2017 Formula 1 Rolex Australian Grand PrixFormula 1
- Thread starter SVT Cobra GT
- 818 comments
- 40,372 views
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
They have good tire life, Bottas has no problems, I feel it was a set up issue that cost Hamilton, I mean he was 3 tenths faster in quali and probably could have gone more, I think he had a more quali geared set up and it cost him for the race. Ferrari have worked on race pace again like they have for a few seasons. It's been good early in the season but by mid season it falls apart, so we'll see.
This isn't the Mercedes of Ross Brawn era, that ate through rear tires like no other. If his tires were that bad, he wouldn't have been able to stay out in the second stint after being behind Verstappen that long. The balance was most likely the problem.
- 51,234
- Australia
- SpacedustDaddy
Then, better yet, if it was set up. I still don't think MB have a problem running behind cars though.
![[Nor]MclarenF1](/forum/data/avatars/m/169/169289.jpg?1413287138){kind=avatar}
- 2,281
- Moss
- hoydeskrekk
The Mercedes has been kind of "rubbish" in traffic for the last couple of years, but they've been able to overcome it mostly on their power advantage. Now with new aero regulations making it even harder to pass and ferrari on par with them they'll have to start addressing it.
- 1,885
- qld
- GTP_zed300 /zed300
- YA SAY WHAT?!!!!
Not so much last year, but 2015 the Mercedes struggled behind other cars. this may be an inherent aspect of the aero style package that gives them plenty of down force and limited drag.
I couldn't see what Lewis was on about. His car wasn't moving around enough to be noticeable, nor was his pace dropping off at an appreciable rate. If anything they might have been getting a little hot, but there was enough pace there to keep going. I was quite surprised to see him come in.
I'm not entirely sure if the team were ready, but I'm sure they would've kept him out there til he was going to clear Max.
This is a spur of the moment call. Quite possibly defining, Lewis feeling "under pressure" and making a knee jerk call.
I couldn't see what Lewis was on about. His car wasn't moving around enough to be noticeable, nor was his pace dropping off at an appreciable rate. If anything they might have been getting a little hot, but there was enough pace there to keep going. I was quite surprised to see him come in.
I'm not entirely sure if the team were ready, but I'm sure they would've kept him out there til he was going to clear Max.
This is a spur of the moment call. Quite possibly defining, Lewis feeling "under pressure" and making a knee jerk call.
- 2,938
- Shrewsbury
- pezzarinho17
I thought the undercut looked good itself, Hamilton on new softs was faster than Vettel on used Ultras. I think Mercedes probably expected Verstappen and everyone else to react and pit within 2 laps as we have seen happen before. But an obvious concern to see Hamilton struggling with tyre wear above both Vettel and Bottas. Would suggest setup rather than car design, but driving style will come into play as well.
Just 1 race into the 2017 regulation package, but I already have reservations... Overtaking will have to be judged at some real racing circuits rather than a street track already difficult to pass at, but the tyre situation is awful. Just take a look at last seasons race strategies here:
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2016/03/20/2016-australian-grand-prix-tyre-strategies-and-pit-stops-2/
All the way through the field, there are drivers on very different strategies - both in terms of the number of pitstops and the tyres chosen for each stint. Yesterday the commentators got excited (and even investigated!) Red Bull putting Verstappen onto the super soft tyres at his stop rather than the more popular soft tyre option. Pirelli warned this would happen, and I do not blame them at all for this. That honour instead goes to the teams and FIA for asking for this, both in fear of the new cars being harsher on tyres and because there was too much management before.
The result is clear though. Strategy is dead, tyre management remains.
Just 1 race into the 2017 regulation package, but I already have reservations... Overtaking will have to be judged at some real racing circuits rather than a street track already difficult to pass at, but the tyre situation is awful. Just take a look at last seasons race strategies here:
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2016/03/20/2016-australian-grand-prix-tyre-strategies-and-pit-stops-2/
All the way through the field, there are drivers on very different strategies - both in terms of the number of pitstops and the tyres chosen for each stint. Yesterday the commentators got excited (and even investigated!) Red Bull putting Verstappen onto the super soft tyres at his stop rather than the more popular soft tyre option. Pirelli warned this would happen, and I do not blame them at all for this. That honour instead goes to the teams and FIA for asking for this, both in fear of the new cars being harsher on tyres and because there was too much management before.
The result is clear though. Strategy is dead, tyre management remains.
- 2,118
- Prague
- karelpipa
If they can find a way to convince the manufacture teams that F1 is no longer relevant to road cars then big, loud engines could return. Or if they can invent an efficient big, loud engine.
The rear wings have actually been widened for this year. The cars are longer due to the larger fuel tanks.
Its a lie that these engines are more efficient, they just let go the throttle way before braking zones. And also fuel maps can be changed.
I know that all these changes were made. But rear wing is still too narrow and front wing too wide and the cars could be shortened should fuel stops make return.
Don't see any reason why not - the only reason they added the non-refueling rule was to send a message how are these new V6 turbos ''efficient'' (meaning BUY our new turbo/twin/quad turbo engines).
