Hamilton gets new chassis after cracks discovered

It's conveniant for those who are generally negative towards Hamilton to gloss over a damaged chassis as of no consequence to performance or ignore it because 'it can't be proven'.  As for 'peoples original assumption', well that was your own, generally borne out of wrongfully attributing a radio communication to be about tyres when it was in actual fact about the car; and failing to read the race correctly in that there was no possibility for Hamilton to back off.  Therefore a baseless criticism, or blind criticism for teh sake of it.  No, his pace was poor, whether at the start, middle or end of a stint.  It's not beyond the realms of possibility that there was an issue in Abu Dhabi.  Naturally the reaction here is a tad on edge, particularly among those who were comforted by Hamilton's struggles in abu dhabi, and those who vainly tried to use it to support their tired old tyre arguement.  The disclaimer would be that of course Rosberg can be faster than Hamilton, and yes Hamilton can have a bad race.  But Abu Dhabi was out of the ordinary.  The performance in the US was a case of 'to be expected', which interestingly enough you are having a bit of a sneer at too.  Akin to tying yourself in noughts for a bit of negative spin.

Well said.

It's conveniant for those who are generally negative towards Hamilton to gloss over a damaged chassis as of no consequence to performance or ignore it because 'it can't be proven'.  As for 'peoples original assumption', well that was your own, generally borne out of wrongfully attributing a radio communication to be about tyres when it was in actual fact about the car; and failing to read the race correctly in that there was no possibility for Hamilton to back off.  Therefore a baseless criticism, or blind criticism for teh sake of it.  No, his pace was poor, whether at the start, middle or end of a stint.  It's not beyond the realms of possibility that there was an issue in Abu Dhabi.  Naturally the reaction here is a tad on edge, particularly among those who were comforted by Hamilton's struggles in abu dhabi, and those who vainly tried to use it to support their tired old tyre arguement.  The disclaimer would be that of course Rosberg can be faster than Hamilton, and yes Hamilton can have a bad race.  But Abu Dhabi was out of the ordinary.  The performance in the US was a case of 'to be expected', which interestingly enough you are having a bit of a sneer at too.  Akin to tying yourself in noughts for a bit of negative spin.

Even if there was no alternative to running close behind other cars at Abu Dhabi, that doesn't mean it wasn't a contributing factor in Hamilton's poor pace. You interpret what I said as a pure criticism, but I merely observed that I thought he failed to manage the tyres properly. It wasn't necessarily easy, in the situation he was in, to do so and I offer it more by way of explanation than criticism. You say that his pace was equally poor at the start of the stints as at the end, but at the start of the stints his pace was dictated by the car ahead, pretty much. One would have expected Hamilton, once released into clear air, to be able to pick up the pace but he wasn't able to, which is why I think tyre deg was indeed a factor. I don't think it's controversial to say Hamilton tends to go better when the tyres are not too marginal in terms of deg. He didn't go so well in Barcelona, either.

You may think I'm sneering at Hamilton's fourth in Austin but I'm really not. I'm merely observing that his underlying pace may not have been massively improved; in recent races he has found himself trapped behind slower cars and has therefore lost time hand over fist, whereas in Austin he qualified where he was supposed to, had a decent first lap and then ran in clear air for most of the race, without any slower cars in front of him getting in his way. I also point out that, if anyone else was going to get ahead of Hamilton, the prime candidates would normally have been people like Rosberg, Massa and Raikkonnen, and they weren't in the hunt, so it's not a surprise to see Hamilton have a good race here. We don't necessarily need the cracked chassis explanation in order to understand why this might have happened.

None of this proves that the cracked chassis was not costing Hamilton anything, I am merely objecting the the notion that it's established fact or that there is anything about the results of the last few races that wouldn't make perfect sense without some sort of special explanation for Hamilton's lack of pace at Abu Dhabi.

I notice you choose to ignore the fact that, if the cracks did appear in the chassis on Friday or Saturday at Abu Dhabi as a result of Hamilton going off track, then there is very little that anybody could have done about that apart from Hamilton, who could have kept the car on the road and not damaged it. And if they appeared before that, it seems odd that Hamilton never said to the team that he felt the car was damaged.

Well, not really, because Alonso has a long track record of being consistently quicker than Massa and Vettel has a long, though less consistent, track record of being quicker than Webber. Hamilton has no such track record against Rosberg or, indeed, against any of his former teammates other than Kovaleinnen.

