In the UK we normally see side-by-side comparison laps between the pole-sitter and the second placed guy (so both Mercedes most of the time), usually before the race. I grant you that it's hard to gain any real knowledge from everyone qualifying at once, but then I found the single-lap qualifying format overly flat (other than that awesome session at Magny-Cours, but I think that was it).by gav - F1
QuoteMuks_c Bottas appears to get hit by Ricciardo a fraction of a second before hitting Lewis, he was already applying opposite lock before contact with Lewis was made. He'd still have hit him had Dan not hit him anway. I thought the penalty was too harsh though. Nah, I think Bottas was just sliding as he was braking harder and turning in earlier realising that Hamilton was cutting backby gav - F1
Yup, Williams were dire. Poor strategy (time after time) and poor pace. I thought Bottas was a tad unlucky - Hamilton was going for the cut back to get a run on Rosberg and I just don't think Bottas realised soon enough, and when he did it was too late. I don't think Bottas ran in too deep, I just think he misread the situation. It was worthy of a penalty, but I don't think iby gav - F1
Hardly ideal preparation for Vandoorne, having to fly in from Japan the day before practice. Odd of McLaren and Alonso not to ensure Vandoorne wasn't with them if there was even a hint that Alonso might not be fit enough. Probably Alonso's never-ending determination getting the better of him, because there's no way he wouldn't be in pain, and you have to think that if McLaby gav - F1
QuoteLaton I'm struggling to think of an accident I've seen in F1 where a driver was injured after the car rolled. Diniz in the Sauber in 1999 comes to mind but that was a failed rollover hoop, IIRC. Was it 2000 when Pedro DLR cartwheeled into the gravel during that pileup at Monza? Similar forces going on there I reckon. I don't think Diniz was injured at all in the 1999 crash (hby gav - F1
Brundle's accident was at much lower speed. It looked worse because the car split in two (which in itself could have been dangerous as it remained connected) but the actual crash had no where near the violence or energy of Alonso's crash. Alonso's crash looks better than it did as the turn 3 cameraman tracked it perfectly and in super slow motion it looked like a fun ride, butby gav - F1
QuoteJ i m What they should do is strike and hold a picket at Monaco. So when they should be preparing to race what they'll actually be doing is standing on Bernie's silly little nation anthem carpet with placards saying "This stinks, sort it out now else we're not racing". Nevvvvaaa gonna happen. It's OK hiding behind the cloak of the GPDA, but as soon as facesby gav - F1
Quotemika19b So Sky Sports now have exclusive deal with F1 from 2019 so people like me can't watch it after that other than the British GP which will be aired free. :/ It might be aired free, but it will still likely need a Sky package, as there's only a very limited number of Sky channels available through FreeView (I don't know about FreeSAT). I'll be honest, at the moby gav - F1
Yup. I think that's the worst I've seen a car since Kubica's accident at Montreal. Even Bianchi's car wasn't that torn apart. Another few degrees and his head would have come into contact with the gravel. It's a stark reminder of how important the constant drive for safety is.by gav - F1
Back in the good old days qualifying didn't even exist. They just took the fastest practice times across both days and that decided the grid. It obviously wouldn't work for the TV now, but it was just three days of F1. Bish bash bosh.by gav - F1
QuoteDiax F1 That's the thing though, artificially trying to mix up the grid goes against everything F1 stands for, and I doubt the teams would be happy with it either. I'm certainly not in favour of it (I've compared F1 to BTCC more often than I'd like already this year, and the gimmicks should be left to BTCC), just pointing out what they were trying to achieve.by gav - F1
I think they realise it was never broken, but they wanted to try to mix the grid up a bit by having people out of position, but for the front runner it would very rarely make any difference (they can just drive at 95% until the end and not make any mistakes). It's obviously great they've gone back, but I can understand what they were trying to do - it was just never going to have any eby gav - F1
It was a good race, helped by Mercedes completely cocking up the first lap, but that Mercedes were so strong on the medium tyre doesn't bode well - the Ferrari was barely quicker on the soft, the supposedly ideal tyre. We'll see how things pan out as Albert Park is hardly a good yardstick for form (despite its reputation for crowning champions), so things might be closer on the Tilke tby gav - F1
Subtitle might as well read: F1 is dead A horrible weekend for F1 with the farce of qualifying, and now, according the Automobile Club d'Italia, Monza have terminated discussions with FOM after Bernie wasn't happy with moves made to better accommodate the World Superbikes. Unless we have a stunning race tomorrow, FOM's stocks (if they have floated)will be more entertaining thby gav - F1
