2008 Monaco GP - Race 6/18

[sunama]

Correct however in wet conditions those variables get shaken up. A good driver can make a car that is 60kg heavier look as though it is still the same weight as its rivals, in wet conditions. And Hamilton did that. It's quite clear that Hamilton *did* benefit from getting heavily refuelled on his emergency pit stop.

From what I remember of that race, after Hamilton took on the additional fuel, he was actually slower or as fast as Massa. It was only after he burnt off some of the fuel and in particular after Massa had his first pit stop and took on fuel, that Hamilton began doing damage. But while he was carrying significantly more fuel than Massa, was going faster.

Thats how I remember it.

 

[FrankJH]

Schumacher haters: Get over it. Mclaren, Renault, Williams also have had parts banned after it helped them win races/championships. F1 is about pushing bounders and sometimes they are overstepped. The only WDC he won where he wasn't the best driver was probably '03 when he didn't have a great year, but put in some great performace that were key in the end- like france/canada against faster cars.

94 he wasnt the best driver either - the only way he could win the championship was by having a car designed completely around him, and barging someone off the track in the last race!!

The other driver was a defacto No2 at the start of the year, came through a very traumatic race where his team leader died (there can be no question at all that this compromised the team for the whole year, even several years) and was still within a point of winning the WDC when he was barged off the track in a very similar way to the events a few years later

 

[Owenb]

Tell me about these parts Williams, Mclaren and renault had banned.

Tell me all the times these teams outrighted cheated. Not times they had something passed as legal then was deemed illegal when other teams found out and complained.

Out right cheating.

I'd say the only case I can think its Mclaren cheating with emails and renault doing the same.

I'm really curious to know about williams and any other gems you have on macca and renault.

The way williams used tyres in the 2003 season was deemed illegal. Michelin have said they didn't change the tyres, but some of the teams had to change how they used them- both williams and renault i believe. JRS covers some of the other parts.

 

[Owenb]

ITV give plenty of coverage and support to David Coulthard who is Scottish. I'm sure if there was an Irish F1 driver that he would be given the same treatment.

People keep saying that Hamilton won Monaco because of this, that and that. Fact is, he won it. He got from the start line to the finish line quicker than anybody else that day. I'm not sure why people are analysing his win so much and in some cases discounting it as being the result of a good strategy. So what? So did MS or Alonso never win anything due to having a good strategy? Of course they did. So why not analyse and discount their wins in intricate detail as well?

I have no problem with the giving hamilton loads of airtime, just the references to Senna at every opportunity and the blindest towards some of his laps that are obviously low fuel runs like Silverstone Q lap last year and turkey. Granted Hamilton is probably to "blame" for a lot that as he brings Senna up often enough!

Nobody is disputing his win in Monaco but when I have to listen to 2 hours of how it's a Senna like performance, and then the same from his fans afterwards i will call it like it is. The race was over after 10 laps, he had it won. He didn't need to do anything special unless of course a SC intervened which it didn't. Great wins come from races where things go against the driver, not when the races falls into their lap.

 

[Overlag]

I know nothing, but i thought it was a downforce device for cornering - so may well go faster in straights without it

ED: http://www.symscape.com/blog/f1_aero

nope, the front wings cause very very little drag when compaired to wheels, engine cover, rear wing etc.

as said, (and in your link) the front wing is more of turning device for the air, it doesnt cause the massive drag of the rear wing.

one of the reasons honda do so poorly each year is there front wing is too agressive and causes stalling (high drag, no downforce). IF it was a honda doing the same thing right into the back of alonso i might well beleive the report.

If anything drag increases with the loss of the front wing, as it isnt directing the airflow over the rest of the body/wheels.

Oh and anyway, it was only the bridge wing anyway.

 

[sunama]

It seems to me that some people will do anything to discredit MS's multiple wins, wdc's, poles, fastest laps, etc.

If anyone who didnt know anything about F1 had read the last 10 posts, they would be thinking that MS was some form of puppet, who got lucky and cheated throughout his entire F1 career and only won races because the right people wanted to see him win.