If either Mercedes driver outperforms the other over the course of a given weekend, it's not much of a surprise. According to Ross Brawn the cracks in Hamilton's chassis might or might not have been severe enought to influence the handling. So there's every chance they weren't and Hamilton suffered no disadvantage.

But let's suppose they were. If you damage the tub on Friday or Saturday then generally speaking, you're stuck with it anyway. It sounds like the cracks were likely caused by Hamilton going off and bouncing over the kerbs, so effectively we're being told it's not Lewis' fault he was slow because there was damage to the car that he caused. If, on the other hand, the cracks originally appeared before Abu Dhabi, then it's puzzling why the team didn't spot this and why Hamilton wasn't complaining of poor handling, if it was such a disadvantage.

I think it's a theory that conveniently excuses a poor performance in Abu Dhabi, but it's unproven and no more convincing an explanation for Hamilton's relative lack of pace than most people's original assumption; that he had run too close to other cars for too long and failed to manage his tyres properly. That's also consistent with Hamilton's apparent upturn in performance at Austin, where the tyres were a lot less marginal. Furthermore although 4th is Hamilton's best result for a while, it could be argued that it was only to be expected that he would finish a bit higher up given that Rosberg and Massa both messed up on Saturday, and Kimi wasn't there at all and his replacement was hopeless.

your joking right? Lewis was often faster than jenson and alonso. In 2011 lewis never lacked pace, he just kept hitting other cars. In 2012 he was the only driver to make it into q3 every single time. And on about 7_8 occasions he was atleast half a second quicker than jenson. After the first 10races this season, it was 7-3 to lewis I believe. So lewis was often faster than nico. Then all of a sudden his performances dropped.

He did for a short run.

Jenson had a run later in the year of out-qualifying him quite handily.

your joking right? Lewis was often faster than jenson and alonso. In 2011 lewis never lacked pace, he just kept hitting other cars. In 2012 he was the only driver to make it into q3 every single time. And on about 7_8 occasions he was atleast half a second quicker than jenson. After the first 10races this season, it was 7-3 to lewis I believe. So lewis was often faster than nico. Then all of a sudden his performances dropped.

Just look at the stats (Sundays not Saturdays, because that's what counts). There is no comparison between the kind of dominance Alonso has always had over Massa, or the dominance Vettel has had for the last three years over Webber, and Hamilton's record over Alonso, Button or Rosberg. "Often" isn't the criterion.

In order for a one-off instance of a driver being outpaced (which is what Abu Dhabi was) to require a special explanation in order to be understood, it would need to be virtually unheard of for that driver to be outpaced by his teammate. That's the case with Alonso/Massa. It is not the case with Hamilton/Rosberg.

Edited by redreni, 18 November 2013 - 15:26.

an amusing read.

Hamilton Fans blame it all on the crack - their get out of jail free card.

Hamilton haters say the crack is only PR - Hamiltons form is gone and they are clinging to hope Rosberg may indeed be quicker.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle of the two, Hamilton off form for a few races and being hampered by the chassis damage and that's all there is too it. Just be grateful it happened in a dead season like this one is since India.

One thing though, the lack of sabotage/conspiracy theories is a very disappointing. I mean Lewis, a Brit in a German team, with German bosses and a German teammate. Going on what happened to him at the beastly McLaren, surely it was only a matter of time before his chassis got 'cracked'

an amusing read.

 

Hamilton Fans blame it all on the crack - their get out of jail free card.

Hamilton haters say the crack is only PR - Hamiltons form is gone and they are clinging to hope Rosberg may indeed be quicker.

 

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle of the two, Hamilton off form for a few races and being hampered by the chassis damage and that's all there is too it. Just be grateful it happened in a dead season like this one is since India.

 

One thing though, the lack of sabotage/conspiracy theories is a very disappointing. I mean Lewis, a Brit in a German team, with German bosses and a German teammate. Going on what happened to him at the beastly McLaren, surely it was only a matter of time before his chassis got 'cracked'

That's not the middle of it, you are using the "free out of jail" argumentation, where to do you know from -  he suffered from the chassis damage several races and not since AbuDhabi, I have my problems with the whole thing because, it has no value for a discussion because of million unknown facts, I believe the team, I believe Hamilton but when he is saying the car was better, but it's unlikely that all his troubles were down to this chassis. Who wants to believe this, should do it, if it feels better. 

