Official 2014 Singapore Grand Prix Thread ***SPOILERS in the form of mahoosive 90s double-decker rear wings***

I really don't think they need to reintroduce standing restarts after SC periods. But I guess it's not really a major change and it may add another dimension to tyre management.

I do feel for Rosberg, the general fallout from Spa was a massive overreaction by the team, by the media and by the public. It's been built up into a soap opera and he's essentially been turned into a panto villain. It's ridiculous really, and the social media bickering, and booing which is still going on is pretty pathetic to be honest.

So he doesn't like loosing, and will fight for the championship to the bitter end. So what? How exactly is that any different from any other driver, including the current darling that people seem that Hamilton is?

So I take it, that if Magnussen had said that he could have avoided Kimi's rear tyre in Malaysia, but he didn't because he wanted to prove a point, you'd have thought that to be just fine, right?

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

Of course it's not fine, but it was an over-reaction to what was essentially a minor contact. It had big implications for Hamilton, but I can think of two cases of a driver running a fellow competitor off the road while challenging for the lead, both with barely any fall out.

Vettel didn't get this much stick for crashing into Webber.

or button for crashing into alonso in canada 2011...actually i remember BBC comentators saying it would be unfair to take j.b.'s win away for that. and rather than booing he got cheers. i think it is basically that since there is not a huge f1 interest in US, the one remaining english speaking media to controll the public opinion is the british. and when you have a brit vs. a german for the title it all comes into place.

gav Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vettel didn't get this much stick for crashing
> into Webber.

Well he never said he did it to prove something either.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

gav schrieb:

>
> Vettel didn't get this much stick for crashing
> into Webber.


actually red bull pointed the finger at Mark Webber. This pretty much tells you that there was a favoured driver in the team. Mercedes did exactly the same with nico, namely, point the finger straight after the race, withouth team meetings, without review, nothing, just as RBR did it back in 2010 post turkey. Ergo the favoured driver in Merc. is.... ?

In all honesty I do not really think that Toto wolf or whoever consciously supports lewis and gives him favourable treatment. It just happens that if they lose nico they can find a quick driver - no problem. But if they lose lewis, they lose much more than a fast racer, they lose a very important marketing tool. My opinion is that this is why merc are so careful how they treat lewis.To be honest, if merc were winning as they do now, but had rosberg and vettel instead, this would have been the most non liked team on the grid - with hamilton onboard it's a completely different story. people will buy merc cars only because they love hamilton and identify themselves with what he is.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/25/2014 12:30PM by mitadumapaga.

mitadumapaga Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> actually red bull pointed the finger at Mark
> Webber. This pretty much tells you that there was
> a favoured driver in the team. Mercedes did
> exactly the same with nico, namely, point the
> finger straight after the race, withouth team
> meetings, without review, nothing, just as RBR did
> it back in 2010 post turkey. Ergo the favoured
> driver in Merc. is.... ?


Now that is flat out incorrect. I don't remember Red Bull pointing the finger straight at Webber. Secondly, as I showed with post race interviews in the previous thread, condemnation was withheld until the meeting between team management and the drivers. The same meeting where Rosberg made his infamous comment.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

Quote
Morbid
Secondly, as I showed with post race interviews in the previous thread, condemnation was withheld until the meeting between team management and the drivers.

You didn't see the English interviews immediately after the race. Toto suggested that Nico was to blame without saying it outright, but Niki came out and said it very matter of fact (as we've come to expect from him).

Really did enjoy the race.

I think a number of teams really did drop the ball trying to get to the end of the race on old tyres.

Perez was miles behind and then pitted again and made up more time than he lost. Drivers like Massa, Bottas, Nico etc all blew the chance to catch and pass the rbr cars and Alonso. New tyres were 5 seconds a lap faster in 5 laps they would have made up the time lost. I wish they would stop trying to nurse tyres and show some guts like Force India and STR did.

I thought Lewis drove a brilliant race tbh, it was his race to lose after Nico could not get going. He had to keep his head and after the safety car drive flat out and build the gap, MS used to get praised for doing just that. Yes he had the fastest car out there and was on the faster tyres but he still had to build the gap driving quali laps.

The 5 second penalty does not work. JV should have had two drive throughs which would have cost a min but now a driver can pass by going off track not get held up and make up the time. Stupid tbh. Everyone is prasing his drive but as said it was not done the right way.

gav Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You didn't see the English interviews immediately
> after the race. Toto suggested that Nico was to
> blame without saying it outright, but Niki came
> out and said it very matter of fact (as we've come
> to expect from him).