I totally admit that he cheated in 1994, by crashing into D.Hill to avoid D.Hill from winning the title. However, the illegal car that was run during most of that year cannot be attributed to him. Thats for his engineers to sort out. He knew what was going on of course, as he is highly intelligent, however, his bosses and engineers make the final call on whether to risk running illegally. In the end they got caught and MS got banned from 3 races (which Hill won in MS's absence) and had 1 race win (10pts) taken away. He lost 40pts, but still won the title, albeit, by taking Hill out of the Aussie GP. IMO, in 1994, the fastest driver/car package won the title. MS not only forced Senna into 2 errors in 3 races, but he also hammered the entire field into submission. It wouldve been a travesty had Hill won the WDC as he was comprehensively being beaten by MS in all the races, on the track.

In 1995 of course, MS went out and demolished the opposition. MS (102pts), Hill (69pts). This was after the car was officially, legal.

 

[sunama]

Great wins come from races where things go against the driver, not when the races falls into their lap.

Well, he crashed the car. His race strategy was compromised and after his extra pit stop, he came out in 4th, way behind Massa. At this point in the race, IMO, the odds were against him winning, especially given that Massa was the one who was putting up all the fastest laps.

 

[Owenb]

Well, he crashed the car. His race strategy was compromised and after his extra pit stop, he came out in 4th, way behind Massa. At this point in the race, IMO, the odds were against him winning, especially given that Massa was the one who was putting up all the fastest laps.

You watch much F1?
His crash didn't compromised his race, it made it. He was ~35s behind after it but had taken his first stop- he DIDN'T take an extra stop. Once the safety car came out that gap was wiped out and now he had taken his first stop, while Massa and kubica had to stop twice. It gets even better- Ferrari forecast said it would rain again so they fueled up Massa for a 1 stop race but had to stop again for dries which slowed him down by ~1 second a lap with no benefit.

 

[sunama]

It gets even better- Ferrari forecast said it would rain again so they fueled up Massa for a 1 stop race but had to stop again for dries which slowed him down by ~1 second a lap with no benefit.

You cannot possibly blame Hamilton for that.

With regards to safety cars - Hamilton had built up a huge lead after all the stops, however the safety car negated that advantage. At the end of the day, if you are a driver/team, you have to learn to deal with safety car incidents and pencil them into your race strategy.

Before long, we will all be saying, "Oh, this race was won because of a safety car and that race was also won because of a safety car." Soon, any race that Hamilton wins will be won not because of his skill, but because of external influences (see the on-going argument of MS in this thread).

At the end of the day, the safety car (SC) has now become an integral part of racing - just as fuel stops and tyre strategy are. You even have to come into the pits earlier than you need to, to refuel, because if you leave it till the last lap and a safety car comes out, you will either run out of fuel or you will have to take a stop-go or drive-through penalty.

Example: If DRIVER A (say Heikki, as he is one unlucky sod) is leading the race and the SC comes out, while DRIVER A needs to refuel, he will take a penalty. Meanwhile, Hamilton who is running in 2nd, assumes the lead and wins. Hamilton did not get lucky. DRIVER A was a nincumpoop for not pitting earlier. Hamilton, has simply accepted the fact that SC is part of race strategy and cannot be ignored.

I hope people in future will not attribute SC incidents in gifting wins to any particular driver. The driver still has to lead the race and be at the front (or thereabouts) to profit from an SC incident.

 

[dannyjo22]

The way williams used tyres in the 2003 season was deemed illegal. Michelin have said they didn't change the tyres, but some of the teams had to change how they used them- both williams and renault i believe. JRS covers some of the other parts.

The michelin tyres where within the rules until they re-wrote the rules. Once they re-wrote them the teams changed tyres. They where not illegal until clarification was sought on the way the tyre moved. Then they where outlawed.

Big difference between that and running illegal software or removing a fuel filter or running your car too low.

