News

FORMULA 1 PIRELLI GRAND PRIX DU CANADA 2019: RACE ▄▀▄▀ SPOILERS ▀▄▀▄

Discussion in 'F1' started by SPEEDCORE, Jun 8, 2019.

  1. DF1

    DF1 F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Apr 10, 2007
    15,560
    BaWü
    https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/144018/bottas-affected-by-canada-temperature-issues

    Valtteri Bottas was left dissatisfied with his run to fourth place in the Canadian Grand Prix, in which he was hamstrung early on by rising engine and brake temperatures.

    Bottas finished off the podium for the first time in 2019 after qualifying sixth and fell behind the second Renault of Nico Hulkenberg on the first lap.

    He struggled to make progress in the first stint but worked his way through to fourth and picked up a bonus point for fastest lap after a second pitstop near the end of the race.

    Asked by Autosport how satisfied he was with his recovery having targeted damage limitation in the championship but fallen 29 points behind team-mate Lewis Hamilton, Bottas said: "I can't be very, very satisfied with P4.

    "Obviously I at least made up a couple of places and got the extra point for fastest lap so that is positive but otherwise...

    "The beginning of the race was tougher than I was hoping for. I lost one position being boxed in into Turn 2.

    "There was a bit of a train of cars with DRS in the beginning.
     
  2. william

    william F1 World Champ

    Jun 3, 2006
    12,837
    England
    Full Name:
    William Denoyelles

    But how can you prove you were out of control ? Soon, they will all claim that to gain advantage.
     
  3. TheMayor

    TheMayor Six Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Feb 11, 2008
    69,566
    Vegas baby
    I would contend that if you leave the track and go on grass, that is the very definition of "out of control"
     
  4. P.Singhof

    P.Singhof F1 Rookie

    Apr 19, 2006
    4,307
    Stuttgart, Germany
    Full Name:
    Peter Singhof
    Unless your name is Walter Roehrl...

    Gesendet von meinem SM-G930F mit Tapatalk
     
  5. william

    william F1 World Champ

    Jun 3, 2006
    12,837
    England
    Full Name:
    William Denoyelles

    Not necessarily.
     
  6. TheMayor

    TheMayor Six Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Feb 11, 2008
    69,566
    Vegas baby
    Try it at 150 MPH in a turn. :)
     
    fil, Nortonious and 375+ like this.
  7. william

    william F1 World Champ

    Jun 3, 2006
    12,837
    England
    Full Name:
    William Denoyelles

    I have seen it done plenty of times at the former Woodcote Chicane at Silverstone, not at that speed obviously.

    It's not uncommon at the chicane before the stands at Donington Park on the short circuit either.

    People just cut across, pretending to have missed their braking, to avoid contact, or if they are in a fight, etc ...
     
  8. daytona355

    daytona355 F1 World Champ

    Mar 25, 2009
    10,969
    London
    Full Name:
    Sid Korshak
    Good god, are we really now hearing that Sebastian intentionally went across the grass? FFS

    1). WTF for, he was under no pressure from Elton, keeping him between one and two seconds behind him, out of DRS, most of the race
    2). Any trip off the road onto grass is dangerous, even in a straight line things can go wrong
    3). Vettel is well aware of the penalties that can happen for straightening a corner intentionally, why would he risk it?
    4). The danger of punctures
    5). The danger of rejoining across the marbles/dirty track
    6). When it happened, it was clear the car was all over the place as he wrestled with it, that wasn’t the same a, for example, when Elton missed a corner in Mexico because he supposedly missed his braking point, in that case, he shot like an arrow directly across the corners and rejoined on the racing line barely moving the steering wheel, nor lifting off the throttle.

    Doesn’t make sense to be arguing that the mistake was really intentional in my opinion
     
  9. jgonzalesm6

    jgonzalesm6 F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    Oct 31, 2016
    8,757
    Corpus Christi, Tx.
    Full Name:
    Joe R Gonzales
    Clarification on Mercedes hydraulic system change and a pit radio call

    Clarified the "yellow" Mercedes in the verification stage

    At the end of the Canadian Grand Prix, the technical commissioners held back Lewis Hamilton's car for a long time. The Mercedes engineers gave explanations on a change to the hydraulic system of the transmission unit completed before the start.

    The Montreal post-race was animated as it was not seen for a long time, with pilots, ex-pilots, experts and enthusiasts who were divided in judging the 'nasty thing' of the Canadian Grand Prix between Sebastian Vettel and Lewis Hamilton.

    But while in the paddock, and not only, the decision taken by the College of Sports Commissioners operating in Montreal was discussed, in the closed park there was, during the technical checks, a long confrontation between the commissioners and the Mercedes engineers.

