2011 Belgian GP **SPOILERS** + Race statistics

Another 2 passes by Vettel. But that boy can't overtake, oh no!

Webber might actually be able to win a race if he could actually preform a decent start. If the cars didn't have anti-stall then Webber wouldn't even make it to turn 1 half the weekends. Maybe the testing ban hurts this more than it would have before, but his starts seem spectacularly bad every weekend, and show no sign of improving. Great recovery drive once again, but shouldn't need to recover.

Jenson made some great moves, and recovered from the teams mistakes again. Alonso did well, but should have gotten more given his position at one point. Michael gets driver of the race for being brilliant. Bit miffed about the radio call to Rosberg, as the Safety Car should have saved enough fuel anyway. But given team orders are legal, theres no reason to disguise it. Sutil was completely invisible but got great points. Massa was last of the top 6 cars once again (with the obvious exception being Lewis), despite his early run.

Disappointed in di Resta and Senna.

Lewis was quite mature on twitter after the race, taking the blame. It was another silly move to add to his list though.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

It was a mature, slightly delayed reaction to it. I still maintain in my view it was at worst a 50/50 racing incident, Kobayashi would have been wiser to simply concede, as he'd been taken by a much faster car/driver combination, yet this is Koybayshi :D and he's racer through and through so as Niki Lauda pointed out Hamilton would have been better served by maintaining his line more toward the middle of the track, the chances are that even Kobayashi wouldn't have managed to go around the outside of him.

What is clear though... is that Stefan Mucke.... sorry... Pastor Maldonaldo has some growing up to, he's fooling no one by maintaining that his qualifying swipe at Hamilton wasn't a deliberate move to make a pointless point.

This weekend was Mclaren's chance to score a possible 1-2... but this is Sebastian Vettel's championship and nothing can go wrong. Just like Schumacher in 94 and 95 (the best car won)... I have a feeling that next year car will be miles away of RB7. Anyway, 3 more races like this and we can crown the champion before the end of the season.

EDIT:
Updated Belgian GP stats in the first post. Enjoy!

____

Well I think in 1994, the better car was the Williams, it took the constructors championship... Schumacher though once Senna was gone, had no comparable competition from a driving point of view.

The Benetton was the better car, but the second drivers were unreliable

---

Races: 163 - Wins: 23 - Pole Positions: 24 - Fastest Laps: 22
Season 9: Constructors' Champions

and we must not forget the 1996 Williams (Hill and Villeneuve)

____

Just a thought thats been buzzing around the forums.

How worried were Horner and Newey about the tyres? In no way is this a bash at them. I have a huge admiration for Newey, whilst my dislike for Horner does not blind me to the fact that he's taken a effectively a poor mid field team and turned it into a Ferrari and Mclaren killer.

But, how worried were they? Newey says it was one of the scariest races he'd ever been involved with...

If they were that worried why didnt they start from the pitlane? I dont understand. Even though I now know they scored a 1-2, to me it still doesnt add up.

They have a huge lead in both championships. Nothing was at risk except Vettel taking the title a race or two later than he had been on course for. The chances were they would have scored points anyway. But no, they took the risk for both drivers to start the race, despite their being a possibility of imminent tyre failure.

I do not know what they were feeling, or even what they knew about the problem. But Newey says it was a difficult judgement. Now in that case I would have stepped back and figured, if its difficult for me to decide on a factor determining the safety of mine, and other drivers I would straight away take the safe route, especially given the healthy championship lead.

RBR could have afforded a pit lane start, fact.

IMO the racer's instinct clouded their judgement because of fear from Ferrari and Mclaren.

Either that or Horner and Newey were overplaying the issue, and BBC being a media broadcaster jumped on board too. Personally my vote goes to this one. RBR are ever show masters and they certainly put on a show . I do not have the data in front of me, or even pictures of the tyres but judging from their reactions I can only assume this, or that they chose to risk driver safety over performance to an undesirable degree (by that I mean running an f1 is dangerous, but relatively safe).

I for one can not see the justification for running that risk when you describe the race as, "the scariest races I have been involved in ever". Either they are brilliant show men, or just very lucky racers who took a risk.

Not a hit on either Newey or Horner, just got me thinking. I do repeat, this is in no way biased toward favouring Ferrari or Mclaren or bash on RBR because it is isn't. Im sure you all found the situation as interesting as I did.

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

Ferrari2007 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Benetton was the better car, but the second
> drivers were unreliable


The Benetton was certainly not the better car when it raced in a legal form.

But, how worried were they? Newey says it was one of the scariest races he'd ever been involved with...

They were worried because they'd never seen these type of blisters on front tyres before. The last time it happened was Indy, and look what happened there. As it is, it's become a non issue because it turns out that Pirelli tyres coped with the situation brilliantly and safely (as they always do). Whitmarsh also requested the tyre change too, and was quoted that morning, so I don't know why that's just being ignored.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

does anyone know why massa had to do an additional pitstop? he stopped together with rosberg (rosberg's last stop), drove 1 or 2 laps and stopped again for tyres. i guess he would have finished 5th if it wasn't for that extra pitstop

---

used to be GPGSL's Nick Heidfeld

I think he had a puncture, don't know how he got it though.