Read what he wrote again, danny.



McLaren had their third pedal banned. Renault had their mass damper banned. Williams....well, I don't think any of us would deny that they had a distinct advantage before the active ride/TC/ABS/fully auto gearchange era came to end. So, as far as I can tell....what Owenb says is correct?

In that respects what he said was correct but all those items you mention had been run passed the fia as ok, its only when other teams question them they then got banned.

 

[dannyjo22]

In the end they got caught and MS got banned from 3 races (which Hill won in MS's absence) and had 1 race win (10pts) taken away. He lost 40pts, but still won the title, albeit, by taking Hill out of the Aussie GP. IMO.

Only one of the penalties was for cheating. The 10 points lost for illegally run the car low at spa. Another race the record books say he won when he didnt really.

He then DQ for overtaking on the parade lap of silverstone, a race he didnt win anyway.

The other two bans where for ignoring the black flag at silverstone.

Only 10 of those 40 you mention where for punishment for cheating. 30 of the 40 ended up getting as a result of being a nobbler on a parade lap.

 

[Alibaba99]

I don't think he ever said those teams outright cheated. And if it comes down to it - when did Ferrari outright field an illegal car? I know all the innuendo about traction control - was it ever actually proven? They had parts deemed illegal by further rules clarifications, like most teams. But did they honestly ever field an illegal car design at any point?

Benetton are a different story, of course. And a pretty odd story by all accounts.

Oversized bargeboards (rules were changed as the Ferrari was being measured the 2nd time) and last years flexi floor spring to mind.

 

[JRS]

Oversized bargeboards (rules were changed as the Ferrari was being measured the 2nd time) and last years flexi floor spring to mind.

The bargeboards - ah yes, the bit that was within tolerance when measured one way, and outside the tolerance when measured another. F1 does throw these wonderful circumstances up from time to time, thanks to the overly complex and restrictive rulebook.

The floor - legal when raced, subsequently made illegal by rules clarification. Not seeing the problem here.

 

[FrankJH]

It seems to me that some people will do anything to discredit MS's multiple wins, wdc's, poles, fastest laps, etc.

If anyone who didnt know anything about F1 had read the last 10 posts, they would be thinking that MS was some form of puppet, who got lucky and cheated throughout his entire F1 career and only won races because the right people wanted to see him win.

I totally admit that he cheated in 1994, by crashing into D.Hill to avoid D.Hill from winning the title. However, the illegal car that was run during most of that year cannot be attributed to him. Thats for his engineers to sort out. He knew what was going on of course, as he is highly intelligent, however, his bosses and engineers make the final call on whether to risk running illegally. In the end they got caught and MS got banned from 3 races (which Hill won in MS's absence) and had 1 race win (10pts) taken away. He lost 40pts, but still won the title, albeit, by taking Hill out of the Aussie GP. IMO, in 1994, the fastest driver/car package won the title. MS not only forced Senna into 2 errors in 3 races, but he also hammered the entire field into submission. It wouldve been a travesty had Hill won the WDC as he was comprehensively being beaten by MS in all the races, on the track.

In 1995 of course, MS went out and demolished the opposition. MS (102pts), Hill (69pts). This was after the car was officially, legal.

The fact is that MS won those races in 94 using an illegal car - if it wasnt illegal then he may not have won so many, on top of that pitstops where faster due to the faster flowing fuel so he benefitted no end from that also (missing traffic let alone the shorter time in the pits itself)

MAYBE MS would have won fair and square - but you cant at all say it was a given as blindly as you are suggesting, considering the many things MS had to his (unfair) advantage

At the end of the day Hill caused MS to crash due to pressure, so MS certainly wasnt hammering him in the most crucial race that year - MS gained a championship where he shouldnt have, and its hard to dispute that

 

[Alibaba99]

The bargeboards - ah yes, the bit that was within tolerance when measured one way, and outside the tolerance when measured another. F1 does throw these wonderful circumstances up from time to time, thanks to the overly complex and restrictive rulebook.