Ehh, as far as I know, I linked to the Toto interview and he said no such thing. He adamantly refused to apportion blame, despite being hounded by the reporter. As to the Lauda interview, link please.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

[dl.dropboxusercontent.com]

Well, that is pretty clear apportioning of blame after the podium ceremony. It's weird because Toto did an interview about 5 meters from that spot before the ceremony, where he was admant on not assigning blame, and pointed to after the meeting for a statement. The only thing I can see that could have changed his mind was the booing.

I do hold that it shouldn't happen like that. There needs to be a meeting first. However, I cannot see that this is evidence that there was nothing that Rosberg could have said that would have changed their minds. I cannot see that there would be a favoured driver either. If Lewis was favoured, why does he repeatedly suffer failures of the equipment? We all know how it went with Vettel and MS. Stellar reliability and problems for their team mates. And why does he repeatedly want to second guess the advice from the pit wall, like at Monza and here in Singapore. That is hardly the way of a driver that knows he has preferential status.

Also worthy of note, DC seems to be totally convinced that Rosberg was to blame and that it was a clear cut situation. He also praised the outspokeness of Wolff. Funny how opinions can differ.

And I still hold that Rosberg is to blame for his own lack of popularity. He is reaping what he sowed by being a prick at that meeting.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

Immediately before the interview with Wolff was broadcast Coulthard says, while watching the incident:

"Nico tries to run it around the outside, he's just not far enough, he takes a turn away, he turns back again. In fairness the drivers can't see the front wing - I don't believe there was any malice in that, I don't believe for one moment he deliberately tried to hit the rear tyre of Hamilton, but that was the outcome."

So yes, I think Coulthard's stance changes a little after hearing Wolff's interview.

Nico was completely thrown under the bus after Spa. I totally get that emotions are running high, but you don't just leave your driver exposed like that. Unless, of course, you want to completely alienate him from the team.

I have to agree Morbid, if Rosberg had apologised and said nothing else during the post-Spa meeting then perhaps the childish booing we've heard wouldn't be such an issue. Fans are a fickle bunch, after all. However, what can you do? You @#$%& up, and the whole team's against you. You don't want to sound weak, but you don't want to piss them off either...and going into hiding's not entirely an option.

I'm just hoping that he can come back from this; if he just grabs his car by the balls for the rest of the season, then I'd be happy. He's behind Hamilton, the pressure's more or less off since nobody's really expecting him to beat his team-mate in a straight fight...he can just go out and have some fun.

---

GPGSL: S6 - TafuroGP Tester (14th) /// S7 - ART Tester (6th) /// S8 - Demon Driver (13th) /// S9 - Demon/Snake Driver (13th) /// S10 - Snake Driver (???) ///]
"My ambition is handicapped by laziness" - Charles Bukowski

gav Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Immediately before the interview with Wolff was
> broadcast Coulthard says, while watching the
> incident:
>
> "Nico tries to run it around the outside, he's
> just not far enough, he takes a turn away, he
> turns back again. In fairness the drivers can't
> see the front wing - I don't believe there was any
> malice in that, I don't believe for one moment he
> deliberately tried to hit the rear tyre of
> Hamilton, but that was the outcome."
>
> So yes, I think Coulthard's stance changes a
> little after hearing Wolff's interview.

I don't agree. He does not say that there is malice present. He just says that every driver knows that's the rules, and that hitting your team mate is unacceptable. That is compatible with the former statement.

And even if it was, what's most valid to ascribe to him as his opinion, the first or the latter statement? Clearly, one would be obliged to hold the latest statement as the position of those that speak. And even more, what's wrong about changing your mind upon further reflection? If we all had to stick with whatever we came up with within the first few minutes, this world would quickly become a very problematic place, and we would all be left in ignorance, unresolvable conflict and stupidity.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/25/2014 11:44PM by Morbid.

Morbid schrieb:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mitadumapaga Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > actually red bull pointed the finger at Mark
> > Webber. This pretty much tells you that there
> was
> > a favoured driver in the team. Mercedes did
> > exactly the same with nico, namely, point the
> > finger straight after the race, withouth team
> > meetings, without review, nothing, just as RBR
> did
> > it back in 2010 post turkey. Ergo the favoured
> > driver in Merc. is.... ?
>
>
> Now that is flat out incorrect. I don't remember
> Red Bull pointing the finger straight at Webber.


well Morbid, maybe you are correct. The others in the forum have to say how they remember the situation. I personally, have very fond memories how the BBC commentators said that it was vettel who moved to the right and took webber. And then they were surprised that the team said that mark should have acted differently.

Again, only my memories, so I will be thankful if the others in the forum can help me fresh those up.

Who blamed who is almost immaterial now. But the whole thing was managed badly on the day. We like the fact that Niki and Toto are outspoken but they should have been a bit more professional and neutral on this incident.

