          • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 3rd November 2012, 2:47

            @phmer3 – Because it is designed to expand when heat is applied, covering up ducts and improving brake efficiency. It contracts when it cools, opening those ducts back up and preventing the brakes from overheating by letting air back in. It may only expand and contract by millimetres at a time, but it is clearly intended to improve performance, and since the part physically changes shape, it can be considered to be moving.

  4. maybet said on 3rd November 2012, 0:45

    hamilton is not any better. He missed many apex as welll, but as you can see, they are so competitive today!!

    • David-A (@david-a) said on 3rd November 2012, 1:37

      lol yeah, maybe he’s just lashing out because he thinks he knows which way the title is going, in a year where he’s often had the fastest car as well. I hope it is close between the top 2.

      • Lashing out? lol

        or maybe a reporter just asked him a question and hes answering it.

        People take these things as statements rather than answers. Theres a distinct difference.

        and maybe you missed this part:

        “Hamilton added, though, that he felt Vettel would be a worthy champion if he was to prevail this season and claim his third straight crown. “I think he’s a true champion,” Hamilton said. “He’s polite, he’s never in trouble, he’s squeaky clean and a genuinely nice guy. He speaks incredibly well and carries himself really well. And at the end of the day you have to do the job even if you do have the best car.

        “He qualifies really well, he pulls out fantastic gaps. But when your car is that far ahead it’s easier to do that. I’ve had that experience, when I was quite a bit quicker than everyone. And you get that gap immediately. It’s easy. And when you have it all the time you get really good at it.””

    • Maksutov (@maksutov) said on 3rd November 2012, 3:19

      hamilton is not any better. He missed many apex as well

      Now you are just making stuff up. I have never seen Hamilton miss four apexes and then set the fastest lap. Come to think of it, I’ve not seen him miss even one apex on his fastest runs.

    • Julian (@julian) said on 3rd November 2012, 4:00

      All-a da time you godda hit da apex.

    • One does not score 35 pole positions by missing all the apexs. Lewis Hamioton is merely frustrated that he no longer can do what Vettel is doing now because McLaren have fallen behind, and siding with Alonso he thinks gives him consolation because he has supposedly performed miracles in the F2012.

      • Ginola14 (@ginola14) said on 3rd November 2012, 11:13

        One does score 35 pole positions by having generally the fastest car underneath him. Even Button, not one of the best qualifiers wouldnt have found it difficult to come near to Vettel’s tally.

        • @ginola14 – The Red Bull was slower than the McLaren at times last year, yet Vettel still lined up in the first grid slot. I doubt Button would have achieved 35 pole positions in such a short period of time.

        • David-A (@david-a) said on 3rd November 2012, 13:57

          @ginola14 – Yeah, that’s why Button picked up no more poles than Vettel in 2009, and has taken 1 entire pole position in the last 3 years.

          • Ginola14 (@ginola14) said on 3rd November 2012, 14:23

            Sorry i am not championing Button’s quality here (not even a fan of his).

            Merely stating that put the likes of Button in the Red Bull that has been the class of the field for the last 3 years and he would be scoring pole positions freely as well- though not as many as Vettel of course. Put the likes of Hamilton/Raikkonen/Alonso in the Red Bull and i think they will easily match Vettel’s tally if not better it.

          • David-A (@david-a) said on 5th November 2012, 0:48

            @ginola14 – And stick Vettel in Alonso’s Ferrari, Hamilton’s Mclaren or Raikkonen’s Lotus and he’d win as many races as them, if not more.

      • “One does not score 35 pole positions by missing all the apexs.”

        Sorry i must have missed the part where he said he misses all apex’s.

        • brny666 said on 3rd November 2012, 19:27

          Sunshine now you’re just splitting hairs. Show me one P1 Vettel got by missing 4 apexes and then come back and I’ll eat my humble pie.

  5. Alex Brown (@splittimes) said on 3rd November 2012, 0:48

    What a round up!

    Two bits caught my interest: the entry-fee hike and Heikki’s doubts about his future. Teams can’t afford to run top drivers, FIA have to charge teams more because they themselves can’t afford to keep operating…

    I seem to remember hearing something about CVC having huge debts too. Plus the whole stock flotation that keeps getting put back “waiting for markets to improve”. Force India look insecure at the moment. I don’t know a lot about business and global finance, but none of this fills me with confidence. Potential investors in the sport must have to be very optimistic or passionate if they’re to give the sport a punt.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 3rd November 2012, 1:36

      You would think that the half million dollars entry fee would be a good place to start “cost saving”.

      • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 3rd November 2012, 2:05

        @hohum – You would, wouldn’t you?

