The Official 2016 Hungarian Grand Prix Thread ***Spoilers***

Fri 22 – Sun 24 Jul 2016FORMULA 1 MAGYAR NAGYDÍJ 2016
HungaroringFirst Race: 1986Rundenrekord: 1:19,071 Michael Schumacher *FerrariMost Wins: Michael Schumacher (4), Lewis Hamilton (4)Most Pole Positions: Michael Schmacher (7)2015 Winner: Sebastian Vettel *Ferrari*

The Real Story of the Race was that the Renault's fell apart and the Ferrari's didn't.
Rosberg headed for the sliproad and retired, probably because of Nicotin starvation they have still not given him a helmet with a little hole in it.

and they're being pussies once again. Just put it in the rules already: "no driving in wet conditions"...

Edit: lol, please leave the grid like that

---

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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2016 02:26PM by kedy89.

Quote
kedy89
and they're being pussies once again. Just put it in the rules already: "no driving in wet conditions"...

I couldn't disagree more.

It was undriveable before they went green and it was undriveable when they threw the first red when it rained again. Completely ignoring the track conditions themselves, if the camera can't pick out the car it is trying to track then the driver can't pick out anything - if a car had spun off on the straight then a following driver wouldn't be able to do anything to avoid them as they wouldn't even see them! This is what finished Pironi's career. Similarly there's Dino Morelli's horrific crash and also that of Tetsuya Ota (under safety car!) if you want examples from other formulae.

There is absolutely zero point in running a session when you can simply pause the clock and wait until conditions improve - why just let the clock tick down as nobody would have gone back out and certainly not improved? It's not like the starts of races where the safety car stays out until inters are suitable (which is laughable in most instances). It would have been unnecessarily dangerous to carry on regardless.

kedy89 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and they're being pussies once again. Just put it
> in the rules already: "no driving in wet
> conditions"...
>
> Edit: lol, please leave the grid like that


What? Half the grid were unable to get within the 107% rule of Rosbergs Q1 top time of 1m33.302s. That means in accordance with the rules, strictly interpreted, the following drivers would not take part in the race tomorrow: Daniel Ricciardo, Max Verstappen, Nico Hulkenberg, Valtteri Bottas, Sergio Perez, Jolyon Palmer, Felipe Massa, Kevin Magnussen, Marcus Ericsson, Pascal Wehrlein and Rio Haryanto. All of them would have been eliminated in Q3, not just for Q2 but for the race. So exactly how was Q3 run in a too cautious way, and in what way would a more aggressive approach have been beneficial to the sport? For heaven's sake, Massa one of the most experienced drivers on the grid, crashed on full wets, while he was not even pushing.

I don't see how 11 cars in Q2, and less than that starting for the race is desirable.

---

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



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2016 10:37PM by Morbid.

Further to Morbid's comment, if those drivers were allowed to race (would be the stupidest decision yet to not allow them!), they, according to the written rules, have to start at the back, which would mean both Red Bulls, both Force Indias and Bottas starting at the rear of the field along with those eliminated in Q3. Clearly they aren't going to invoke that rule given the plethora of red flags in Q1 (though it was still extremely harsh on those caught up in the red flags, both Renaults in particular, I couldn't see that they could do anything else), but according to the rule book those not making 107% have to start at the back, if allowed to race at all by the stewards.

Rosberg not being given a penalty is correct, if we're going to be consistent anyway. I think the last instance of a driver being punished in such a way in qualifying was Villeneuve in 1997 (which rumbled on for a couple of weeks until the infamous Jerez weekend) and we've had many more instances of drivers not being punished since, providing they slowed at all or even just acknowledged the flags (Hakkinen at Nurburgring, or in Kimi's case at Spa in 2002 when not backing off at all!), which Rosberg clearly did (though very cleverly doing it just before a braking zone).

That said, Rosberg deserves a medal for bettering his time despite having a zillion cars in his way in the last half of the lap. Nearly exactly a decade back we had Ferrari 'proving' to the stewards that Massa was held up by Alonso a few seconds up the road at Monza (still one of the most retarded decisions I've seen in F1 history), and while Rosberg wasn't held up in the blocking sense, he clearly wouldn't have been able to drive at 100% in that last sector, so credit where credit is due - he wasn't the fastest out there today, and all things being equal Hamilton looked quicker, but he did extremely well to capitalise on the opportunity presented to him.

It sets things up for an interesting first corner tomorrow, even if the rest of the race is poor.

Lol that was an epically long Q1, my tv ran out memory whilst recording it all and missed from part way through Q2, had to resort to catch up.

