The official 2016 Brexit Grand Prix Thread *** with SPOILERS and VJ Mallya ***

2016 British Grand Prix - Silverstone



Winners this millennium

2015 - Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes
2014 - Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes
2013 - Nico Rosberg, Mercedes
2012 - Mark Webber, Red Bull Racing
2011 - Fernando Alonso, Ferrari
2010 - Mark Webber, Red Bull Racing
2009 - Sebastian Vettel, Red Bull Racing
2008 - Lewis Hamilton, McLaren Mercedes
2007 - Kimi Raikkonen, Ferrari
2006 - Fernando Alonso, Renault
2005 - Juan Pablo Montoya, McLaren Mercedes
2004 - Michael Schumacher, Ferrari
2003 - Rubens Barrichello, Ferrari
2002 - Michael Schumacher, Ferrari
2001 - Mika Hakkinen, McLaren Mercedes
2000 - David Coulthard, McLaren Mercedes

video: [youtu.be]





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2016 10:45PM by J i m.

A quick note on the enforcement of the track limitations, that we saw led to several P and Q times being deleted.

I found it a bit confusing. I saw several drivers leave the track at T20 with no consequence. On the top of my head, I can think of KM, EG and LH. So, I dug around on the FIA site for the Pre-race briefing from Charlie. It is as follows:

Quote
Charlie Whiting
Further to the discussion in the drivers meeting yesterday evening I would like to confirm that we will again be adopting a “zero tolerance” approach to cars leaving the track at turns 9, 15 and 18 during qualifying. Unless we are satisfied that a driver left the track at these points for reasons beyond his control, having been forced off the track for example, every lap time achieved by leaving the track will be deleted in accordance with Article 12.3.1.d of the Sporting Code.

During the race, and in accordance with Article 27.4 of the Sporting Regulations, any driver who is judged to have gained a clear and lasting advantage by leaving the track will be reported to the stewards. Similarly, under the same Article, any driver who repeatedly leaves the track will be reported to the stewards for not having made every reasonable effort to use the track.

So I guess the most reasonable thing to expect for tomorrow is that leaving the track at T20 WILL be punished, even though it was not in quals.

I dunno about this. I find it needlessly confusing that you can do something in the quals, that you can't do in the race. Furthermore, I would argue, that the advantage of going wide out of Woodcote is greater in Quals than they are in the race. You gain a really small amount of time, that is unlikely to get you into an overtaking position into Copse, unless you already went on the outside of your opponent. On the other hand, that 0.1-0.150 second (or whatever) advantage you can extract from doing so in qualification runs might mean the difference of 1 or more positions, or getting into the next session.

I understand that there has recently been a crackdown on track limits in England in all series (which I approve), but really I dunno about this. Maybe I am being needlessly anal, or there is some piece of information that I have missed. But it seems to me, that the best practice would be to have the same rules throughout P, Q and R sessions.

---

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

I really don't understand why it can't simply be the white lines painted down the sides of the track. Get all four wheels on the wrong side of the line, no matter where on the cicuirt, and it should be a problem. In a qualy run your time for that lap should be deleted immediately IMO. If you gained from leaving the track - i.e. that was your best lap, then you shouldn't be rewarded for NOT being able to keep it within the lines. If that lap wasn't your fastest, it makes no difference if it gets deleted anyway. Can't be that hard surely?

Looks like they had to start under SC due to rain. Hopefully that means we'll get some action once they give the all clear for the race to go green.

---

gareth schrieb:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I really don't understand why it can't simply be
> the white lines painted down the sides of the
> track. Get all four wheels on the wrong side of
> the line, no matter where on the cicuirt, and it
> should be a problem. In a qualy run your time for
> that lap should be deleted immediately IMO. If you
> gained from leaving the track - i.e. that was your
> best lap, then you shouldn't be rewarded for NOT
> being able to keep it within the lines. If that
> lap wasn't your fastest, it makes no difference if
> it gets deleted anyway. Can't be that hard surely?


It's F1, easy solutions don't do for them.


Also they might as well just stop racing in wet conditions, that SC once again is ridiculous.

---

Some mods
F1 1996 | F1 2002 | F1 2007 | F1 2011 | F1 2013 | F1 2015 | F1 2018

God that was boring.

Lewis winning the race at Silverstone, with Verstappen 2nd and Rosberg 3rd.

I just want to note if anyone has missed after the end of British Grand Prix. After British GP, Rosberg finished 2nd, but due to the radio transmissions the stewards took the decision on Rosberg by giving him a 10-sec time penalty, meaning Rosberg drops to 3rd. Now Mercedes are appealing that and hopefully we're waiting to see what the result should give us.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2016 08:20PM by Bandon23.

Bottas was awful in the wet, not sure what is going on with him in those conditions in the past couple of years

---

X (@ed24f1)

Well, the weather brought all my considerations about track limits to a naught.