    When the technical commissioners checked the number 44 car as usual, they noticed that the hydraulic system of the transmission unit did not correspond perfectly to the one verified previously, and here the discussions started.

    A dialogue that ended when the Mercedes technicians demonstrated the identical functionality of the system on the car with the one verified previously.

    Article 34.2 of the sports regulation is very clear in this regard: "Any spare parts that a team wants to adapt must be similar in design, mass, inertia and have the same functionality as the original". As a result, the FIA report stated: "The hydraulic system was compliant with article 34.2 of the 2019 sports regulation".

    Another small mystery emerged regarding a radio team between Hamilton and his pit wall during the training lap before the start. Lewis informed his engineer that the anti-stall system had activated when he started the single-seater, and the team subsequently reassured him with a clear message: "no problem, Lewis".

    According to some interpretations the information could have been included among those prohibited by the regulation, but Mercedes has confirmed that it had previously asked the racing direction for permission to inform its pilot, and did so only after receiving the okay.

    https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/chiarito-il-giallo-mercedes-in-sede-di-verifica/4466492/&prev=search
     
    Nortonious likes this.
  10. MalcQV

    MalcQV F1 Rookie
    Silver Subscribed

    Oct 11, 2004
    2,876
    Manchester, UK
    Full Name:
    Malc Holden
    We have had so many Ferrari International Assistance jibes in the past. I saw this the other day and it did make me smile. Hopefully I did not post it earlier because I have left this on a few car forums recently so my apologies if I have.

    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
    sammysaber, crinoid, stavura and 2 others like this.
  11. TonyL

    TonyL Formula 3

    Sep 27, 2007
    2,184
    UK
    Full Name:
    Tony
    I think SV said lots of things in a vain attempt and knowledge that the stewards were listening, agree Hamilton was alongside but I have watched the video replay in car from LH and it appears to me the car was still on the track as defined by rule 2c which states "for the purpose of doubt" the white lines are the track. Just my POV
    Best
    Tony
     
  12. Ferrari 308 GTB

    Ferrari 308 GTB F1 Rookie

    Feb 21, 2015
    4,927
    Take a look at the overhead video ..he was briefly all 4 wheels over the white line.
     
  13. TonyL

    TonyL Formula 3

    Sep 27, 2007
    2,184
    UK
    Full Name:
    Tony
    yes agreed, he did have all 4 wheels over the white line. As you say it was for milliseconds.
     
  14. ingegnere

    ingegnere Formula 3
    Silver Subscribed

    Sep 12, 2004
    1,959
    Montreal
    You're just taking the pi-- now, as they say in your parts.
     
    fil, stavura, crinoid and 1 other person like this.
  15. TonyL

    TonyL Formula 3

    Sep 27, 2007
    2,184
    UK
    Full Name:
    Tony
    Out of control in my opinion means "the driver [in this instance]has no way of recovering the situation" ie he slammed into the Armco barrier .....he was out of control

    According to Collins Oxford dictionary the definition of "out of control" is -no one has any power over it. Clearly the car left the track but power over it was restored by driver input and he re-joined the track.

    that begs the question did he:-

    a. Do it safely - yes
    b. Was he in control when back on the track. Yes
    c. Leave enough room for Hamilton No
    d Did he change direction more than once to impede the other driver No

    Just my point of view

    Best

    Tony
     
  16. P.Singhof

    P.Singhof F1 Rookie

    Apr 19, 2006
    4,307
    Stuttgart, Germany
    Full Name:
    Peter Singhof
    Let me guess: the identical function of the old and the new hydraulic system was that they both used fluids and pressure
    Should be enough for the stewards
    If there was no reason and difference, why would Mercedes install a different part?

    Gesendet von meinem SM-G930F mit Tapatalk
     
    fil, daytona355 and MalcQV like this.
  17. jgonzalesm6

    jgonzalesm6 F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    Oct 31, 2016
    8,757
    Corpus Christi, Tx.
    Full Name:
    Joe R Gonzales
    This is just hypothetical Pete but it involved Stroll's engine failure due to the new Spec 2 engine introduced at this CanadianGP. Initial reports were Stroll's engine had a hydraulic leak not to mention the data gathered from Stroll's new engine. It is likely the Mercs went ahead and "modified" (call it what you want) said part so it would'nt happen to Hamilton. That would be my guess.

    I have'nt come across as to the reason for Stroll's new Spec 2 engine failure....yet.
     