I'm pretty sure that Rosberg did not deliberately crash into Lewis, it would have been difficult to plan that outcome never mind moronically stupid to even try. But I do think he was naughty in the way he didn't back out of the move more fully, because Hamilton had at that point covered him off cleanly, effectively and actually for him relatively gently. But Rosberg seems to be thinking of Bahrain and Hungary where Hamilton's defence was far more aggressive (Rosberg isn't innocent either as his defending at Montreal was pretty desperate) and he was simply trying to show that he was now less willing to back out of a move. That's the point I think Rosberg was trying to make and it certainly wasn't "I did it on purpose" as hamilton chose to hear it and (even Toto stood by Rosberg on that point).

To be fair I think Rosberg, could probably see post race that the fault at spa was his, but the hysterical reaction by almost everyone present afterwards put his guard up, and he clung on to the 'I know I could have backed out, but I wanted to prove to Hamilton that he can't always leave it completely up to me to avoid an accident' philosophy.

And as much as some people want to reject that, it is a fair point. Because Hamilton is an aggressive racer, he's very firm in his wheel to wheel racing, it's brilliant when it comes off, but it's often marginal and he does occasionally come up against drivers who will not simply jump out he way, Massa for example.

He likes to model himself on what he sees as the Ayrton Senna way of racing, but even Senna knew who he couldn't simply bully off the road, Mansell for example, it maybe took a couple of collisions for the epiphany to sink in but he eventually learnt to know when to concede.

And Spa was Rosberg's way of saying "I'm not going to let you walk over me anymore". Although obviously that kind of back fired with the hysteric backlash.

mitadumapaga Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well Morbid, maybe you are correct. The others in
> the forum have to say how they remember the
> situation. I personally, have very fond memories
> how the BBC commentators said that it was vettel
> who moved to the right and took webber. And then
> they were surprised that the team said that mark
> should have acted differently.

That's a far cry from making one driver go out in public and apologize to the other driver and the team, and also suffer an internal and unspecified sanction. So the situations are not similar.

J i m Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who blamed who is almost immaterial now. But the
> whole thing was managed badly on the day. We like
> the fact that Niki and Toto are outspoken but they
> should have been a bit more professional and
> neutral on this incident.

I can agree to that in the sense of being more professional, that is of withholding judgment until matters had been properly investigated, but not neutral. There is no gain from that, it only rewards whomever did wrong.

> I'm pretty sure that Rosberg did not deliberately
> crash into Lewis, it would have been difficult to
> plan that outcome never mind moronically stupid to
> even try. But I do think he was naughty in the way
> he didn't back out of the move more fully, because
> Hamilton had at that point covered him off
> cleanly, effectively and actually for him
> relatively gently. But Rosberg seems to be
> thinking of Bahrain and Hungary where Hamilton's
> defence was far more aggressive (Rosberg isn't
> innocent either as his defending at Montreal was
> pretty desperate) and he was simply trying to show
> that he was now less willing to back out of a
> move. That's the point I think Rosberg was trying
> to make and it certainly wasn't "I did it on
> purpose" as hamilton chose to hear it and (even
> Toto stood by Rosberg on that point).

I think that's right. Regarding the Bahrain incident, we saw similar driving both at Spa and Singapore from other drivers. None of the incidents were investigated, and as such must be considered within regulations. I do wonder though, why you are so ready to reject ill will from one driver and not the other. It could easily be so, that Hamilton's understanding of the situation was the most obvious given his position. Why does it have to contain deliberate malice?

> To be fair I think Rosberg, could probably see
> post race that the fault at spa was his, but the
> hysterical reaction by almost everyone present
> afterwards put his guard up, and he clung on to
> the 'I know I could have backed out, but I wanted
> to prove to Hamilton that he can't always leave it
> completely up to me to avoid an accident'
> philosophy.

I think it was more a problem of not showing weakness in an already fiercely contested rivalry. The battle is a least as much psychological as it is on track racing.

> And as much as some people want to reject that, it
> is a fair point. Because Hamilton is an aggressive
> racer, he's very firm in his wheel to wheel
> racing, it's brilliant when it comes off, but it's
> often marginal and he does occasionally come up
> against drivers who will not simply jump out he
> way, Massa for example.

True.

> He likes to model himself on what he sees as the
> Ayrton Senna way of racing, but even Senna knew
> who he couldn't simply bully off the road, Mansell
> for example, it maybe took a couple of collisions
> for the epiphany to sink in but he eventually
> learnt to know when to concede.

And Hamilton cannot be afforded the same learning curve with other drivers, that he has little experience with in direct and prolonged challenges?

> And Spa was Rosberg's way of saying "I'm not going
> to let you walk over me anymore". Although
> obviously that kind of back fired with the
> hysteric backlash.

Indeed.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2014 12:43AM by Morbid.