The floor - legal when raced, subsequently made illegal by rules clarification. Not seeing the problem here.

The key bit with the bargeboards was that they were not subject to a tolerance (the components covered by the tolerance to allow for thermal expansion were explicitly listed and the bargeboards weren't on the list) until the 2nd measurement when they were still found to be oversized but when the rules were reworded and the tolerance became applicable they became legal.

The floor is an interesting one as the Ferrari floor system was deliberately setup to get round the limited test applied to the floor, but which went totally outside the actual rules which set an upper allowable limit for deflection. Also strange that something supposedly legal was hidden from the scrutes.

 

[sunama]

At the end of the day Hill caused MS to crash due to pressure, so MS certainly wasnt hammering him in the most crucial race that year - MS gained a championship where he shouldnt have, and its hard to dispute that

Yes. That Aussie GP was the one race where I felt Hill had the edge. Hill and MS were pulling away from Mansell (in 3rd) at around a second a lap. I think on that day, MS didnt perform badly, but Hill, just raised his game. It was a shame that he didnt race in all the GPs, like that - if he did, he mightve been just as strong as MS.

That was the first race I saw MS not acting cocky and he look vulnerable. Even after he crashed out and stood by the fencing, he looked very vulnerable.

 

[JRS]

I think some of you would go in for NASCAR's system regarding the rulebook. Go even slightly outside the car construction rules, and if you get caught you and your car owner get a 100 point penalty and your crew chief gets a six race suspension and $100k fine. And they do this even when their own rule is a wee bit suspect - at one of the road course races last year (think it was Sears Point) Jeff Gordon and Jimmie Johnson had their cars fail inspection on the bodywork not fitting the template. It was out by a very negligible amount, and the way NASCAR was measuring it was highly questionable, but they still got punished 'cause those are the rules.

I think I've posted about it on here before - a few years back Jeff Gordon's team turned up at a race with a very interesting car to drive. It was perfectly legal by the wording of the rulebook, but....well, there had never been a car built like it before and after the race NASCAR told the team never to bring it back ever again. They weren't about to throw his win with it out, because what would be the justification? It passed inspection. But they made sure that the rules would be reworked so it would never pass again.

NASCAR might have done an awful lot wrong over the last twenty years, but compared to the FIA they're a shining beacon of excellence

 

[dannyjo22]

Even after he crashed out and stood by the fencing, he looked very vulnerable.

Vulnerable? The cockroach was waiting to see whether he had done enough damage to stop Hill coming round, then he started celebrating because he had done enough.

Totally ruthless, not a hint of vulnerability. Fully prepared to use the car as a weapon. Anyone that can do that can never be described as Vulnerable.

Mansell would have creamed the pair of them even at 150 stone if he hadn't had his orders to keep the hell away.

 

[MagicBoy]

I think I've posted about it on here before - a few years back Jeff Gordon's team turned up at a race with a very interesting car to drive. It was perfectly legal by the wording of the rulebook, but....well, there had never been a car built like it before and after the race NASCAR told the team never to bring it back ever again. They weren't about to throw his win with it out, because what would be the justification? It passed inspection. But they made sure that the rules would be reworked so it would never pass again.

Brabham Fancar anyone?

About the only time the FIA ever got it right first time. Only took them 15 years to sort out outlawing traction control...

 

[JRS]

Brabham Fancar anyone?

Again though, legal when raced. The fan was used to cool the engine, honest!

Besides which - that car only came about because Brabham needed something to counter the ground effect Lotus, and the flat-12 Alfa engine they had at the time prohibited the floor design needed for GE. They were getting a V12 the next year, but needed something in the interim. And if you're going to borrow ideas, you might as well borrow them from a decent source (the fan concept had been used on the Chaparral 2J some years previously in American sportscar racing).


***edit***

I love Niki Lauda's comment about it. When Mario Andretti complained that the fan was throwing crap up into him when he followed Lauda, Niki replied that if he didn't like it he should overtake or **** off....