2017 FORMULA 1 ROLEX BRITISH GRAND PRIX: RACE *** SPOILERS ***

Thanks Joe for the update.

Still he cannot afford to be as aggressive as Max.

 

I think WDC will be hard. Wins, LH and Vettel could theoretically get there especially if Mercedes stays dominant (why wouldn't they) and the seasons stay the same length or go even longer

 

Yes

 

It was implyed that at the Singapore gp at Ferrari pit stop was due to the fact that the pit stop light they were using errored out that cause the light to premature lights out letting Massa go still with the fuel horse on the car. I understand what you said about about Lewis still won on merit which can I can fully understand. Here's the pit stop. https://youtu.be/zMKguL2yDCY

Also Massa also implied the race was rigged just after the race was finished. He didn't get enough weight to make that happneed though though later on the investigation came about that revealed that race fixing. Luck is part of the game which I fully understand. Though if the car they drove had the reliability of the later Ferraris or even the early 2000s he would of clinched the championship rather than Lewis. He didn't and I accepted that Lewis won the 2008 Wdc. Though we can all agree that without Massa's luck going in that year Massa would of won the 2008 wdc and Lewis won't have a championship. I plainly accept that Lewis won the 2008 in fair play.

 

Massa mistakes for 2008:

spun off in Sepang and Monte-Carlo, had pit lane dramas at Valencia and Singapore (where he also hit Adrian Sutil), crashed into Hamilton at Fuji, and Silverstone drama.

I believe it was a culmination of "incidents" that led to him not winning. And not the conspiracy theory of some Massa-fosi out there that Glock let Hamilton pass by so he

can win instead of Massa.

 

Pirelli's tyre investigation with the two Ferrari's British GP 2017
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I agree. Saying that Massa lost the championship because of Renault, Alonso, Glock or Hamilton is stretching to truth a bit too much to fit an agenda.

 

Indeed

 

Well, I looked at reports of the time, and nothing looked obviously suspicious after the race, and there is no mention of Massa visiting the Renault pit (at least, I didn't find any) after the race to confront Briatore.

In fact, Ferrari came with an explanation for Massa's refueling incident:

"Ferrari team principal Stefano Domenicali said that the reason for Massa's pit incident was not the electronic signalling system but a human error. He defended the electronic system saying that the system saves any reaction time for the driver as opposed to a standard "lollipop" system, and considering it was a human error, the incident may have happened with a lollipop as well."

If Ferrari, or anyone, had suspected foul play on the part of Renault, they would at least lodged a protest, and there was none.

Alonso (supposed to be innocent at this point) said that Renault had chosen a very short first sting in its 2-stop strategy to start with less fuel for a lighter car, since he was far back on the grid. That was absolutely plausible at the time, in view of the refuelling. That's how he explained stopping after 12 laps. Of course, the subsequent crash of his team mate calling for a safety car period was judged fortuitous, but nobody suspected foul play.

Only now, and with the benefit of insight, people can make judgement on what looked as a strategic choice, followed by the loss of one car for Renault.

One can argue to death about this, but the safety car is an instrument used and abused by racers, teams and organiser alike. It wouldn't be the first time it came to play in a race.

The fact is that Massa, and Ferrari, eliminated themselves by a sloppy pit stop.

 

Glock was on the wrong tyre and he was only in the race position that he was because he hadn't changed and the others (including Hamilton) had. He/his team gambled and lost out to the weather by a lap. To suggest there was some collusion or conspiracy is to demonstrate a complete ignorance of F1 and is really not worthy of further debate.

The Piquet thing always looked odd, and strangely the person directing the Renault team at the time, was also the person directing the Benetton team when some other slightly 'odd' things happened. I think I recall MSc completing a pit stop whilst stuck in 5th gear.

 

This

And let's not forget that in the end the points gap was only so narrow because the FIA gifted Massa points in Belgium and Japan

 

Yes, a lot happened under Briatore who's a bit of a rogue.

Don't forget that during the era you mention, Michael Schumacher was driver and Ross Brawn was technical director - he is now Liberty adviser- and the team was accused several times of blatantly cheating.
There was the instance where the ride height plank was tempered with. Another time their software was found containing a banned launching programme. There were fuel irregularities, etc...

F1 always had its moment, like the Brabham fuel suspicion. The Honda extra tank. The Tyrrell lead balls, etc ...

 

The talk about Glock is stupid, that was racing, pure and simple, Glock was on dry tires in a wet race, hamilton no, it's as simple as that....as for the rest, i don't care if you found it or not, I remenber it well, it was Massa himself who said he was after Briatore imidiatly after the race...yes, it was Ferraris mistake (Massa had no fault, he received the order to go, and that's what he did) but it was trigered by Renault's cheating.

 

Yes, and the Mclaren ECU that put both Ferraris out of the race in australia, and you know why hamilton was penalized at spa..because he cheated, as he did again in japan...

 

Nonsense

McLaren asked race officials twice whether Lewis was cool and they confirmed only for FIA to change the results after the fact.

Japan had nothing to do with Hamilton but was about Massa exiting the pits and they made up a case of him being blocked which gave him a few more points

 

If that were the case McLaren ECU's would be banned

 

Regardless of what provoked the safety car, it Ferrari and Ferrari only that messed up Massa's pit stop, but you want to pass the buck. They released him prematurely.

 

I said that a long time ago: Why did Mercedes hire Hamilton once Michael left? Because they never thought of Nico leading the team as a No.1 driver, otherwise they could have hired a good No.2 once Michael was gone. But obviously nobody rated Nico as a WDC contender...
So just because he finally became one does not make Hamiltons effort beating him in 2 out of 3 champioships an heroic act like some here want to make us believe.
For four years we were told he is nothing compare to Lewis, but now all of the sudden once he won a WDC (Massa almost did as well, as did Irvine) the Hamiltons supporters tell us it is a complete different achievement beating him rather than dominating Barrichello, Massa and Irvine...
Same with Vettel: Webber could have become WDC as well and just because he did not he is rated as an average driver???

 

Well, we heard the same about Hamilton in 2007...just as Massa it was his own fault at the time but if you are a fan of either it is easier to have a conspiracy theory than admitting that they simply screwed up when they had the chance to win the WDC...

 

It's not unusual for Number 2 to come to the fore from time to time, qualify, race and win the odd GP in front the their Number One, or when their Number One falters, etc....
It happened many times; Patrese, Mansell, Coulthard, are examples that come to mind...

 

Yep.

In the case of Massa, he committed several mistakes in 2008, and was lucky to still be a contender at the last GP, IMO. To say, as some do, that the reason of his failure was solely a safety car incident mid-season is an exaggeration.

 

Correct....don't get me started again

 

Agreed, didn't he have an engine failure in Spain and was leading the race at the time?? Not having that engine failure and he is WDC.

 

Engine failure in Hungary and team failure in the pit stop in Singapore. Tough breaks overall. He is WDC easily with those 2 victories in hand. The rest is speculation. The gifted points so called were out of his hands and dictated by the FIA. I guess he should have refused those LOL

Massa did well and Kimi was absent from many of the races but setting fast laps later on. Without Massa Ferrari does not have a good year. He carried the flag well for Ferrari that year. Something was lost after the accident and that is not surprising. I would not want to endure that accident he had at all.

 

Oh...I thought the FIA is always right[emoji6]
Both when talking about the Vettel and the Schumacher incident we learnt that it is a proven fact because the FIA investigated and now you indecate they might be wrong some times [emoji3]

Gesendet von meinem SM-G800F mit Tapatalk