Interested in managing an F1 team? Sign up for the Grandprixgames F1 Manager game here

He was very close to Schumacher when Schumacher exited the pits, but from onboard it's impossible to tell if there tiny contact, though I'd imagine the telemetry would have shown any... it was probably just debris (there was plenty of it!) or a faulty valve.

DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> They were worried because they'd never seen these
> type of blisters on front tyres before. The last
> time it happened was Indy, and look what happened
> there. As it is, it's become a non issue because
> it turns out that Pirelli tyres coped with the
> situation brilliantly and safely (as they always
> do). Whitmarsh also requested the tyre change too,
> and was quoted that morning, so I don't know why
> that's just being ignored.

OK, so let's take names out of it.

Driver x has a 80-100 point lead over his rivals.
Team x also shares a similar lead in the constructors.

Im not interested in the fact that it did become a non issue, my point is, if it was considered a risk to such an extent that the technical director, and team boss were... shall we say uncomfortable. There was no need to take that risk, and I do not understand why they did if they were so worked up about it. Which lead me to the conclusion that they either overplayed on the issue or just got lucky.

Team x and Team y did not adhere to the tyre suppliers recommendations, and IMO rather than risking the drivers of team x and team y and whoever else, why not fix the issue and start from the pitlane. Team x had nothing to lose whatsoever except a minor dent in their lead.

Adding names back to it. I honestly expected Button to start from the pitlane. He was far back as it was, likely would have been caught up in first lap tangles and by starting from the pitlane he would effectively avoided part of the mess, and of course been running a car the team knows was safe.

I stand by point. If they were that worried they would not/should not have taken the risk. Even with the hindsight of them winning.

Look at Indy, some of the teams said they could have run, the drivers even wanted to run but they adhered to Michelin's wishes. I do not even want to believe for one second team boss x and technical director x chose to run the risk based on performance.

Had team x not had such a healthy lead, and had team x been level on points with team y and team z then maybe the risk might have been slightly more justified but given the advantage team x had, it baffles me. Or maybe they really should make an F1 movie.

And Dave, yes MW requested the change also but he was not making as half a fuss about it as RBR were before or after the race. And on that, does anyone know what Vettel was saying to Paul Hembry on the grid? It was Pirelli who specified it was ONE team who was in particular pushing the limits. Whistmarsh was making noise, but try make out the situation at Mclaren was as bad as RBR.

Let's look at it another way, your car has been taken in to the garage. You go pick it up, they say go test drive it and make sure you think it's ok. What would be you thoughts as you came back to the garage, pulled up and the mechanic said, "that was one of the scariest moments of my life, seeing whether you'd come back or not?"

Without the benefit of hindsight, and based on the behaviour and reaction of RedBull whilst keeping in mind their huge points advantage I do not believe it was worth the risk. Pirelli, and the FIA left it upto the teams to decide whether to start from pitlane or not. It would not have been on the FIA's or Pirelli's head had Vettel speared of into the barrier at Pouhon possibly injuring himself. Frankly, I felt the team took an unnecessary risk based on those above factors, and I dont know how anyone could argue with that.

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

And Dave, yes MW requested the change also but he was not making as half a fuss about it as RBR were before or after the race.

Yes they were. Whitmarsh released a statement on it, and during the BBC Forum (which I have on now), Brundle said he was late to the presentation because he was speaking to a McLaren engineer about the tyres who said whilst there was no issues, they were extreme concerned with the tyres. Jenson was not mentioned by McLaren (or any media outlet that I can find) because he could start on the medium tyres, rather than already damaged softs.

The initial alarm was raised by Pirelli, not by Red Bull. Newey (who's interview I am watching now) said that they raised the pressures on the front tyres to get extra life out of them. They talked with Pirelli and made the decision that whilst the raised pressures would increase the life and safety of the tyres, the fronts were already damaged. That is why the Red Bulls made very early stops compared with others. The tyres weren't going to explode a single lap in, especially with the pressures adjusted.

The tyres were not changed because the race stewards said that the tyres were not damaged enough to be considered too damaged to race on (such as a puncture, or down passed the operating surface) and could survive until a pit stop.

No offence, but the rest of your post is just worthless. My car and a random mechanic? What the hell does that have to do with racing cars on a racing circuit? No need to take a risk? There is always need to take a risk - you don't win championships by starting at the back. And need I remind you that there are 2 cars in a team, and Webber has a slim lead over the others. You can believe it's not worth the risk at all, but that is why Red Bull, Pirelli and McLaren have people to decide this stuff. Using the "don't take a risk" line, you can say that Jensons overtakes (and Webber on Alonso) were not worth the risk but I guess we have hindsight to say that's ok right?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

or MAYBE they're just trying to make it seem like something could go wrong for rbr in the remaining races, to keep one's interest..