Big aerodynamic improvement meant very hard wheel to wheel combat, because the second car lost much more downforce than last year. So everything which has any downforce should be simplified. (wings, floor, diffuser, all small bits on the car)
Also braking zones are much shorter, so another overtaking problem.
I must admit i made a mistake, the cars sound like 400 Hp cars. But i.e. Honda NSX (the original NSX with around 300 HP) or Honda S2000 (250Hp) still has better sound.
HEAR how he is on the very edge, i dont hear anything like that for many years in F1
Last edited:
- 15,532
- Cairo, Egypt
- GTP_SEMS
Hulk,Lewis,Max, and Ocon all saying overtaking was almost impossible, not to keep banging on the drum but when should we sound the alarms? after China?
- 23,975
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
Too late to do anything about it for 2017. But as has been pointed out in other F1 threads here - given the new regulations, 2017 was always going to end up with the racing suffering even if the spectacle is better.
- 2,938
- Shrewsbury
- pezzarinho17
There were apparently 5 on track passes during the 2017 Australian Grand Prix, compared to 37 last season.... I don't buy the "street circuit" argument anyway, but China will be a better benchmark in it's own right. There is talk that the DRS zones will be made longer to compensate, the wrong answer in my opinion. It might boost the overtaking figures, but it won't work on the spectacle or the viewing figures....
- 4,487
- YorkshireLand
- SVTlover
My guess is they don't like how artificial they make overtaking. Getting rid of DRS at this stage would send it back to the early-mid '00s of barely no overtakes on track.
Then they'd argue that the cars need less downforce to enable overtaking and if that happens then they'd complain that the cars aren't fast enough.
You cannot keep everybody happy.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Not really, nobody has a car built past June-ish.
It can, providing it just gets cars in position rather than slam-dunk passes. We've seen plenty of DRS moves over the years that end in battles for corner position. And plenty of dull ones too, I guess
- 2,938
- Shrewsbury
- pezzarinho17
Overtaking should be exciting, so I would prefer less overtaking if it meant DRS died.
This. DRS should allow a driver to get alongside, providing they are close and get a decent run out of the corner before it. What we see though is a driver come from several car lengths back come past at such a rate that the other guy has no defence at all. The move is over long before the braking zone. That is a DRS zone already too long, but we see them most circuits.
It's like making football goals twice as tall to boost the number of goals seen in a game. We would all get very bored of seeing lobbed goals happen every 3-5 minutes, even if half of them come from the halfway line.....
This. DRS should allow a driver to get alongside, providing they are close and get a decent run out of the corner before it. What we see though is a driver come from several car lengths back come past at such a rate that the other guy has no defence at all. The move is over long before the braking zone. That is a DRS zone already too long, but we see them most circuits.
It's like making football goals twice as tall to boost the number of goals seen in a game. We would all get very bored of seeing lobbed goals happen every 3-5 minutes, even if half of them come from the halfway line.....
- 16,271
- Boise, ID
- GTP_EDK
I view DRS differently than many. If a car is genuinely faster, but cannot get past due to aerodynamic limitations, why not tap into that same aero to allow them by?
If they are truly faster, they should walk away from the car they pass, and get outside of the 1 second required for the following car to use it. If they are not genuinely faster, maybe they get re-passed?
I understand that Ocon/Hulkenberg pass would not have happened without DRS, but the use of DRS did not make it any less exciting, from my perspective. I mean, if the slipstream itself had that same effect, would we still dismiss that as well?
- 2,938
- Shrewsbury
- pezzarinho17
DRS was brought in because Vitaly Petrov was able to defend from Fernando Alonso for over half the Abu Dhabi GP in 2010. No one commented on how good a drive it was from the Russian because as far as many could see, it had cost a Ferrari driver the Championship. I agree a faster should be able to pass, but it shouldn't be a given right of way.
Agreed, it was a good scrap. Hulkenberg lined himself up well coming off the last turn to make the move happen, with the aid of DRS. Point to consider though potentially - Hulkenberg didn't have the DRS advantage over Ocon. So what would have happened without it being in F1 yesterday? I am sure Hulkenberg wouldn't have stayed in 11th....
- 16,271
- Boise, ID
- GTP_EDK
Right, I think maybe they need to dial in the DRS zones, which may be easier said than done. It might even be that they need to adjust them as the race weekend proceeds, once they see what the cars are actually doing. Maybe use data from FP1 and FP2 to make the changes ahead of FP3 and qualifying?
When DRS first came out, there were tracks with multiple zones, and longer zones, and we had those situations where cars were able to get past on the straight, return to the racing line, and brake normally. That's a farce.
If DRS is going to do its job, it will allow a faster driver to get by, with some amount of skill and aggression included. That's what we saw yesterday. That said, the zone should likely have been a bit longer and we would have seen a few more of those.
- 4,487
- YorkshireLand
- SVTlover
Don't you think that bit maybe in part due to the new engine regulations where Mercedes powered cars would leave Renault and Honda ones for dust?