        But there’s one tiny problem: $500,000 is a drop in the ocean to most of the teams. For instance, under this restructuring, Red Bull will pay at least $4,000,000 to compete next year. If some sources are to be believed, the team is spending at least $400,000,000 year in and year out. Assuming this is true, the new entry fee would represent just over 1% of their total operating income. Even the teams like Marussia and Caterham, which are believed to have budgets of about $50,000,000, would only be spending 1% of their budget on the entry fee of $500,000. In fact, I don’t think there is a single team who will suddenly experience an astronomical entry fee that represents more than about 1.5% of their budget.

        Sure, keeping the current entry fees would save costs – but the saving would be insignificant. It would simply be a token gesture to say “look, we’re cutting costs”, but nothing is actually changing because the 2013 entry fees represent only a tiny fraction of the budgets of every team. Which is precisely the kind of change the teams would like, because it frees up money to spend on their cars whilst allowing them to claim that they are committed to cost-cutting.

        If the sport actually, genuinely want to keep costs down, then the FIA needs to look at some stability in the regulations from year to year that would allow teams to compete with older machinery for longer instead of having to build an entirely new car from year to year. They need to slow down the development race by slashing the level of downforce generated, and consider limiting the extent of upgrades that the team can introduce in-season – when Red Bull arrived in Valencia, Martin Brundle remarked that 70% of the car was new, and subsequent upgrades have been as extensive, which means that they have been as (if not more) expensive. They need to be able to police cost-cutting regulations and consider the introduction of a budget cap, one that can be fairly implemented and transparently monitored. After all, when teams are spending at least $400 million or more per season, things have gone entirely too far. Bernie Ecclestone is apparently considering a budget cap of somewhere between $200 and $250 million, and the teams reportedly like his ideas on how to implement it. Even Red Bull, who have been digging in their heels to prevent the FIA from being able to police the Resource Restriction Agreement.

        But why save $200,000,000 in development costs when you can save $200,000 in entry fees? In fact, you won’t actually be saving anything at all, because the new entry fees won’t apply to 2013, so you have effectively changed nothing whilst simultaneously giving the teams the ability to claim that they are committed to cost cutting.

        • Maksutov (@maksutov) said on 3rd November 2012, 5:40

          They need to be able to police cost-cutting regulations and consider the introduction of a budget cap, one that can be fairly implemented and transparently monitored.

          @prisoner-monkeys
          But that is precisely the problem. How does one implement it, and how does one monitor it? It doesn’t seem possible.

          I would like to see this $200 mil Bernie’s idea that teams like so much.

          But I think there is only one way to regulate it, and that is your first point: the FIA.
          1) Stability in the regulations.
          2) Clear rules and prompt action to prevent violation (to prevent innovation that is in violation of the rules).

          • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 3rd November 2012, 7:34

            @maksutov

            I would like to see this $200 mil Bernie’s idea that teams like so much.

            So would I. But for now, it’s Secret Teams’ Business.

            Whatever it is, though, it’s been enough to get Christian Horner to shut up long enough to listen to the actual proposal. He’s been vehemently opposed to any move that would give the FIA the power to police the Resource Restriction Agreement for the past six months, and has used Toro Rosso to prevent the proposed regulations from being accepted, but he has said he likes Bernie’s idea.

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 3rd November 2012, 9:36

          @prisoner-monkeys, I think you have highlighted the problem fairly well, of course RBR will have to pay considerably more than $500K, but then again they are not the ones complaining about cost. You may have missed it but earlier in the week I suggested that the season should be divided into 2 halves (not 3), and that no new parts should be allowed once the half seasons started, I would allow some extra testing before the start of each halve to allow the teams to correct unpredicted results.
          And as you know ever since joining this blog I have argued that the aerodynamic upgrades were every bit as expensive as powertrain development and nowhere near as useful in any other endeavour.

          • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 3rd November 2012, 9:57

            of course RBR will have to pay considerably more than $500K, but then again they are not the ones complaining about cost

            No, they’re just complaining about rules that might lead to the FIA finding out exactly how much they are spending – which implies the FIA would not be happy with it.

            I have argued that the aerodynamic upgrades were every bit as expensive as powertrain development and nowhere near as useful in any other endeavour.

            Then why are you arguing that the best place to start cutting costs is with the increased entry fee?

            You would think that the half million dollars entry fee would be a good place to start “cost saving”.

  6. isuraeru (@isuraeru) said on 3rd November 2012, 1:03

    I remember long time ago 2 top drivers bashing another one….

  7. raymondu999 (@raymondu999) said on 3rd November 2012, 1:05

    I don’t think the words of a competitor in direct competition in a sport like this should ever be taken completely honestly I’m afraid. Too many politics and mind games are at play – and a common enemy dies wonders to unite former foes.

