865 replies to this topic

[lars75]

Problem is that he was not there before turn in and that I'd when the drivers look in the mirrors. The move relied on the other driver making a evasive manoeuvre and that I'd never safe.

 

He was there, watching it ones more from above it seems Ericsson hit the brakes quit early and Verstappen dove in to the gap directly. He was next to him and if Ericsson did steer in I think he was the one to blame for not paying attention. It was bold, but not that big of a deal.

[Seanspeed]

Looked like Ferrari was one step behind for the whole weekend. They were good but not good enough.
 
I liked the race strategy to force Mercedes to react, by pitting Vettel early. But because they had two cars near the top it would also have been interesting to use two different strategies. What do you think Mercedes would have done if Ferrari had pitted Vettel early (which they did) but put on the medium tires on Vettel's car in the beginning. Somehow I think Merc would have followed Ferrari and used the medium for the first. Then you would have pitted the other car (Kimi in this case) and used the soft. I just think they could mix up the situation when they have two cars in the top 4...

If they put on mediums for the 2nd stint, they would have had a slower stint and not been as much of a threat. Yea, they'd pit later for the last stint and have a quick car on soft tires, but they'd be a ways back, trying to catch up.

Really wasn't anything to gain by doing it considering soft tires were quick and lasted well enough.

[wift]

If they put on mediums for the 2nd stint, they would have had a slower stint and not been as much of a threat. Yea, they'd pit later for the last stint and have a quick car on soft tires, but they'd be a ways back, trying to catch up.

Really wasn't anything to gain by doing it considering soft tires were quick and lasted well enough.

I know the driver who would have went soft-medium-soft would have been behind, but Merc would probably have opted for the same strategy and then the other driver going soft-soft-medium could have attacked (at least 2nd place). Why not try alternative strategies for your 2 drivers? They would finish ahead of Williams anyway...

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

Up front, the racing was blah blah, whatever moves Ferrari considered, Mercedes were able to cover them quite comfortably. IMO the Mercedes are incredibly dominant, and it was a sham to see them slow down just to put on the appearance they were being challenged. It's the car folks, the Mercedes make their drivers look good, and Rosberg makes Hamilton look even better. There are easily ten drivers who could win in that car, given the ride.

 

Further back there were some good battles, and some interesting passes.

 

This also proves that Malaysia was an anomaly, that Mercedes are freakingingly dominant, that although Ferrari have made fantastic improvement, they are nowhere close to the Mercedes cars. Expect the noise by other teams to grow again, demanding some change to bring Mercedes back into their clutches.

[ardbeg]

Again look at this:

http://gfycat.com/Ve...nalChimneyswift

 

Looking at those images it is clear that Max is already there before Ericsson turns in, however Ericsson didn't expect him and most likely did not see him. There is a risk in making such a move, however it was carried out flawlessly by a boy of 17 years and with limited car racing experience (aside from the massive karting experience he has). The later makes the move very impressive, however I agree if Ericsson continued to make the corner a collision would have been unavoidable. 

I did not say the move was wrong or that he should not have done it, I said it was risky. Look at that GIF again and imagine you are Ericsson. At what point do you think that you stop watching the mirrors and start focusing on your turn in point and the apex? While you do that, put your right hand approximately where the mirror would be and see if you can focus on both the hand and any object 5-20 meters ahead. You cant. That is why the diving moves will always be risky. They are less risky, of course, if you have spotter that screams "INSIDE INSIDE!" in your ears, because your hearing is on a separate channel.

[ardbeg]

He was there, watching it ones more from above it seems Ericsson hit the brakes quit early and Verstappen dove in to the gap directly. He was next to him and if Ericsson did steer in I think he was the one to blame for not paying attention. It was bold, but not that big of a deal.

Ericsson was braking with the objective of hitting the apex. Verstappen sacrificed the apex, the overall lap speed, for track position. That is of course always a valid point for missing the apex. It does not mean Ericsson braked early though.