Burtros hasn't argued that all the troubles were down to the chassis.  He's taken a very central line that the chassis problems probably didn't help Lewis who was a little off form.  It's as valid for him to claim that as it is for you to dismiss it.  It might all be rubbish, or might all be part of the problem.

That's not the middle of it, you are using the "free out of jail" argumentation, where to do you know from -  he suffered from the chassis damage several races and not since AbuDhabi, I have my problems with the whole thing because, it has no value for a discussion because of million unknown facts, I believe the team, I believe Hamilton but when he is saying the car was better, but it's unlikely that all his troubles were down to this chassis. Who wants to believe this, should do it, if it feels better. 

I really really cannot see how your opinion differs from mine in anyway.

and FYI - I am unlikley to want to use the 'get out of jail card' since Lewis Hamilton is by a considerable margin the driver I least like on the whole grid. I cant stand him, man. I would have frickin loved it if he had had another shocker in the USA, man. But he didnt, so clearly there is something in the car problems Merc speak off. However, I also remember Lewis saying he needed to do better in some post race stuff recently, so to me, it seems a bit of both.

Edited by Burtros, 18 November 2013 - 15:44.

Burtros hasn't argued that all the troubles were down to the chassis.  He's taken a very central line that the chassis problems probably didn't help Lewis who was a little off form.  It's as valid for him to claim that as it is for you to dismiss it.  It might all be rubbish, or might all be part of the problem.

that is my point,  I can be completely wrong, though I have no real opinion on it, I have the feeling he suffered in AbuDhabi because of it, but have no base to argue. What's the point about it when the team didn't know when the crack accrued and what impact it had.. this cracked chassis is more a discussion killer than a anything else..

Edited by 1Devil1, 18 November 2013 - 15:53.

EXTRA - EXTRA !

Hamilton to get a new butt for the last race in Brazil, since Mercedes engineers found a 'crack' on it. 

EXTRA - EXTRA !
 
Hamilton to get a new butt for the last race in Brazil, since Mercedes engineers found a 'crack' on it. 

an amusing read.

 

Hamilton Fans blame it all on the crack - their get out of jail free card.

Hamilton haters say the crack is only PR - Hamiltons form is gone and they are clinging to hope Rosberg may indeed be quicker.

 

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle of the two, Hamilton off form for a few races and being hampered by the chassis damage and that's all there is too it. Just be grateful it happened in a dead season like this one is since India.

 

One thing though, the lack of sabotage/conspiracy theories is a very disappointing. I mean Lewis, a Brit in a German team, with German bosses and a German teammate. Going on what happened to him at the beastly McLaren, surely it was only a matter of time before his chassis got 'cracked'

Always easy to take the middle course and "seem" reasonable ..... but you cant have it both ways this time

Always easy to take the middle course and "seem" reasonable ..... but you cant have it both ways this time

I can have it both ways because its perfectly plausible it could have been a bits of both problems combined. If its not, you'll have to enlighten me.

Edited by Burtros, 18 November 2013 - 20:37.

Always easy to take the middle course and "seem" reasonable ..... but you cant have it both ways this time

I think you can, and its not always easy.

I do not think that the chassis was cracked as far back as Monza, Lewis showed decent pace in the race, but got a puncture and was blocked/"drove like an idiot" in qualifying. No sign of anything there

Places like Japan he was on pace in qualifying, but that ended early due to the racing incident on the opening lap. 

Its hard/near on impossible to say where the chassis got cracked, I personally think he did it in Abu Dhabi qualifying, given how cars were flying around and going off track. It probably hurt his race trim for that race.

Before than weekends and Singapore he was probably off-form or Nico was just better, whichever one you like.

I think you can, and its not always easy.

 

I do not think that the chassis was cracked as far back as Monza, Lewis showed decent pace in the race, but got a puncture and was blocked/"drove like an idiot" in qualifying. No sign of anything there

 

Places like Japan he was on pace in qualifying, but that ended early due to the racing incident on the opening lap. 

 

Its hard/near on impossible to say where the chassis got cracked, I personally think he did it in Abu Dhabi qualifying, given how cars were flying around and going off track. It probably hurt his race trim for that race.

 

Before than weekends and Singapore he was probably off-form or Nico was just better, whichever one you like.