- 2,938
- Shrewsbury
- pezzarinho17
Well Max was stuck behind Raikkonen at the end of the race, but potentially he had already used up the best from his super soft tyres (Kimi was on softs).
Honda, yes. Especially in 2015 where the Honda units were not able to generate / store enough electrical energy to provide power for the entire length of straights... But not so much anymore, you don't see it on the straights without DRS...
Some straights might be long enough for Mercedes engines to pass easily unaided, but it's a moot point unfortunately since DRS is normally just applied to the longest straights by default. If it really is a device aimed to boost overtaking, then I think it would be better placed away from corners where we see natural overtaking happen anyway...
Honda, yes. Especially in 2015 where the Honda units were not able to generate / store enough electrical energy to provide power for the entire length of straights... But not so much anymore, you don't see it on the straights without DRS...
Some straights might be long enough for Mercedes engines to pass easily unaided, but it's a moot point unfortunately since DRS is normally just applied to the longest straights by default. If it really is a device aimed to boost overtaking, then I think it would be better placed away from corners where we see natural overtaking happen anyway...
- 13,049
- United Kingdom
There are circuits where there isn't DRS into the overtaking zones. China turn 6, Bahrain turn 4, Monaco nouvelle chicane and Loews, Silverstone Copse, Austria turn 2, Spa Bus Stop, Monza Curva Grande, Suzuka Casio Triangle, Malaysia turn 4.
- 29,862
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
I'd happily have slower cars if it meant less downforce.
Even if you increase mechanical grip, aero will always turn racing into a clean air procession.
- 6,290
- Washington State
- OutlawQuadrant
Nobody should be surprised. Make cars more aero dependant and overtaking becomes more difficult because following someone on the track takes away more of that advantage. Conversely, if you have the aero of a brick, then the loss is minimal since you can't lose what you don't have.
And if you have complaints about lap times, just give the drivers more power. It may seem risky but you're simply giving back the time lost by going slower in the corners on a straight.
But no. The purists think what we have now is the solution. Obviously, it's too early to make a call but I won't hold back on the "I told you so" if the overtaking difficulties becomes a trend.
And if you have complaints about lap times, just give the drivers more power. It may seem risky but you're simply giving back the time lost by going slower in the corners on a straight.
But no. The purists think what we have now is the solution. Obviously, it's too early to make a call but I won't hold back on the "I told you so" if the overtaking difficulties becomes a trend.
- 1,433
- Northern Ireland
Just to address this (I swear more people said it in the thread but these were the only quotes I could find at a glance). Overtaking data from ClipTheApex:
Yes, the stats suggest it is more difficult to overtake in Melbourne compared to other tracks on the calendar, but it's a stretch to say it's difficult outright. There's been plenty of overtaking there in recent seasons, with the significant outlier being 2015 - but overtaking was down across the board that season. So overtaking being down in Melbourne this year is a fairly strong suggestion it will be down for the year overall.
The "wait and see" argument going around irritates me a bit because we've already done the waiting-and-seeing with cars that can't follow each other - we did it a decade+ ago. I don't really know why people would think doing the same thing now would produce a different answer.........unless people are relying on DRS to be the key difference between the cars of then and now, which would be hilarious given how unpopular it is.
On the subject of overtaking stats, it's interesting to me that the 17 lowest years on record (since 1981) are all from 1994-2010. Years which, imo uncoincidentally, are covered by at least one of a few significant factors:
1) Cars which can't follow each other
2) Lack of variation in race strategy encouraged by a) conservative tyres, or b) refuelling
I'd argue we've already done the waiting-and-seeing on all of these things..........but it looks like 1) and 2a) are back again, and people are calling for 2b) for return. So make of that what you will I guess.
And yes, I know "number of overtakes" isn't the end all and be all of judging the quality of racing, and it isn't very fashionable to mention here, but I'd say it remains a good indicator (if not the best we have) of what races are producing in terms of on-track action, and, in particular, of emerging trends in the racing across multiple seasons. It's not the only measure that should be considered, but it's certainly not to be ignored either imo. Unless you're in the Mosley "it's a game of chess" camp, but that's another discussion.
As amusing as the timing of that was I think the decision to introduce DRS had been made before Abu Dhabi 2010.
- 3,035
- Kingston, Jamaica
- pj-gm
- PJwasHere876
I think DRS was being talked about and would have had to be agreed on before that. That said, the Renault Petrov drove was a brick in the corners but a bullet on the straights. He didn't do anything particularly impressive.
- 15,532
- Cairo, Egypt
- GTP_SEMS
@TRGTspecialist Almost every single driver has come out and said it's almost impossible to overtake and you have to be 2 seconds a lap quicker to do so. Reserving judgment to China is fair but only to see how much worse it is, the fact that overtaking is more difficult is true without a doubt.
- 16,271
- Boise, ID
- GTP_EDK
Right, I think it was more in response to teams developing the F-Duct to aid in passing, as well as teams' use of optional KERS systems.
In response to some degree of race drama occurring as a result of those offsets, some people may have thought, "if this is good, then that will be better". And now we have DRS.