  18. DF1

    DF1 F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Apr 10, 2007
    15,560
    BaWü
    Another dead conspiracy
     
  19. DF1

    DF1 F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Apr 10, 2007
    15,560
    BaWü
    Paddock word was cylinder failure. I have heard nothing else
     
    jgonzalesm6 likes this.
  20. DF1

    DF1 F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Apr 10, 2007
    15,560
    BaWü
    Bit late Valtteri as you will need LH to pull a Vettel for you to win. Would like to see that though :)

    https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/144024/bottas-canada-a-wakeup-call-in-title-fight

    Valtteri Bottas says he cannot afford weekends like the Canadian Grand Prix after getting "a bit of a wake-up call" in the Formula 1 title battle.

    Bottas has fallen to 29 points adrift of team-mate Lewis Hamilton, who took his fifth win from the first seven races of the season in controversial circumstances in Montreal.

    While Hamilton inherited victory thanks to a penalty for Sebastian Vettel, Bottas finished fourth after only qualifying sixth - the first time a Mercedes driver finished off the podium this season.

    While Bottas "didn't feel it was that difficult" performance-wise in Canada, he admitted he paid the price for making errors at key moments in qualifying, when he had a half-spin and then a scruffy lap.

    "I still felt really good in Q1 and Q2, in Q2 I had a clear idea of how to improve and where to improve, and I was really confident," said Bottas.

    "Then it really came down to a silly mistake that meant I lost quite a few points, which is obviously annoying.

    "I can't really afford many of these type of weekends if I want to fight for the title. I have to move on.​
     
  21. jgonzalesm6

    jgonzalesm6 F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    Oct 31, 2016
    8,757
    Corpus Christi, Tx.
    Full Name:
    Joe R Gonzales
    @dm_n_stuff


    [​IMG]


    Why Hamilton didn’t get a penalty in Monaco – but Vettel did in Canada

    The controversial incident which decided the Canadian Grand Prix has prompted many questions over whether the FIA stewards make consistent rulings.

    The stakes couldn’t have been much higher last weekend: The decision to hand Sebastian Vettel a five-second penalty for forcing Lewis Hamilton off the track when he rejoined the circuit ultimately cost the Ferrari driver a victory.

    Among the many points raised by RaceFans readers in response to the decision has been why a seemingly similar past incident did not receive the same penalty. In 2016 Hamilton appeared to mete out similar treatment to Daniel Ricciardo when the pair were fighting for the lead of the Monaco Grand Prix.

    The rulings handed down for those two incidents reveal why they were treated differently, and why a more recent incident provides the precedent for Vettel’s punishment.

    Canada 2019: Vettel blocks Hamilton

    [​IMG]

    On lap 48 at the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve last weekend Vettel left the track completely at turn three and rejoined at turn four. As he rejoined he crossed from the left-hand side of the track to the right-hand side, onto the racing line. The stewards ruled that by doing so he forced Hamilton to take evasive action, including driving off the track himself, to avoid a collision.

    “Car five [Vettel] left the track at turn three, rejoined the track at turn four in an unsafe manner and forced car 44 off track,” they noted. “Car 44 had to take evasive action to avoid a collision.”

    The focus of the stewards’ concern was the manner in which Vettel rejoined the track and the racing line.

    Monaco 2016: Hamilton blocks Ricciardo

    [​IMG]

    Three years earlier in Monaco, Hamilton went off at turn 10, the Nouvelle Chicane, while leading Ricciardo. He rejoined the racing line. As they accelerated through turn 11 Ricciardo moved right to try to overtake and Hamilton squeezed him towards the barrier, obliging Ricciardo to back off. The stewards officially investigated the incident but took no action.

    They noted Hamilton “appeared to not leave enough room whilst defending a position in turn 11” but ruled that he “left at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track.”

    There are two differences between the rulings, the first of which is more significant when comparing it to what happened last weekend. This is that Hamilton, unlike Vettel, had already rejoined the racing line before the alleged block took place. In other words, in the eyes of the stewards, Hamilton rejoining the track and Hamilton defending his position from Ricciardo were two separate incidents; Hamilton leaving the track at turn 10 isn’t even mentioned in their ruling.

    That first difference renders the second one moot as far as this comparison goes, but it’s worth noting the stewards also ruled Hamilton did leave a car’s width for Ricciardo. From looking at Ricciardo’s onboard it seems to be very little more than a car’s width at best. However as the image of the Canada incident above shows it was more room than Vettel left for Hamilton, as the Ferrari driver used the full width of the track at the exit, up to the white line.