Of comments worth making, that might not have been caught be other media:

Palmer suffered damage to the car (unspecified when but I'll assume it was from the botched pit stop), which rendered the rear ride height untenable. His extreme lack of pace is not a reflection of skill (for those that taped the race, go back to his retirement, and look at the engineer that inspected the floor and raised a hand). Magnussen lost several positions due to pitting under traffic right after the race was given free by the safety car, and after a lengthy swapping of positions with Gutierrez at the end, pitted for softer tyres, in the hopes that Pirelli's wear predictions panned out. They didn't, but if you are at the back, what do you have to lose?

What they did not say, but I think is pretty obvious from other interviews, is that they are still hurting from the conversion they made from a Mercedes engine to a Renault engine, and that it is a problem that cannot be fixed under homologation. Everything from the cooling (air intake efficiency), to the housing of the engine and gearbox (weight distribution and packaging efficiency) suffered under that. Which is not ideal with a car, that didn't get more than the most basic updates throughout 2015, and was already underfunded in '14 (The actual conversion of the car according to Frédéric Vasseur happened in just 2 weeks). Rumor has it, that they have abandoned the RS16 in favour of the '17 car, which Frédéric Vasseur has adamantly denied. From what I can gather from the KM interviews, this is speak directed towards sponsors, which means that no major upgrade will happen on the car (read it is abandoned, exactly as the rumor claims, and the races are now used for testing purposes), but whatever fits '17 will be fitted. Also minor upgrades that do not upset the '17 project development (such as cooling ducts for brakes) will also of course be fitted. So Renault will be fighting Manor throughout the season, and on a lucky day perhaps Sauber and with extreme luck even Haas.

So if you are the kind of person, that plays manager games, or bets on results... be forewarned.

Yeah, and Rosberg got a penalty, so he finished 4th. The first radio message was within the rules, the subsequent where not.

I find this a weak verdict. As a philosophy major, here is how management went through the decision process about what to say (normally you would pass this through a Aristotelian taxonomy, which has been erroneusly branded as the "Mckinsey decision tree" ), it's simplified because the forum does not allow me the tools to do it, as it would have been done in real life.

1) Will intervention prevent a gearbox failure? (if no=read, call for retirement now, save the gearbox! Unwanted retirement from continued racing, plus potential gearbox change penalty later on, and zero points now = unacceptable), (if yes = proceed in the decision tree).

2 Can the problem be fixed under regulations of radio intervention? (If yes, do so. If no, proceed with the tree).

3) What are the scenarios of radio intervention, that breach current regulations (covered in 4x)?

4a) DSQ. If so, does it saves the gearbox through intervention? Worth considering to avoid retirement + penalty of gearbox change later (worst outcome), which is the consequence of no intervention = (intervention + good gearbox + zero points > no intervention + broken gearbox + zero points). Therefore, give instructions over radio, even though it means penalty and zero points!

4b) Time penalty. Time penalty is better than retirement (no intervention + broken gearbox + zero point), and better than DSQ (saved gearbox)! (medium outcome). Therefore, give instructions over radio!

4c) No penalty, better than retirement, better than time penalty, and also better than DSQ. Therefore, give instructions over radio (best outcome)!

Thus from a management point of view, the ONLY logical conclusion, IF radio intervention saved the gearbox, was to breach the rules. ANY philosopher worth his education would have given this recommendation, because it is nothing but pure logic! In every scenario, where radio intervention saves the gearbox, you come out with an advantage compared to not intervening, even if it means breaching the rules!

To me, that says the rules are flawed.

And before all the Hamilton people join in and mention Baku, that is a very different scenario. If they had given instructions there, it would have meant the difference of a couple of positions, but the penalty could still be DSQ. Thus you risk something for nothing, which is not worth it, at the present point in Hamiltons campaign.

In summary, I would say, as a philosopher, trained in logic, I would have done NOTHING different in Baku, nor at Silverstone, than what Mercedes did.

---

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



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2016 02:18AM by Morbid.

SchueyFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bottas was awful in the wet, not sure what is
> going on with him in those conditions in the past
> couple of years

I'm glad I'm not the only one to have noticed for The uk commentary always seem to expect great things from Bottas in the wet giving him a reputation gained by qualifying P3 at Montreal some years ago but seemingly not backed up ever since. We all know that Williams' aerodynamic philosophy leaves it vulnerable in tricky conditions but Massa has coped with them better.

It's really frustrating being a Williams supporter sometimes... tricky conditions or not their performance at Silverstone was woeful.

The race itself wasn't too bad, most of the good bits were due to Verstappen.

Yeah, the race was ok. Not amazing, but above par I think.

As for supporting Williams, at least you know they are there because they want to race, not because they are trying to get fans to buy a car.