  8. Hairs (@hairs) said on 3rd November 2012, 1:17

    “You look at the places like Spa and Monza or Suzuka and they are incredible circuits that have an amazing heritage and have been at it for more than 20 years. This is only our fourth grand prix, so while they all have a great status in the business, what we have achieved constructed here in four years is quite amazing.”

    Fixed that for you. All you’ve achieved is successfully boring the pants off every F1 viewer for 4 years solid until your whole enterprise has become a byword for everything that’s wrong with the sport, the attitude of the world to enterprise in general, and the debasement of the social order. Greed and money and privilege arching over all, producing nothing of value or substance, and entrenching the concept that possessing an arbitrary quantity of money produced by market manipulation counts as something either to be admired, or worthy of acclaim.

    I’ve been watching the tweets from the F1 paddock journo’s this week with disgust while they revel in the “luxury” and opulance of the place, and the stunning facilities. Pinning a bunch of LED’s to something doesn’t make it luxurious, and pampering the media doesn’t prove anything about the race organiser’s intentions other than their intention to pamper the media in the hope of good press.

    Would you kindly take your crappy supermarket carpark circuit, and its hideously garish, empty, soulless surroundings, and use a fraction of the cash to sponsor a race at a decent circuit, where racing will be produced, where the fans will actually queue up to buy tickets, and the viewer at home will get something out of it.

    We don’t need 10 lane wide paddock club walkways in the middle of a desert on a man made island. We need an awning and decent toilet facilites at Spa.

    • Mads (@mads) said on 3rd November 2012, 1:26

      @hairs

      We need an awning and decent toilet facilites at Spa.

      +1 for new toilets at spa! They desperately need something… something humane really.

    • Njack (@njack) said on 3rd November 2012, 6:11

      Easy winner for COTD ;)

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 3rd November 2012, 6:44

      Would you kindly take your crappy supermarket carpark circuit, and its hideously garish, empty, soulless surroundings, and use a fraction of the cash to sponsor a race at a decent circuit, where racing will be produced, where the fans will actually queue up to buy tickets, and the viewer at home will get something out of it.

      I find it ironic that you are trying to quantify circuit design, as if by obeying a mathematical principle, you are somehow guaranteed to produce a good race. I find it ironic because that is precisely the mistake that Abu Dhabi made in the first place.

      I’ve often wondered: is the circuit design solely to blame for the lack of exciting racing at Abu Dhabi, or is it something more? After all, Sebastian Vettel has won the last four races, which is in stark contrast to the beginning of the season when we saw seven different winners in seven races. I’m curious as to how the race would have played out when everyone was still coming to terms with the tyres, and the tendency for races to throw out an unexpected result.

      The Yas Marina circuit certainly deserves some criticism, but your plea – though I read it more as a demand – for the organisers to take the race somewhere else is likely to go unnoticed because they are paying for the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, and Yas Marina is the only circuit in Abu Dhabi. Don’t you think the sport should at least try making the best of a bad situation first by rescheduling the event to an earlier date to attempt some actual racing before you commit the organisers to frittering away another hundred million dollars on changing the circuit simply because you don’t like the way there is a giant pulsating technicolor spiderweb draped over parts of the circuit?

      • bosyber (@bosyber) said on 3rd November 2012, 9:20

        @prisoner-monkeys, I agree, let’s swap Abu Dhabi and Bahrain next year – gives a bit more time too for Bernie not to worry about that place too, double win.

        And if Bahrain doesn’t happen (it won’t for me probably), it just means a slightly longer time between races near the end, possibly for someone to finish some updates and stay in the fight for WDC :)

    • paulguitar (@paulguitar) said on 3rd November 2012, 9:03

      Totally agree!

    • paulguitar (@paulguitar) said on 3rd November 2012, 9:05

      That ‘totally agree’ was for ‘Hairs’ comment.

  9. Toro Stevo (@toro-stevo) said on 3rd November 2012, 1:25

    I find the McLaren/Whitmarsh opinion on Red Bull interesting, particularly with respect to the issue of regulation in car design. Whitmarsh is implying that McLaren is being too conservative in car development because of the position and branding of their team when compared to ‘brands’ which are trying to generate controversy. I don’t buy that argument at all.

    The F-duct was as “gray” with respect to the rules as any of the other implemented parts by other teams or ‘brands’ in recent years. As much as I dislike the dependence of modern F1 cars on aerodynamic technicalities, I think the F-duct was a brilliant piece of engineering. However it appears that McLaren are not pursuing those sort of creative leaps in car designs as much as RBR are, to their detriment really.
    Reading between the lines of Whitmarsh’s comments, I wonder how car development is done at McLaren compared to Red Bull. For RBR, it looks as if Newey takes charge of car development at Red Bull, drives the development of every component on the car to create an entire package which he understands. However, given Whitmarsh’s comment about if engineers had come to him with those ideas he’d have knocked them back makes me wonder how control of car design is being pursued by either Whitmarsh or Paddy Lowe at McLaren. I don’t get the impression that the same level of complete understanding of the car or control is being driven by the lead engineer at McLaren, at least not to the same level as Newey.