Just look at the stats (Sundays not Saturdays, because that's what counts). There is no comparison between the kind of dominance Alonso has always had over Massa, or the dominance Vettel has had for the last three years over Webber, and Hamilton's record over Alonso, Button or Rosberg. "Often" isn't the criterion.

 

In order for a one-off instance of a driver being outpaced (which is what Abu Dhabi was) to require a special explanation in order to be understood, it would need to be virtually unheard of for that driver to be outpaced by his teammate. That's the case with Alonso/Massa. It is not the case with Hamilton/Rosberg.

I think the term "outpaced" has been redundant on Sundays for the last few years. Qualifying yes, races no. When the ability to drive fast mattered in F1 races Hamilton's record on Sundays was exemplary. So on the days when Rosberg nurses his rubber better than Hamilton because of his setup, not being stuck in traffic, a slight change in climatic conditions or just because he is better at driving slowly, say that he "outraces" rather than "outpaces" Hamilton. The same is true when Hamilton beats Rosberg by the way.

I think the term "outpaced" has been redundant on Sundays for the last few years. Qualifying yes, races no. When the ability to drive fast mattered in F1 races Hamilton's record on Sundays was exemplary. So on the days when Rosberg nurses his rubber better than Hamilton because of his setup, not being stuck in traffic, a slight change in climatic conditions or just because he is better at driving slowly, say that he "outraces" rather than "outpaces" Hamilton. The same is true when Hamilton beats Rosberg by the way.

You can call it what you want. describe it how you want, at the end of the day the only goal is complete the race distance as fast as possible with whatever tools a driver has at his disposal.

And as redreni correctly pointed out, Alonso or Vettel being outpaced by their teammates on raceday happens once in a blue moon, whereas with Hamilton it happens a lot more often.

And that old chestnut how Hamilton would do so much better if he wouldn't have to look after the tyres is also of limited credibility. If it were true, shouldn't we see Hamilton chosing to do one more stop frequently, so that he could use every set of his tyres more and assert his alleged "driving fast" superiority? From what we hear, the differences between making one stop more or less is usually said to be between 6 to 10 seconds on most tracks, sometimes even less. So if there really would be a driver with a distinct "flat-out" speed advantage wouldn't he try to use that by always going for the higher number of stops? Yet somehow that isn't happening with Hamilton.

You can call it what you want. describe it how you want, at the end of the day the only goal is complete the race distance as fast as possible with whatever tools a driver has at his disposal.

 

And as redreni correctly pointed out, Alonso or Vettel being outpaced by their teammates on raceday happens once in a blue moon, whereas with Hamilton it happens a lot more often.

 

And that old chestnut how Hamilton would do so much better if he wouldn't have to look after the tyres is also of limited credibility. If it were true, shouldn't we see Hamilton chosing to do one more stop frequently, so that he could use every set of his tyres more and assert his alleged "driving fast" superiority? From what we hear, the differences between making one stop more or less is usually said to be between 6 to 10 seconds on most tracks, sometimes even less. So if there really would be a driver with a distinct "flat-out" speed advantage wouldn't he try to use that by always going for the higher number of stops? Yet somehow that isn't happening with Hamilton.

Its 6-10s with nursing the tires. If u go flat out on these, they give up after 3 laps. Get your "facts" straight.

I think the term "outpaced" has been redundant on Sundays for the last few years. Qualifying yes, races no. When the ability to drive fast mattered in F1 races Hamilton's record on Sundays was exemplary. So on the days when Rosberg nurses his rubber better than Hamilton because of his setup, not being stuck in traffic, a slight change in climatic conditions or just because he is better at driving slowly, say that he "outraces" rather than "outpaces" Hamilton. The same is true when Hamilton beats Rosberg by the way.

I just don't agree with the mentality that needing be careful in order to drive in a manner that you can keep up over a stint or a race distance is to be in any way contrasted with "the ability to drive". It's part of the skill of being a Grand Prix driver. I'm sorry, but F1 has never been about 1 lap pace and hopefully it never will be. It's about where you are at the end and if you finish ahead of somebody, all other things being equal, it means you've completed the same distance as him in less time and that's the definition of being faster.