And yeah, Max Verstappen, I definately was sorely mistaken in my assessment of whether or not he was too young when he was promoted to Toro Rosso - like completely in the wrong. He could go to the loo, and he would be flushing out talent. Then again, all he does when he is off duty is race on the sims we know and use ourselves

But there are some interesting features to take away from Silverstone. The way the safety car start was executed... No doubt Charlie and Co. are still affected by the Bianchi accident. And it is a FIA thing, as we saw the same at Le Mans.

The radio rules, when it comes to salvaging engines and gearboxes clearly do not work - and they don't work in other situations where the car as a whole is at risk. There is just no reason, in a plethora of situations, not to break the rules - specifically Rosberg's punishment was not for the message of what setting to put the car in, it was for the driver instructions of shifting immediately through 7th. Which is odd, considering how this will affect future races. Horner has already been in the press, and predicting that we will see a lot more of those breaches of regulations. Looking back at Austria, given the current knowledge of how those rules are policed, why would Force India NOT instruct Perez on how to manage the brakes to avoid the retirement on the last lap? Even IF he was slapped with a time penalty much harsher than Rosberg's, that removed any chance of a points finish, it is still better to eliminated the risk of crashing the car! A car that isn't smashed, with a finish somewhere close to the top ten, is still better than a destroyed car finishing outside the top ten. So if you know, the car is on edge, why not break the rules? Surely, now the most rational thing to do, is to tell a Perez at Austria running within the top 10, quickly after spotting the scope of the problem, how to manage the brakes efficiently, to guarantee that he sees the checkered flag, penalty be damned.

---

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

Typical F1.. focuses in on the wrong areas. These radio communication bans are getting rediculous. I'm beginning to think that these hybrid engines are far too complicated. Ant Davidon did a feature on just how many settings the drivers have to control from the steering wheels.. honestly there are hundreds if not thousands of possible modes and settings.

Now, I'm sorry but how is that relevant? When I'm in my car I'm interested in turning the ignition and operating the steering wheel and pedals. I wouldn't care less about an array of switches for different engine modes.. I'd expect all that to be automatic.

So the FIA want the drivers to drive the cars 'un aided' but with these cars the drivers effectively have to be software engineers with the ability to touch type!

It's getting silly. Remove this nonsense. I'm fed up with the performance differator being an electrical setting on the steering wheel. It needs to be about pure physical driving.

I used to love the concept of the hybrid engines but it's clear that they play a big part in removing the driving from the racing.

It's not the radio communication at fault here.... It's the technology.

Yup, get rid of the settings and modes and engine maps. They need a throttle, brake and clutch, a steering wheel and a gear changing mechanism (I'm happy for them to keep paddles for gears), a radio switch and perhaps a brake balance lever. Add lights to shift gear and ones for flags (yellow, blue, red etc) and they're sorted. Let the pit crew monitor tyre pressures.

If a car has a problem then it will breakdown, just like they always have.

Oh and these gearbox and upcoming PU penalties need changing too. Someone on Channel 4 at the weekend suggested taking away a constructors point rather than a grid penalty, which is a much better way of punishment without destroying the prospect of the race.

Driver errors should be punished with grid penalties (such as the one that stopped Schumacher getting pole in Monaco in 2012 after his Barcelona crash into Senna), and while people says "it's a team sport" and that's true, it's ruining races for the fans.

If it was Mercedes getting penalised all of the time (and Hamilton will soon with his PU situation) then it would make the races much more interesting, but it rarely is.

These power units were decided at board meetings at the corporate level. The sport is too expensive to run without manufacturers, and they in turn want to showcase product that they can sell. In the private market for road cars, v8's up are dead. The ironic thing about this is, Renault was actually the most eager backer of this new engine formula. Look what they got out of that

And for the record, the way that drivers interact with the car, with all those settings, it is comparable to texting and driving... which studies have shown is worse than driving under the influence. The fact they are able to do so at those speeds really says something of the mental capacity of F1 drivers: Re. for instance Hamilton @ Baku, saying he was going to try EVERY setting to finish the race!

---

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2016 04:33PM by Morbid.

I'll be a bit late to the party on this one too but... I saw the hybrid era cars in the carbon fibre as it were for my first time, I can't believe it's been since 2010 since I'd last saw an F1 car in action.

And oh boy... Was I wrong (back in 2014) when I said the sound of the hybrid turbos would be just fine. Today at Silverstone I couldn't bloody hear them, almost at all. I mean seriously it was like watching for Audi's Le Mans car only simply not cool.

Back in the day, I remember going to Silverstone for a test day... Even if it was basically only one car running all day you could hear it the whole way round around the tack. Honesty you could follow and place the car simply by your ears.

Today.. I watched a bit from Club... Feck... I couldn't even hear them approach from Stowe!

Well it's taken the wow factor away completely from watching trackside. What's the point if you can't hear and feel the cars passing by? I remember back in the V10 era standing at the Luffield terrace and I could feel the sound in my bones and even through a bottle of water. Today you may as well be watching a silent movie.

Well this is pants, next time I'll go and watch Euro Boss.