2013 German Grand Prix

_HighVoltage_ said:
I think Lotus proved once again that they are not very good with strategy. Had Kimi pitted 2 laps earlier, he may have had an actual shot. Granted, the tires were an unknown, but they had to take the risk.
Click to expand...

Nope. Strategy was good, just a bit too ambitious. Tyres were almost gone on lap 59.
 
Solid drive from Vettel and first home win! :thumbup:

Lotus had some fails at the strategy again , but Vettel seemed have some hidden pace.

Hot temperature seems to really hurt Merc.

I am just wondering that, did Alonso run out of fuel, because he caught Grojohn really fast and then just settle for 4th place?

There was interesting moment when Finnish commentators were talking about pitstops getting too fast, and causing stupid errors. And just when they stopped talking about it RB fail happened...

I think some minimum time should be set for the car to stay put.
 
^if stupid errors occur, build in a fail-safety. like the engine that cuts out if one of the wheelnuts isn't locked completely
but a minimum stationary-time is just stupid imo...

EDIT: Massa says his engine cut off while downshifting, nothing he could do...
 
Last edited:
_HighVoltage_ said:
I think Lotus proved once again that they are not very good with strategy. Had Kimi pitted 2 laps earlier, he may have had an actual shot. Granted, the tires were an unknown, but they had to take the risk.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure, I think they got the best they were going to. They didn't have to take the risk, they would've looked like idiots had they left Kimi out and his tyres fell off the cliff so he got mugged by Alonso.

If you wanna play the what if game, they should've moved Grosjean out of the way earlier. I dont think his DRS was working and he didnt have enough to challenge Vettel. Should've put him aside, let Kimi go through then pit Kimi first at the time when Grosjean took his last stop. Would've had to go the mediums though, and even then it's only 50/50 (not even that probably) whether he'd get past Vettel on the undercut. That's the only way I can make a Kimi victory work in my head, so no, I don't think Lotus screwed up.
 
Last edited:
bone said:
^if stupid errors occur, build in a fail-safety. like the engine that cuts out if one of the wheelnuts isn't locked completely
but a minimum stationary-time is just stupid imo...
Click to expand...

True, but something has to be made. Fail-satety idea is good. Man it would be better with refuel allowed. When was the refuel allowed last time, because it feels like ages ago? Man i dont like this saving theme in F1...
 
Damnit.

 
Brabham said:
True, but something has to be made. Fail-satety idea is good. Man it would be better with refuel allowed. When was the refuel allowed last time, because it feels like ages ago? Man i dont like this saving theme in F1...
Click to expand...

2010. They won't bring it back cos they're obsessed with being green now. Prepare for turbodiesels in F1.
 
Unbelievable. That almost looked like what happened at Imola '94, Michele Alboreto's Minardo lost a wheel leaving the pits and a similar result.
 
mpicco said:
2010. They won't bring it back cos they're obsessed with being green now. Prepare for turbodiesels in F1.
Click to expand...
The refueling ban has nothing to do with being "green". It was another attempt to create more overtaking on track by reducing the amount of position changes acheivable through pit strategy.

But if you want to keep your anti-green knee-jerk prejudices, don't let yourself get disturbed by facts...

EDIT: If I remember correctly, the re-introduction of refueling in the mid-nineties was due to an attempt at "improving the show" as well.

But of course, in mpicco's history of F1, even the traditional refueling ban during the 80s and 70s (with a one-year break in the early 80s) was due to the greenies...

EDIT2: As most of the golden eras of F1, the Lotus days, the Senna/Prost rivalry and even parts of the Schumacher/Ferrari dominance happened under the refueling ban, one could say that refueling is against the nature of F1 and better suited to American series.
 
Last edited:
vikiradTG2007 said:
Official report about the cameraman: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/108639 Currently in hospital in Koblenz being kept under observation, but did not lose consciousness at any point during the incident and its aftermath.
Click to expand...


Looks like Red Bull got a 30 grand Euro fine for the incident. Glad to see the guys going to be okay though.

Still no word on Ferrari running out of fuel or something?
 