The problem with judging outright pace on the basis of Q3 laps is that, whilst setting a faster Q3 lap than your teammate might indicate that you are inherently quicker than him, it also might indicate that you've set your car up wrong. The reason for that being that you can't change your setup before the race, so it's a compromise, and a driver might, accidentally or deliberately, set his car up in a way that makes him look better than his teammate on a Saturday but which costs him overall, particularly if it means he cooks the tyres in the race and/or he can't overtake because he's running too much drag and downforce. I just don't think qualifying on race tyres with race setup tells you who the fastest driver is. The proof of the pudding is where you end up on the last lap of the race.

Edited by redreni, 19 November 2013 - 16:20.

 

And as redreni correctly pointed out, Alonso or Vettel being outpaced by their teammates on raceday happens once in a blue moon, whereas with Hamilton it happens a lot more often.

 

That's true, but I should say, before I'm accused of being negative about Hamilton again, that the main reason for this is not that Hamilton is a bad driver, but that Alonso, Button and Rosberg are all much better than post-2009 Felipe Massa. They're also better than Webber. When Hamilton had a genuinely weak teammate, he pulverised him and it is no coincidence that that was the year he won the championship.

Its 6-10s with nursing the tires. If u go flat out on these, they give up after 3 laps. Get your "facts" straight.

Rosberg could do quicker times too, if the tyres allowed you to drive flat out for a full stint. The conditions are the same for everybody.

That's true, but I should say, before I'm accused of being negative about Hamilton again, that the main reason for this is not that Hamilton is a bad driver, but that Alonso, Button and Rosberg are all much better than post-2009 Felipe Massa. They're also better than Webber. When Hamilton had a genuinely weak teammate, he pulverised him and it is no coincidence that that was the year he won the championship.

That's true, but I should say, before I'm accused of being negative about Hamilton again, that the main reason for this is not that Hamilton is a bad driver, but that Alonso, Button and Rosberg are all much better than post-2009 Felipe Massa. They're also better than Webber. When Hamilton had a genuinely weak teammate, he pulverised him and it is no coincidence that that was the year he won the championship.

Plus all the mistakes that McLaren made. If Mclaren performed better, Hamilton would today be a 4 time WDC. Hopefully next year Mercedes brings a non problematic competitive car and makes zero mistakes.

Plus all the mistakes that McLaren made. If Mclaren performed better, Hamilton would today be a 4 time WDC. Hopefully next year Mercedes brings a non problematic competitive car and makes zero mistakes.

There are quite a few 'could have beens' on the grid.  Alonso, for example, could have been a 3 or 4 time champion had one piece of fate fallen his way in either '10 or '13.  Hamilton would have been a challenger for the WDC last year, if not for McLaren's increasingly creative ways to screw up.

There are quite a few 'could have beens' on the grid.  Alonso, for example, could have been a 3 or 4 time champion had one piece of fate fallen his way in either '10 or '13.  Hamilton would have been a challenger for the WDC last year, if not for McLaren's increasingly creative ways to screw up.

That is true. If Alonso made less mistakes in 2010 he would have been the WDC. Where as with Hamilton we can say that if McLaren made less mistakes. Notice the difference. 

You can call it what you want. describe it how you want, at the end of the day the only goal is complete the race distance as fast as possible with whatever tools a driver has at his disposal.

 

And as redreni correctly pointed out, Alonso or Vettel being outpaced by their teammates on raceday happens once in a blue moon, whereas with Hamilton it happens a lot more often.

 

And that old chestnut how Hamilton would do so much better if he wouldn't have to look after the tyres is also of limited credibility. If it were true, shouldn't we see Hamilton chosing to do one more stop frequently, so that he could use every set of his tyres more and assert his alleged "driving fast" superiority? From what we hear, the differences between making one stop more or less is usually said to be between 6 to 10 seconds on most tracks, sometimes even less. So if there really would be a driver with a distinct "flat-out" speed advantage wouldn't he try to use that by always going for the higher number of stops? Yet somehow that isn't happening with Hamilton.

Webber and Massa after his accident are not Button, Alonso or Rosberg, They just aren't.

As for making one more stop? I somehow doubt he is sufficiently fast enough to cover a 20 second deficit plus running in traffic. 

You can call it what you want. describe it how you want, at the end of the day the only goal is complete the race distance as fast as possible with whatever tools a driver has at his disposal.

 

And as redreni correctly pointed out, Alonso or Vettel being outpaced by their teammates on raceday happens once in a blue moon, whereas with Hamilton it happens a lot more often.