Notable performances today:
Nasr, for being quick in the wetter conditions.
Bottas and Williams, for taking a gamble on slicks and getting an unwilling car into Q3. I thought they may have gone too early risking the tyres being shot by the end of Q2, but it seemed they had me covered. Shame about Q3.
Rosberg for sheer opportunism.. Quite reminiscent of Silverstone 2014.

Comisserations to Renault for it seemed they had a shot at Q2, perhaps possibly even to sneak into Q3 today.

gav schrieb:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > and they're being pussies once again. Just put
> it in the rules already: "no driving in wet
> conditions"...
>
>
> I couldn't disagree more.
>
> It was undriveable before they went green and it
> was undriveable when they threw the first red when
> it rained again. Completely ignoring the track
> conditions themselves, if the camera can't pick
> out the car it is trying to track then the driver
> can't pick out anything - if a car had spun off on
> the straight then a following driver wouldn't be
> able to do anything to avoid them as they wouldn't
> even see them! This is what finished Pironi's
> career. Similarly there's Dino Morelli's horrific
> crash and also that of Tetsuya Ota (under safety
> car!) if you want examples from other formulae.
>
> There is absolutely zero point in running a
> session when you can simply pause the clock and
> wait until conditions improve - why just let the
> clock tick down as nobody would have gone back out
> and certainly not improved? It's not like the
> starts of races where the safety car stays out
> until inters are suitable (which is laughable in
> most instances). It would have been unnecessarily
> dangerous to carry on regardless.


I didn't say it was driveable all the time. But waiting until it's almost suitable for inters is ridiculous.



Morbid schrieb:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What? Half the grid were unable to get within the
> 107% rule of Rosbergs Q1 top time of 1m33.302s.
> That means in accordance with the rules, strictly
> interpreted, the following drivers would not take
> part in the race tomorrow: Daniel Ricciardo, Max
> Verstappen, Nico Hulkenberg, Valtteri Bottas,
> Sergio Perez, Jolyon Palmer, Felipe Massa, Kevin
> Magnussen, Marcus Ericsson, Pascal Wehrlein and
> Rio Haryanto. All of them would have been
> eliminated in Q3, not just for Q2 but for the
> race. So exactly how was Q3 run in a too cautious
> way, and in what way would a more aggressive
> approach have been beneficial to the sport? For
> heaven's sake, Massa one of the most experienced
> drivers on the grid, crashed on full wets, while
> he was not even pushing.
>
> I don't see how 11 cars in Q2, and less than that
> starting for the race is desirable.


Nice how you almost completely missed my point. At the point of my post/edit they were in Q1.

Talking about the point where the Force Indias were leading, Merc at the back, when the red flag came out. That order for the race would've been exciting.

Even if the times were spread like that at the end with half the grid out of 107%, I doubt they'd have them excluded from the race. Stewards' decision might be questionable from time to time, but even they wouldn't be that dumb to apply the 107% rule when changing conditions were in play. As far as I can remember they didn't even use it for the HRTs, which missed it a few times in completely dry sessions I think.

Yes, Massa is experienced. But imo he's everything but a good driver in wet conditions. Always expected him to struggle being on of the first on inters.

And Q3? I assume you meant Q1.

---

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

kedy89 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And Q3? I assume you meant Q1.

You are right. I consistently wrote Q3 when I meant Q1. And I corrected just one of those, so the confusion was complete.

> Nice how you almost completely missed my point. At
> the point of my post/edit they were in Q1.

Since we were both talking about Q1, although I wrote something else, I don't see how I did.

> Talking about the point where the Force Indias
> were leading, Merc at the back, when the red flag
> came out. That order for the race would've been
> exciting.

But hardly sporting just to cut the session short, because the grid is mixed?

> Even if the times were spread like that at the end
> with half the grid out of 107%, I doubt they'd
> have them excluded from the race. Stewards'
> decision might be questionable from time to time,
> but even they wouldn't be that dumb to apply the
> 107% rule when changing conditions were in play.
> As far as I can remember they didn't even use it
> for the HRTs, which missed it a few times in
> completely dry sessions I think.

I didn't say they would, I said strictly speaking... When the qualification is run, under conditions where the stewards have to give dispensations to half the grid, then I don't think they could have pushed the envelope much further. The tyres can, AFIAK, disperse 16 liters of water every second. At 250 kph, that is 70 meters per second, or about a 0,23 liters per meter. That is a lot of water, but per centimeter, it is just 2-3ml. More than that, and you are aquaplanning. And if they'd hit any of those sections of standing water, the floor makes the car into a huge surfboard. That was my consideration, when I read this:

"and they're being pussies once again. Just put it in the rules already: "no driving in wet conditions"..."

---

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