As for qualifying itself my eyes rolled back in my head when the Mercs went 6 tenths quicker than the Ferrari's the first time around (Q2 or start of Q3? Can't remember...). We knew it was coming, but my heart fell to the floor knowing fine well what's going to happen for the rest of the season.by gav - F1
TBH Frantic I thought it would have been better than that too. I thought the premise was that more drivers would be on the track for longer, but as it was they all went on together, the fast ones then parked it and the slower ones didn't have enough time to refuel and bolt on a new set of tyres. As I think Damon Hill said* on Sky, Hamilton could have waved the chequered flag for himself.by gav - F1
His "holier than thou" persona went out of the window at Melbourne in 2009. I can't claim to remember that I saw him before GP2, but it was readily apparent (and I stated it here, against the grain as I remember) in 2007 that the Alonso-Dennis tussle had more to it than met the eye and at the same time that Hamilton was being protected (quite brilliantly) by the McLaren PR deparby gav - F1
Surely the Red Bull one will hinder the sight of a driver more than the Mercedes one. Yes it looks much better, but there's two pillars to the left and right (like a thinner version of the frame in a car) rather than a single central one which will certainly never get in the way. You're also getting to the stage where surely you'll need windscreen wipers, though that would alsoby gav - F1
Yup, I'm liking that. Good to see it's not quite as bright as Jordan's old liveries too. I was never a fan of Renault's 2010 livery (or any of the recent ones)... it looked too much like a wasp.by gav - F1
The problem is we've had to concentrate on the midfield for 5 of the last 7 seasons or something like that (1x Button domination, 2x Vettel domination and 2x Mercedes domination) and the last 3 seasons in a row. It would be nice to have a bit of a mix like we had in 2010 and 2012. If the racing itself was better (as in the drivers were able to lean on the tyres a bit more and DRS had lesby gav - F1
I think Renault and Haas could form group 4 with Manor making a group 5. The Renault car will have lost a years development and they've got a worse engine, while Haas have been OK pace wise but have been very poor reliability wise this week. Despite the whole 'let's not read much into testing times' argument, I agree that Mercedes are way ahead. They've not even usedby gav - F1
QuoteSchueyFan Would it have saved Senna from the piercing from the suspension though? It wasn't the suspension so much as what the suspension was attached to. Would the suspension have reached if the wheel hit the halo? Maybe, but in a hypothetical world if you'd offered Senna the halo if knew he would have an accident he wouldn't have shown you the door.by gav - F1
I've said it elsewhere and I'll say it here. If it's got a chance of saving a life, do it. It clearly doesn't impede vision so there's no reason not to. Pre-2008 cars with their hundreds of winglets looked stupid, post-2008 cars looked equally bad, but we got used to them, just like we will this. It wouldn't have saved Bianchi and it probably wouldn't haby gav - F1
It is a shame that the forum is as quiet as it is, but that's been the case for a number of years now. Preseason has been really quiet here for at least half a decade now, with little or no posts for a week at a time, and this one seems no different. I'd say the lack of interest last year was as much down to the state of F1 as it was this forum. Many are losing interest with the soby gav - F1
The rumours are that they are introducing the other spec at the next test, not this one, then working out what to take to Melbourne after that. I'm not sure how much faith to place in the rumours though as if I remember correctly the engine is meant to be homologated on the 28th.by gav - F1
DON'T SAY IT'S MORE RELIABLE! They've had to change it overnight now.by gav - F1
I associate it more with the Sauber of 2010 or so. QuoteLaton Livery-only on last year's modified chassis. Why bother? I do like that car, looks nice and flashy on the TV. Why did Renault bother with a team launch? They'll be testing with the old car anyway, won't they? So it makes sense to at least do a basic launch for the sponsors, which I guess is why the focus isby gav - F1
It looks quite basic, much more basic than I was expecting, and it shares little with the Ferrari, other than the wings, which looks very similar. More worryingly, it's very bare. Even McLaren have more sponsors. Perhaps Manor will have some competition.by gav - F1
The 1994 412 had a higher nose from launch, did it not? That's the 1995 412 T2.by gav - F1
I think I like it and I think it'll work better on the track too. I just wish they'd go back to the black wings they had in the 80s and 90s.by gav - F1