Wow, 30gs. Big fuckin deal. RB should have whatever points awarded to them in the constructors stripped for today's race. Let the Finger keep his race win, but punish the team for such stupidity.
 
That American Girl said:
Still no word on Ferrari running out of fuel or something?
Click to expand...

iirc cars are allowed to run out of fuel after the race. It's only after qualifying one liter should remain?

And for me, the biggest problem with refueling is that the leader could be battling the guy in 15th place because of fuel loads, and as spectator you had no idea until the final part of the race...
 
Making an honest error is no stupidity if you ask me...
 
Zorlac said:
Let the Finger keep his race win, but punish the team for such stupidity.
Click to expand...

Sebastian had nothing to do with it so to punish him would be silly in my opinion. And as for the stupidity...I don't think it was stupidity. It was a shitty accident yes, but an accident nonetheless.

Everyone in the pits knows the danger it brings, and this wasn't intentional or the result of gross negligence that I could see. Maybe they should lose some Constructor points, but to dock Mark or Seb would be wrong.
 
Dr_Grip said:
The refueling ban has nothing to do with being "green". It was another attempt to create more overtaking on track by reducing the amount of position changes acheivable through pit strategy.

But if you want to keep your anti-green knee-jerk prejudices, don't let yourself get disturbed by facts...
Click to expand...

Additionally, cost saving due to not having to bring dozens of quick-refuelling rigs everywhere - and creating a less dangerous pit lane. I remember too well how refuelling mishaps turn a crowded area into a great fireball.


vikiradTG2007 said:
And any fine given to the team should be paid towards the cameraman's medical expenses.
Click to expand...

I don't think the cameraman has any direct personal cost from this.
 
Last edited:
That American Girl said:
Looks like Red Bull got a 30 grand Euro fine for the incident. Glad to see the guys going to be okay though.
Click to expand...

I was expecting more than that, especially considering Renault got a 1-race ban after Alonso lost a wheel in 2009. Granted the circumstances were different, but still.
 
That American Girl said:
Sebastian had nothing to do with it so to punish him would be silly in my opinion. And as for the stupidity...I don't think it was stupidity. It was a shitty accident yes, but an accident nonetheless.

Everyone in the pits knows the danger it brings, and this wasn't intentional or the result of gross negligence that I could see. Maybe they should lose some Constructor points, but to dock Mark or Seb would be wrong.
Click to expand...

Um, pretty much what I said:

"RB should have whatever points awarded to them in the constructors stripped for today's race"

Let Vettel keep his points (as much as I hate to see it) since he wasnt involved. Take away the points from RB itself for the incident since fining them wont do dick. Thought I was rather clear in my post but guess not. Anyway..


RB is worth billions, 30k euros doesnt mean shit to them. Losing constructor points does.
 
Dr_Grip said:
The refueling ban has nothing to do with being "green". It was another attempt to create more overtaking on track by reducing the amount of position changes acheivable through pit strategy.

But if you want to keep your anti-green knee-jerk prejudices, don't let yourself get disturbed by facts...

EDIT: If I remember correctly, the re-introduction of refueling in the mid-nineties was due to an attempt at "improving the show" as well.

But of course, in mpicco's history of F1, even the traditional refueling ban during the 80s and 70s (with a one-year break in the early 80s) was due to the greenies...

EDIT2: As most of the golden eras of F1, the Lotus days, the Senna/Prost rivalry and even parts of the Schumacher/Ferrari dominance happened under the refueling ban, one could say that refueling is against the nature of F1 and better suited to American series.
Click to expand...

Yes, cos everyone remembers that Schumacher Hungary win which was like an hour and a half long qualifying session thanks to a brilliant 3 stop strategy, with refuelling.

And if my history serves me right, all of Ferrari/Schumacher era was during refuelling allowed. The only time refuelling was not allowed was at the end of Qualifying and before the race.

Refuelling was banned in 84 in a bid to reduce power from turbo engines. Was it to please the greenies? No, but it was to cut back fuel consumption and power anyway. It came back in 94, and then went away in 2010. If you're gonna insult someone's knowledge of the history, at least try to get your own shit right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top