 

And that old chestnut how Hamilton would do so much better if he wouldn't have to look after the tyres is also of limited credibility. If it were true, shouldn't we see Hamilton chosing to do one more stop frequently, so that he could use every set of his tyres more and assert his alleged "driving fast" superiority? From what we hear, the differences between making one stop more or less is usually said to be between 6 to 10 seconds on most tracks, sometimes even less. So if there really would be a driver with a distinct "flat-out" speed advantage wouldn't he try to use that by always going for the higher number of stops? Yet somehow that isn't happening with Hamilton.

Stopped there. Can't read past such ludicrous statement.

 

 

Its hard/near on impossible to say where the chassis got cracked

Then the obvious conclusion is it made little if any difference.

Then the obvious conclusion is it made little if any difference.

Then the obvious conclusion is it made little if any difference.

Not particularly.  It would be reasonable to conclude that it occurred at Abu Dhabi, where he had a couple of heavy runs over kerbs and suffered a structural failure of the suspension in qualifying, (one of those excusrisons was over the same set of kerbs which Alonso ran over to his own injury).  His race pace there was fairly dire, so there was an arguable detrimental affect.  Cracks and holes in chassis aren't desirable, and while nobody can quantify exactly the disadvanatge of that I think we can pass over the silliness that involves claiming it would have made no difference at all. 

At the prior races it looked fairly normal- some bodged first laps, poor strategy, one stint with eaten tyres, and Rosberg on occassion being marginally faster which is what we had already seen through the season.

Stopped there. Can't read past such ludicrous statement.

Are we really going to have to go into this?

To recap, a lot of people were claiming that the fact Hamilton had been outpaced at Abu Dhabi was so out of the ordinary that it was something of a mystery, and that the revelation that there were cracks in the chassis helped explain what had hitherto been an inexplicable abberation. Hence the relevance of Hamilton's past record against Rosberg, because it's clearly not particularly unusual for Rosberg to outpace Hamilton on a Sunday.

E.g. Barcelona, Monaco, Monza, Singapore, Suzuka, Budhh, and arguably Melbourne (where a mechanical failure prevented him from finishing but Hamilton flatspotted a tyre and had to make an extra stop, leading one to suspect that Rosberg would have finished ahead had he been able to continue) and Sepang (where Rosberg was held behind Hamilton by a team order when, by Hamilton's own admission, Rosberg was faster).

Sure, there have been plenty of occasions where Hamilton was quicker too, and this is not the thread to discuss who has had the better season, but it is surely well established that it is not particularly unusual for Rosberg to be faster than Hamilton in a race, and therefore the hypothesis that Hamilton was significantly hampered by a cracked chassis is not the answer to some sort of mystery. It's just an unproven hypothesis and it doesn't help explain anything. I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm just saying there's no particular reason to think it must be true.

Now, I presume you're not disputing the fact that it is extremely rare for Alonso to be outpaced by Massa on a Sunday? If you are, I wonder if you'd be so kind as to provide example of this happening on a regular basis?

Edited by redreni, 20 November 2013 - 13:37.

 

Now, I presume you're not disputing the fact that it is extremely rare for Alonso to be outpaced by Massa on a Sunday? If you are, I wonder if you'd be so kind as to provide example of this happening on a regular basis?

he's probably just implying that rosberg is vastly superior to massa and webber ... which I guess is a matter of opinion

Monza?  Suzuka? And as for Melbourne, no extra stop was taken.  It was merely taken out of synch with the other cars, but that was due to Mercedes running a longer first stint than the rest and then having to stop earlier for their final stint as they were under threat of being undercut by Webber.  Rosberg hadn't demonstrated any magical tyre saving in that race which would have enabled him to run the same strategy as Lotus or Force India (who struggled markedly at the end of the race).

But I agree with the general point that it's not unusual for Rosberg to faster in the race, so it's difficult to reason that a cracked chassis was the issue for fairly nomral discrepancies in speed between the cars at India or Singapore.  And nor can a cracked chassis be to blame for some of Hamilton's poor opening laps.

There will be no more cracks in any Mercedes chassis.  They have new ways of detecting and eliminating such problems.  Introducing the Toto2000.

There will be no more cracks in any Mercedes chassis.  They have new ways of detecting and eliminating such problems.  Introducing the Toto2000.

 

I think there's a cream that can clear that up.

Does anyone know what is Lewis Hamilton replacement chassis number? For his cracked chassis. F1 W04 0?