The process of qualifying to qualify just seems.... Odd. Not sure how you go about making it really feel like it has a point either. Plus it's lousy for teams like Williams who can put in a decent single lap, but drop like a stone in a race.
Was so excited yesterday as I'd managed to completely clear the diary to watch one of my favourite races of the season. Sigh. On reflection I'd probably be more annoyed as a Max fan than a Lewis fan. Given the set up RB and Merc respectively went with I'd have thought Max was in prime position to win that and take 8 points out of Lewis' lead in the WDC. I suppose banking on 5 for doing no racing is no bad thing. Merc pace in free practice in the dry has me slightly worried they will storm the second half of the season.
I agree, I was really looking forward to Spa. Judging by Lewis's body language after the race I thought he was mega disappointed that the race didn't really happen. To me that suggested he thought he had a good chance of winning. I was thinking that Max looked very likely to win in my opinion.
It doesn't bother me particularly that Max may have got the better end of the deal on the freebie points. There's no telling where the points would be had we actually have been able to race. It does annoy me that any points can be given with zero racing, but on the other hand I'm happy to see Russel get some reward. I'd be equally disappointed if Hamilton and Max's positions were swapped. Just hope whatever the outcome of the title, it's not those points that make the difference. It is what is is though.
The last few races have skewed the points all over the place already. I’m looking forward to a few “ordinary” gp weekends to really see what the competitive order is now.
Why not 1 lap ? The drivers knew what the conditions were like then. If the Stewards needed more clarification, why not 3 or 5 or 7 laps more ? They can can f off .
It was inevitable that they were going to do that to get the classification. They couldn't realistically move it, conditions were getting worse and the sun was going down. They hit the panic button. They either need to be prepared to cancel events or factor in another day for all race weekends in case an event has to move. Here's something I was thinking about. I'm pretty sure that back in the day they had different grades of wet tyres, going from Inters, up to extreme wets, then monsoons. Did I make that up?
Brundle was talking about this in the race. He was saying they got rid of the monsoon tyres because if it was wet enough for them then there would be a safety car in which case they were pointless.
I do wonder though, if allowing the cars to circulate under a virtual safety car on Monsoons if you might at least stand a chance of clearing enough water to get some racing in... Maybe not, but a thought at least.
You're right of course. I think he was also saying though the tendency is for teams always to put the fastest tyres on the car that they can get away with, so often if there was a safety car for wet conditions they would put inters on the cars rather than wets, on the premise that when it dried out enough for the SC to come in the track would be dry enough for inters, and in the meantime they would be OK on inters because they weren't at racing speed. I think they would have to mandate the use of wets in those situations, but I'm not sure if they can.
Some interesting points. Maybe mandatory Monsoon tyres with all cars behind safety car at a decent gap between them not as close as 10 length which I think is fia recommended distance but that could just be pole to safety car? I think they can mandate tyres, didn't they say before the first attempt that they all had to use wets?
Any safety car wet start means all cars must start on full wets, so they could surely come up with something similar. Would be nice, but these super wet races are a very rare occurrence, so who knows..
I think this is a branding thing that got Brundle mixed up. Bridgestone branded their wet weather tyres as "wet tyres" and "monsoon tyres" Pirelli branded their wet tyres as "intermediates" and "full wets". Bridgestone didn't offer an "intermediate" tyre, but it would be equivalent to their wet tyre. So the monsoon tyres of old were no better than the current full wets - and were probably worse thanks to evolving technology. In terms of the race, I think Bhaji is right about a VSC. Nothing is up to temperature at safety car speeds, and there was no need to artificially limit the drivers to that pace. They were doing 3min18 laps, earlier on the same day the F3 cars were running sub 2min30. Remove the safety car and slowly increase the target delta time depending on the feedback from the field. Even if you have to run 10 laps under safety car, it'd be worth it if you manage to get the cars warmed up and clear some water off the track. Two laps was a poor effort and really disappointing, even if you're going to leave it as late in the day to try again as they did, at least give it 3-4 laps to see if the track improves as the cars warm up and some water gets displaced.
I just seem to remember there being wet and then, omg, it's really bloody wet tyres. But can't recall if that was just the naming of inters and full wets, or if there was three tiers of wets. This is late 80s/early 90s times, so it's been a while. I totally missed Brundle mentioning it, so curious to know exactly what he said now.
Nothing new to add but I was V disappointed with the weekend. The weather we can not control but integrity is in our hands. The parade of cars behind the safety was a cynical move that insults the fans, none more so than those at the circuit who deserve their money back. For me, the podium ceremony was a complete farce. How anyone could smile, let alone celebrate, is beyond me. The sport did well last year to provide the show they did, the bad judgement that prevailed in Belgium was disappointing. After a 4 week break, we all hoped for better but I accept that to race would have put lives at risk.