[JosD]

I did not say the move was wrong or that he should not have done it, I said it was risky. Look at that GIF again and imagine you are Ericsson. At what point do you think that you stop watching the mirrors and start focusing on your turn in point and the apex? While you do that, put your right hand approximately where the mirror would be and see if you can focus on both the hand and any object 5-20 meters ahead. You cant. That is why the diving moves will always be risky. They are less risky, of course, if you have spotter that screams "INSIDE INSIDE!" in your ears, because your hearing is on a separate channel.

 

Than we appear to be on the same line, as I already said it was a risky move indeed. While it was abundantly clear that Ericsson did not expect him; he even forgot to shift gears.

Edited by JosD, 13 April 2015 - 13:40.

[Jovanotti]

Moves that heavily rely on the other driver yielding are always going to be risky and can potentially lead to a crash (Perez in Monaco '13 springs to mind). In this case I'd say it was hard, but ok as the track was wide enough and left Ericsson room to react.

[A3]

It does not mean Ericsson braked early though.

Well, he was't trying to do everything in his power to defend his position, as his "I'm cruising" rear light was on.

[Raikkonen94]

Moves that heavily rely on the other driver yielding are always going to be risky and can potentially lead to a crash (Perez in Monaco '13 springs to mind). In this case I'd say it was hard, but ok as the track was wide enough and left Ericsson room to react.

 

It is indeed. Though in this case Ericsson left the door pretty much wide open whereas Kimi didn't back in Monaco and Perez just decided to jump into a gap which wasn't there.

[HeadFirst]

Up front, the racing was blah blah, whatever moves Ferrari considered, Mercedes were able to cover them quite comfortably. IMO the Mercedes are incredibly dominant, and it was a sham to see them slow down just to put on the appearance they were being challenged. It's the car folks, the Mercedes make their drivers look good, and Rosberg makes Hamilton look even better. There are easily ten drivers who could win in that car, given the ride.

 

Further back there were some good battles, and some interesting passes.

 

This also proves that Malaysia was an anomaly, that Mercedes are freakingingly dominant, that although Ferrari have made fantastic improvement, they are nowhere close to the Mercedes cars. Expect the noise by other teams to grow again, demanding some change to bring Mercedes back into their clutches.

 

This was often the argument used against Vettel during the Red Bull reign ...... "Anyone could win in that car." There may be 10 drivers that could win in the Mercedes, but how many could beat Hamilton on a consistent basis?

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

This was often the argument used against Vettel during the Red Bull reign ...... "Anyone could win in that car." There may be 10 drivers that could win in the Mercedes, but how many could beat Hamilton on a consistent basis?

 

I could easily think of three of four I would like to see in a Mercedes and give it a go. But that will never happen.

 

But the arguments raised against Vettel are just as valid today as when they were raised. Any driver in an utterly dominant car and with a faltering team mate looks good.

[robefc]

Mark Hughes raised an interesting point in his race review. He said Merc were in a massive quandary with the SC as Ferrari has enough of a gap to Williams to pit and retain position. If there had been one lap left of racing they would have been on new prime or almost new softs against the worn mercs....alternatively Merc could have pitted a driver but then if Ferrari didn't pit they would have lost out if there was no more racing (as it turned out). Plus who would they have pitted? Would have cost Lewis the race but if they had pitted nico and then there was another lap and he and/ or ferraris overtook Lewis....

I didn't notice any of this at the time but is my memory deceiving or did the Ferrari crew come out into the pit lane? One wonders if they could both pit without losing a place why didn't they?

[Jovanotti]

Yes the Ferrari crew was ready, I didn't get why at the time though.

[rjsports]

Honestly when are we going to stop whining about everything and start enjoying overtakes...

 

Starts at 12:08

 

Edited by rjsports, 14 April 2015 - 07:55.

[Oho]

I didn't notice any of this at the time but is my memory deceiving or did the Ferrari crew come out into the pit lane? One wonders if they could both pit without losing a place why didn't they?

 

Well pit stops are always a risk on themselves, vis-á-vis Melbourne, there was no point stopping once finish behind safety car became all but certain.