    If somebody is playing a game better than you that doesn’t necessarily mean the rules or their interpretation are incorrect. It can mean that you need to improve how you play the game.

  10. Pelican (@pelican) said on 3rd November 2012, 3:30

    I think I put Hamilton on pole. I should probably change that.

  11. Newey would simply just say.. I will make a free car for RBR, pay me double with next year budget or with stock option, because I cannot let my brain stop thinking of innovations.

  12. Eggry (@eggry) said on 3rd November 2012, 4:13

    surely Hamilton prefer Alonso over Vettel.

  13. tigen (@tigen) said on 3rd November 2012, 4:51

    Hitting an apex does not prove you are accurate. There is also accuracy of speed. If you are going slow, it is easy to hit the apex.

    • leotef (@leotef) said on 3rd November 2012, 5:46

      So you mean hitting every apex say @ 20kph average is nothing cuz F1 cars running @200kph? I didn’t know that. I thought they are all limit speed and at limit speed, the fastest lap is made thru making every correct apex. Yeah, Alonso et al is running @ 20kph to be accurate. Good logic. LoL.

      • Kimi4WDC said on 3rd November 2012, 6:43

        I’d assume you never done racing of any sort, cause his logic is pretty spot on. If you drive just under the limit (doesn’t matter if it’s 20 or 200kph – it’s about your car capabilities – which we or Hamilton will never know) hitting apex is a cake walk for a driver of their caliber.

        • leotef (@leotef) said on 3rd November 2012, 7:56

          I’d assume other drivers are all driving at their max car capabilities, not only for top rated but quite all of them. I would also assume they are trying to make the apex for every corner as much as possible. Point is making every apex does not mean they are driving their machine well within the limit while as the poster implied, Vettel is going beyond its capabilities thus sometimes making a few apex. And you never know whether his missing apex is due to driving over its limit, so called 100%+.

  14. F1kenyaN said on 3rd November 2012, 5:04

    Talk about sore looser.if rrb car was that fast, how come webber isn’t second and vettel doesnt win every race? Hell i think vettel has won the last 2 Race of champions where they all race the same kind of car.
    But i guess thats the kind of immature comment i’d expect from LH and i know if it was his team mate winning it, he’d probably say mclaren had given him an awful car and made a car suited for button. He seems to forget that at the start of the season mclaren were fastest yet they failed to take advantage. Throughout the season 3 teams had had a period where they were superior. First mclaren, then ferrari and now RB. LH failed to capitalize when mclaren were dominant, vettel and alonso have taken full advantage of their cars dominance, and have been consistently producing even when their cars weren’t the fastest.
    I guess we will never know who’s better until they both race the same car but i wouldn’t be suprised if vettel edges alonso despite what people think.

    • leotef (@leotef) said on 3rd November 2012, 5:50

      Yeah, all are Hamilton’s fault or his immaturity. He always fails to capitalize the fastest car McLaren by his own wrongdoing while Vettel is, of course, always maximizing his not so fast car and scoring the most.

    • Njack (@njack) said on 3rd November 2012, 6:28

      Talk about sore looser.if rrb car was that fast, how come webber isn’t second and vettel doesnt win every race? Hell i think vettel has won the last 2 Race of champions where they all race the same kind of car.

      Webber would have been second in the last 3 races if he hadn’t been Grosjeaned in Suzuka and had a KERS failure in India. As for ROC, Vettel has won the teams championship with Schumi the last five years, but has never won the single championship, being eliminated in quarters by Schumi last year, 2010 by Filipe Albuquerque, DNF’d his semi in 2009 vs Schumi, eliminated in quarterfinals by Loeb in ’08, eliminated in quarterfinals by Kovalinen in ’07.

      LH failed to capitalize when mclaren were dominant, vettel and alonso have taken full advantage of their cars dominance, and have been consistently producing even when their cars weren’t the fastest.

      Hamiltons team has let him down when the car was the best with pit stops in bahrain costing him 5th, fuel mixup costing him a podium or win in Spain, gearbox failure in Singapore and more. The only time Alonso has had the dominant car this year was the Italian grand prix.

      Nothing wrong with Vettel winning championships with the best car, though it is obviously getting to Hamilton/Alonso.

  15. Tyler (@tdog) said on 3rd November 2012, 6:42

    Hamilton is incapable of acknowledging Vettel as an equal, so he has to try to belittle his achievements. Funny, it actually tells us more about LH’s insecurities that anything else.

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.