It's the same system for everyone you can't just go round making up different systems just because it doesn't suit a certain driver at certain times, I doubt this would be an issue if the boot was on the other foot like I've said before Nico is just as likely to have a couple of DNF's in the future so it all evens out in the end, and today to be brutally honest Nico managed his car problems better than Lewis did and so deserved his second place 100% we heard before Hamilton's brakes failed that he was running more rear bias than Nico, he should have moved the bias forward...
Head To Head Nico Rosberg vs Lewis Hamilton
- Thread starter FB
- Start date
Hamilton's brake issues most likely stemmed from the fact that he was running with 2 seconds of a car for his entire race and subsequently didn't receive any clean airflow. Once Lewis' brakes went they told Nico to adjust his settings, because he had presumably went to something different after inquiring about them earlier in the GP.
Apparently the loss of the MGU-K affected the brakes, Rosberg was just lucky his held out I guess.
To be fair to Rosberg I think he drove round the issue. Of course he wouldn't have known about the problem if it hadn't have happened to Lewis however.
But to counter that if Lewis had put it on pole or got Rosberg off the start he'd have had the advantage of being 'cooler' on his brakes.
As for the points/retirements argument it is one that goes round in circles. The reason we have this system? Because people complained the winner didn't gain enough for a win.
You watch F1 long enough everything just comes round and round and round.....
But to counter that if Lewis had put it on pole or got Rosberg off the start he'd have had the advantage of being 'cooler' on his brakes.
As for the points/retirements argument it is one that goes round in circles. The reason we have this system? Because people complained the winner didn't gain enough for a win.
You watch F1 long enough everything just comes round and round and round.....
The Artist.....
Champion Elect
Also, the other reason that Rosberg did not get a penalty is that even though he gained half a second by accelerating over the chicane, he lost half a second on the subsequent lap by going slower through turns 1 and 2. You can even see it in the lap times.
24 1:19.160
25 1:18.616 (Jumped the chicane)
26 1:19.648 (Slowed through turn1/2)
24 1:19.160
25 1:18.616 (Jumped the chicane)
26 1:19.648 (Slowed through turn1/2)
So what if he slowed during turns 1 and 2; that gave Hamilton no opportunity to take advantage of his mistake as he already had a big enough gap for it to have no impact.
He should have slowed through the chicane or on the straight.
Put it this way, if Hamilton had done the same while behind Rosberg and then had sufficient speed to overtake Rosberg before T1, do you think the stewards would have allowed it?
I think we all know the answer to that.
Gaining an advantage by exceeding the track limits is gaining an advantage, whether it is the leading or chasing driver.
He should have slowed through the chicane or on the straight.
Put it this way, if Hamilton had done the same while behind Rosberg and then had sufficient speed to overtake Rosberg before T1, do you think the stewards would have allowed it?
I think we all know the answer to that.
Gaining an advantage by exceeding the track limits is gaining an advantage, whether it is the leading or chasing driver.
From the timing screens it looked like Rosberg gained half a second on Hamilton by skipping the chicane even if he did slow down for the next couple of corners (at least at the end of that lap he was half a second further in front than he was previously).
There's a precedent that drivers don't get punished for this sort of incident however, so I'm not surprised he didn't get a penalty and historically it's the right decision (in the absence of a rule change). We only see punishments when the driver behind makes an overtake as a result of a mistake (and doesn't give the place back).
Whether it's fair or not is another question entirely.
There's a precedent that drivers don't get punished for this sort of incident however, so I'm not surprised he didn't get a penalty and historically it's the right decision (in the absence of a rule change). We only see punishments when the driver behind makes an overtake as a result of a mistake (and doesn't give the place back).
Whether it's fair or not is another question entirely.
The Artist.....
Champion Elect
Has anyone thought that maybe all the issues are linked here:
1. Rosberg's loss of time through the chicane was down to having his brake bias too far forwards. He adjusted it.
2. Hamilton suffered rear brake failure (Because of having rear brake bias? - My conjecture)
3. Rosberg was instructed to move brake balance forward after Hamilton's retirement....
Edit... Sorry, just seen Mephistopheles post earlier
1. Rosberg's loss of time through the chicane was down to having his brake bias too far forwards. He adjusted it.
2. Hamilton suffered rear brake failure (Because of having rear brake bias? - My conjecture)
3. Rosberg was instructed to move brake balance forward after Hamilton's retirement....
Edit... Sorry, just seen Mephistopheles post earlier
Last edited:
To a certain extent the real question may be whether this has highlighted a previously-not-found weakness in the Merc or whether it really was just a product of being overtaxed by the bias and disturbed air. If it is a weakness then it can be worked on and hopefully both cars will be fine next time around.
Last edited:
The Kinetic Motor Generator Unit overheated, as far as I understand. I guess the stop-go character of the circuit has to do with these problems.
He was on course for that in Monaco.
The absurdity in Canada is if Rosberg had stayed within the circuit limits after locking up, or not accelerated through the run off area, Hamilton would have had him down the straight.
He gained an advantage which ultimately affected the outcome of the race, that fact cannot be argued against.
downforce
Race Winner
I spared myself from coming on here last night.
But I have to say it is pure luck that Rosberg holds the championship lead over Hamilton. If he had not had an engine failure in Australia he would have come 1st or 2nd (most likely 1st) and yesterday he would have been 2nd if his brakes had not failed once he was past Rosberg. And then there is Rosbergs so called "mistake" in Monaco.
I always thought Vettel was somewhat fortunate having a dominant car and a well below par teammate (as Ricciardo is showing) but this year from Rosberg is just taking the mick.
edit: Plus getting away with cutting corners helps
But I have to say it is pure luck that Rosberg holds the championship lead over Hamilton. If he had not had an engine failure in Australia he would have come 1st or 2nd (most likely 1st) and yesterday he would have been 2nd if his brakes had not failed once he was past Rosberg. And then there is Rosbergs so called "mistake" in Monaco.
I always thought Vettel was somewhat fortunate having a dominant car and a well below par teammate (as Ricciardo is showing) but this year from Rosberg is just taking the mick.
edit: Plus getting away with cutting corners helps
Last edited:
downforce
Race Winner
Really? I'm pretty sure it actually usually is that way.
I never put mine away.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
