Grand Prix 2017 Bahrain Grand Prix Practice, Qualifying & Race Discussion

Have we all calmed down after China? After the rather dull opener in Australia Shanghai did show that the 2017 cars can overtake one another and without DRS. The question is did the damp conditions flatter to deceive? I suspect we won't see even a hit of rain in Bahrain.

It's a score draw between Hamilton and Vettel now in the championship. The Merc looks to have the edge over the Ferrari in qualifying trim but the cars are closer in the race. The decision to pit Vettel under the virtual safety car left him at a disadvantage as he tried to chase Hamilton down in China but Lewis always looked like he had something in reserve.

Behind the two front runners their team mates are looking like genuine No. 2 drivers, although this may be a little harsh on Bottas only two races in to his Mercedes career. Raikkonen's complete lack of enthusiasm to try and overtake Ricciardo in China was telling although he was complaining about having problems with the "energy" supply from his car. Red Bull are the clear third team and without changeable weather conditions I suspect they won't be as close to Mercedes and Ferrari as they were in China.

Behind the top three teams there is a real battle. Williams, Force India, Toro Rosso and Haas are all close with Renault not too far behind. McLaren were even in the mix in China with Fernando "The Animal" Alonso putting the Woking car in places it probably has no right to be. We have yet to see what Vandoorne can offer.

Will Werhlein be back in the Sauber in Bahrain? Will Sauber be able to glue all the bits of car Giovinazzi left them with after China to give him a car?

I'm trying to think of anything outstanding about the circuit in Bahrain but little springs to mind. It doesn't have a silly underground pit exit like Yas Marina. It's usually run in daylight hours. The only two things which do come to mind are the piss poor human rights record of the regime which means there will be a huge security operation and the drivers will have to spray rose water rather than Champagne on the podium as it's a strict Muslim country.

Only a week to wait. The teams will be furiously packing up in Shanghai as I write this to get everything on to a plane to ship out to the Gulf. Fingers crossed for an exciting race as Hamilton and Vettel resume battle.
 
That simply can't be true otherwise we would have seen Ferrari and Mercedes in the first four places in the last two races.
 
That simply can't be true otherwise we would have seen Ferrari and Mercedes in the first four places in the last two races.
I agree, how many WDC/ WCC would Red Bull have won if they had had two Webbers at the wheel?
None, because he managed not to finish second in every season in which Vettel won the championship.
The driver is difference.
 
None, because he managed not to finish second in every season in which Vettel won the championship.

...and for every other season too! LOL:3rd:

He was damn good for F1 as he threw one more car back into racing. Bottas and Raikkonen are threatening to have a similar effect, bringing Red Bull into entertaining racing accidentally.
 
We have a new verb then: "to Kovalainen" - a complicated action encompassing demonstrable abilty, a fast race-car, an inability to trouble a teammate, and ultimately a fade into obscurity. Could be a bit of a tragedy for Valterri, unless he starts emulating Nico Rosberg rather quickly...
 
I'm suggesting that drivers moving into a top team with team mates like Hamilton have had worst starts.

True he cocked up the race in China but he wasn't too far off the pace in quali and did a fairly decent job in Australia. Unlike Rosberg he doesn't have the luxury of being in a car vastly superior to the rest of the field.

As for an underwhelming F1 career. It's very true. He has been driving for F1s most underwhelming team until now.

Not saying things will change I just think he's better than being made out. It's another one of those where media had made its mind up before season even started though.
 
Wombcat At first glance your arguments are valid, when looking at the results superficially and ones interpretation of dominance, a broad definition constituting multiple WCC in consecutive years, while a narrow definition evaluates the individual season and examines WCC winning teams' performance in relation to its competition.
I prefer the narrow definition and while it doesn't change the outcome, it's an attempt to assess a season more objectively by rating every single race. Therefore I don't constitute Ferrari being dominant in 1999, 2001 and 2003 nor Red Bull in 2010 and 2012 because these seasons allowed multiple teams to win races and there was some variation, whilst Mercedes with the exception of Singapore 2015 only lost races due to incidents involving their drivers and mechanical failures and have won more than 80% of the races in the past 3 seasons.
It still doesn't change my conclusion. Because if you look at it that way, then Lotus wasn't dominant for several seasons in the 60s and 70s either. Because there is no way you can be dominant for severel years and not win several WCC in a row. Lotus was dominant in 1963, 1965 and 1978. Not in the other years of the 60s and 70s.
And you were saying:
No, it isn't a recent evolution if you go back in history there have always been teams dominating the sport, especially Lotus in the 60's and 70's.
Apart from Ferrari and Mercedes which teams have really dominated the sport in the past 20 years, Williams in the early 90's and Red Bull in 2011 and 2013.
Lotus never had a stretch like Ferrari in 2000-2004, RBR in 2010-2013 or Mercedes 2014-2016. Although 1963-1965 it would have been possible, if the Lotus would have been more reliable in 1964. Which it wasn't, so it couldn't dominate.

I agree with you that the recent domination of Mercedes is the most dominating ever, although McLaren 1988-1989 is comparable. I'm also pretty sure that if Prost had continued with McLaren, they would have continued to dominate.

But the last 20 years domination has been taken to a whole different level compared to the 60s and 70s. Reliability plays a big part in it, because with a team that was a lot faster in the 60s and 70s, there was always a good chance that they retired. Nowadays, not so much.
 
Last edited:
So, what, we're advocating the Zak Brown strategy to make F1 interesting?

They could only be more 60s if their lead driver buggered off to do Indianapolis...
 
RasputinLives I think Bottas's results in his four seasons at Williams point to a driver who needs to do better.

In his first season he and Pastor were virtually level pegging. He then had a great season against Massa which suggested a bright future before descending back into a distinctly average one.

Last years Williams didn't help but for much of the first half of the season there wasn't a lot between him and Massa.

You're right in that it's too early to judge his Mercedes career based on two races but I can understand how the expectations are low.
 
Massa is a difficult person to judge anyone against. Before his accident he was world champion material. Afterwards his form has been more up and down than frogs in the mating season.
 
cider_and_toast Bottas has been close to Hamilton in both qualifying sessions, it wasn't unusual for Rosberg to be beaten by 0.3 or more tenths by Hamilton.
I guess we have figured out Bottas is just as average as the guy who preceded him.
 
Greenlantern101 Massa had one outstanding season, that was in '08 as team stood behind whilst Raikkonen was not performing on his usual level.
Massa can't be considered World Champion material based on one season. Not only the crash harmed his performance but also the manner in which Alonso destroyed his soul - the pit entry in China '10 was a big "F**K YOU I'm the Number One driver" towards Massa - and gained the teams trust and full support.
 
Back
Top Bottom