FORMULA 1 GRAND PRIX DU CANADA 2012: RACE *** SPOILERS ***

not a single human being who participated in discussion saying result are unfair only the racing is not to everyone's taste

 

Thank you for allowing for those of us who don't qualify as human

 

Time for kraftwerk to chime in:


Wir sind die Roboter.

 

This this I say: B.S.! If Alonso had pitted one lap after Hamilton, and put him on super-soft tires, he would have won the race. That's what I would have done, and I'm sure that's what Ross Brawn would have done.

Which brings up the point: how much does the driver's opinion matter? If I had been Alonso, I would have been screaming over my radio for new tires! Would the team have listened?

 

welcome

seems everyone forgotten button the new massa

 

well... this race sucked. Bad day for Ferrari and both drivers.

 

I didn't think so. I thought the race was a nail biter.

Alonso's luck run out in the last few laps but at least until then he had a strong showing. Much better than I anticipated in Clifford. You can't always get the tire strategy just perfectly right. More important I thought was the fact that the car is somewhat competitive.

As for Massa, that was just another self inflicted gunshot wound.

 

Specially when you think that the car lacks traction and top speed and that without those you´re lost in Canadá. Let´s see if the car works better in other circuits.

 

I'm still worried about high speed tracks like Silverstone or Monza. I'm guessing it will do reasonably well at Valencia.

 

Kling klang you rang..

Fantastic racing, as said by yourself cream to the top, speaks for itself IMO.

 

Quote of the thread

 

They did fine at Barcelona, so tracks with high speed corners like Silverstone should be fine. Monza will be a very different (and worse) story probably.

 

First, I'd like to congratulate the 4 who defeated Alonso-----his tires.

Kind of like when Kimi was being passed a few races back near the end as if he was driving a taxi cab when his tires went away.

What happened today didn't represent Alonso's driving, it was a matter of sudden, horrific tire degradation. I don't like it to this extreme, because it is a lottery of sorts, and means lesser skilled drivers from lesser teams can end up on the podium largely from luck, not having the winning combination.

 

Not sure I consider Barcelona in the same league as the other two mentioned. Plus Barcelona is a special case anyway as everybody does their winter testing there and the cars are much more together regardless.

Silverstone, Istanbul, Monza and Japan could be brutal. Then again the team has some more time to come up with new stuff by then.

 

Two years ago, Webber was looking like the presumptive WDC winner going into Korea, and he finished close behind Vettel.

Last year, 7 races in, he was over 60 points down.

Despite all the silliness last year about Jenson being the new #1 at McLaren, and Jenson being a top level driver - everyone really knew he wasn't. Lewis had a streak of bad luck last year that coincided with Jenson's good luck, leading to the end result.

It is perfectly reasonable that Jenson is far short of the top guys in F1.

 

Put a midpacker in the absolute top car (hello 2009) and suddenly Jenson looks brilliant. But he's never been brilliant compared to the elite in terms of flat out speed, only preserving the car.

Hamilton is more erratic, but at least entertaining.

 

Of course it's reasonable.
It's a fact.


It was not predictable though.
This year's tire situation has reshuffled a number of decks.

 

Perfect mix as team mates I'd say.

 

I have to admire Alonso's upbeat attitude. Either that, or he has a great PR Guru!

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/100296

 

I don't understand the assertion. Ferrari rolled the dice when they decided to push Alonso's tires beyond 50 laps (note: the other 1-stoppers did 30 laps on SS, 40 on softs). Ferrari took an unneccesary chance in a race that would have seen them in 1st or 2nd place if Alonso stopped a lap after Hamilton. Thus was not the result of the "tire lottery", it was simply a poor decision. Renault did the same with Kimi at Sepang; tried to make a planned 2-stopper into a 1 stopper with an extended stint on the harder compound.

The Ferrari spin is laughable. "Alonso had no chance at a poium today"...LOL! I guess the thought the Fox commercials were still running when they made their fateful (fatal?) decision.

 

Contrary to what's been suggested, "random" is not synonymous with "unfair". "Random" doesn't even imply "unfair". A situation can have random, unpredictable results ... and still be completely "fair".

 

The only logical assumption is that Ferrari thought that by bringing him in and putting him on equal tires with Lewis they couldn't maintain the lead or make a pass. They don't have faith in the car.
Under those circumstances its understandable that they wouldnt surrender the lead.
Had they known that the tires would go off they would have pitted.
Personally I prefer the approach of going all in.

 

What am I missing here? FA was 2.6 secs behind LH when McLaren pitted. Lewis came out in 3rd, well ahead of Webber. Why would Alonso have come out in 4th? I can understand if they just say "we feel like we're fighting Vettle for the title, so we wanted to match his pits but we screwed it up by not stopping with him late"

The b.s. about "o chance for a podium" rings hollow...

 

True. But it is the difference between sport and chance.

 

I'm fine with that, but they shouldn't try to spin it to make it seem like a podium was impossible. Their decision was a carbon copy of the one that cost FA the wdc in 2010...they chose to match stops with the guy they felt was their competition and it cost them a podium finish.