I guess we’ll never know for sure.Originally Posted by JoeW
When Leclerc came into the pits early like that, the safer bet for RB would be to try to match your other car to the same strategy to cover your ass. However, since 2nd RB was Max, they’ve decided to not match LeClerc’s strategy… if Perez were running behind Max, I’m sure RB would’ve matched…
Anyway, too bad Leclerc DNFed.
Without the Ferraris, surely Perez cannot beat Max in a straight fight.
Pitting on lap 10 wasn’t a very good decision which is why RBR didn’t match it. At the time RBR was doing a 1 stop strategy and going long on the mediums for at least another 10 laps. They knew LeClerc was going to have to pit again and they also knew they could cover that 25-30sec pit stop gap if necessary. In the end it wasn’t necessary
Ferrari was probably hoping for more VSC opportunities later…but Sainz can only DNF once per race
Last edited by JoeW; June 12th, 2022 at 10:19 PM.
I think Ferrari probably knew that allowing Max to freely chase Checo would slow the Mexican down…
Anyway, too bad their engine blew so we’ll never know what might have been.
Whoops.
They're just a bunch of buttholes. My bad.
Sick burn sir.
Apparently RB tried to call Perez in, but had a miscommunication and then he'd passed the pit entry by the time he'd understood.Pitting on lap 10 wasn’t a very good decision which is why RBR didn’t match it. At the time RBR was doing a 1 stop strategy and going long on the mediums for at least another 10 laps. They knew LeClerc was going to have to pit again and they also knew they could cover that 25-30sec pit stop gap if necessary. In the end it wasn’t necessary
Ferrari was probably hoping for more VSC opportunities later…but Sainz can only DNF once per race
There was a further VSC for another Ferrari-engined car ISTR, so Leclerc could have got two cheap stops.
BBC said:
A close race, but with Max having the balance of advantage, sounds about right. Frustrating we didn't get to see it really - as soon as Charles' engine blew I knew that was it for interest.Red Bull team principal Christian Horner said he believed Verstappen would have been able to catch and pass Leclerc, and other teams' strategy simulations agreed, suggesting that it would have been close, but Verstappen would have won out.
Leclerc was not so sure. "We were leading and I was managing the tyres well," he said. "We just had to manage the tyres to the end and we were in the best position to do that."
Yeah, consider that most of the time so far this year, when Max finishes a race, he’d win it! So it’ll be easy to believe that Max could beat out Charlie boy in the end…
It’d be funny that Mercedes wins the championship in the end for being the most ugly, but reliable of all!
For a car that bounces so much and so back breakingly hard, it is quite amazing that it’s so reliable. These components can’t possibly have been designed to survive such environments because they never saw it coming! Gotta hand it to Mercedes’ engineers.
Season is still long, maybe it’s a matter of time? If drivers can complain about their backs, I can’t believe this bouncing won’t effect the life of the various components…
Last edited by Crazed_Insanity; June 13th, 2022 at 09:29 AM.
Honestly if it’s such a problem just raise your ride height. Problem solved. If your team can’t figure it out but others can, then is it really a problem for the FIA to step in?
Raising your height will fix porpoising but you will lose performance. So either figure it out or keep subjecting your drivers to pain OR raise the car, go slower and no porpoising
Honestly if it’s such a problem just raise your ride height. Problem solved. If your team can’t figure it out but others can, then is it really a problem for the FIA to step in?
Raising your height will fix porpoising but you will lose performance. So either figure it out or keep subjecting your drivers to pain OR raise the car, go slower and no porpoising
I'm inclined to agree that it would be unfair to change the rules in-season in a way that would benefit some teams at the cost of others. On the other hand, drivers will always be willing to push themselves and risk their health to gain laptime - there's a reason we make the car's safety features mandatory in the regulations.
To me the ideal approach would be an FIA-provided G-logger in every car (I think they already have this for crashes anyway), and then ask some medical experts to define a 'harmful' level of vertical shock. (Likely a rate of change of force, rather than G force itself). Each team has an allowance of say 100 'over limit' events for each race, and if they exceed this that car is black-flagged.
This would preclude the trade-off between physiologically harmful bouncing and laptime gains, while allowing those teams which have 'cracked the code', and have cars that are quick without hammering up and down, to continue to reap the fair reward of their aerodynamic design excellence.
Longer term I think there's a question over whether F1 wants to be a game of who can get the best ground effect aero without bouncing, a somewhat esoteric skill. If not, then it might make sense for next year to require some eg minimum ride height for all cars (a 'virtual plank' ?), to reduce the emphasis on this specific high risk, high reward design area.
I don't particularly mind which way the sport goes in the longer term, I'm confident Mercedes will catch on and catch up for next year if the rules remain stable. I just think some limits should be in place to avoid the risk of longer term injury to drivers from driving cars that are quickest when they're hammering into the ground many times a lap.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