    Japan 2018: Verstappen blocks Raikkonen

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    A clearer comparison between Vettel’s penalty last weekend and a more recent precedent can be found in last year’s Japanese Grand Prix. On that occasion Max Verstappen left the track fully in the chicane, and did not leave enough room for Kimi Raikkonen as he rejoined the racing line.

    “The stewards reviewed the video evidence, and determined that car 33 locked up his brakes and left the track at turn 16, cut the chicane and rejoined track on the racing line in turn 17 and in the process collided with car seven.”

    Here the only significant difference between the incidents is that Hamilton went off the track to avoid being hit by Vettel, whereas Raikkonen stayed on the track and was hit by Verstappen. The penalties were the same.

    Vettel, who was following Raikkonen at the time, had a clear view of the incident. And as he pointed out at the time, because Verstappen had gone off the track, it wasn’t Raikkonen who had to get out of the way.

    “He’s [Verstappen’s] off the track and he comes back and if Kimi just drives on they collide. But it’s not always right that the other guy has to move.”

    Unfortunately Vettel appeared to forget that point on Sunday.


    https://www.racefans.net/2019/06/12/why-hamilton-didnt-get-a-penalty-in-monaco-but-vettel-did-in-canada/
     
  22. jgonzalesm6

    jgonzalesm6 F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    Oct 31, 2016
    8,757
    Corpus Christi, Tx.
    Full Name:
    Joe R Gonzales
    [​IMG]


    Tear-off ruined Sainz’s Canadian GP as McLaren investigate Norris’ issue

    McLaren’s F1 Canadian GP ended up in no points after both Carlos Sainz and Lando Norris faced different issues which hampered their running.

    McLaren’s fate in the F1 Canadian GP at Circuit Gilles-Villeneuve was sealed very early after both drivers endured troubles with Norris retiring after his car’s right rear suspension melted due to fire in his brake ducts in a freak case.

    His teammate Sainz was forced to pit early after a tear-off got stuck in his brake duct and caused overheating. He switched on to the hard compound on Lap 3 itself and completed the race on the same set. He looked to be inside the Top 10 until the final lap.

    He was overtaken by both Racing Point’s Lance Stroll and Toro Rosso’s Daniil Kvyat to be demoted to 11th and out of points. Earlier in the season, Kimi Raikkonen faced a similar issue like Sainz as the team investigates the cause for Norris’ fire.

    “Disappointing end to the weekend,” said Sainz. “I was forced to pit very early on lap three because of a tear-off stuck in a brake duct. We had to pit immediately to remove it, since it caused excessive overheating, and to go onto the hard tyres.

    “We had good pace at times but 67 laps were just too many for the tyres, and not even the extra tyre management was enough to maintain the fight for points. We weren’t able to show our true pace, which I think was a solid points finish.”

    Norris, on the other hand, has no clue of the issue as he said he did not hit any walls. “I had a problem with overheating at the back of the car which led to my retirement – I have no clue what happened. I didn’t hit a wall or anything so I’ve no idea.

    “It’s annoying because until then it had been a fun race, battling with Max in the opening laps. There was good potential to maybe get some points today so it’s especially frustrating. But these things happen.”

    The team is certainly looking into Norris’ freak issue. “After having some good Sundays at recent races, there were several incidents which meant we weren’t able to score the points we hoped would be on the table with the pace we had in our cars,” said Andreas Seidl.

    “Unfortunately we lost Lando’s car quite early in the race due to an mechanical issue at the rear of the car, which we still need to investigate in full once the car is back in the garage. For Carlos, we had to pit on lap three as one brake corner was overheating.

    “Frustratingly, we found some parts of a tear-off visor inside one of the brake ducts, which we tried to remove as best we could. At the same time we had to put him on the hard tyres, and try to manage the pace over the remaining distance of the race.

    “Carlos did a great job managing the tyres for 67 laps but unfortunately ran out of tyres in the last five laps and there was no way for him to hold the two cars behind.” Fortunately, the team did not lose its fifth place but Renault closed in to just two points now.

    https://formularapida.net/tear-off-ruined-sainzs-canadian-gp-as-mclaren-investigate-norris-issue/
     
    DF1 and 375+ like this.
  23. 375+

    375+ F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    Dec 28, 2005
    5,688
    +1
     
  24. DF1

    DF1 F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Apr 10, 2007
    15,560
    BaWü
    Wow a tear off!!
     
  25. jgonzalesm6

    jgonzalesm6 F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    Oct 31, 2016
    8,757
    Corpus Christi, Tx.
    Full Name:
    Joe R Gonzales

    debunked theory


    Mercedes reveals cause of Hamilton's hydraulics scare

    [​IMG]


    The Mercedes Formula 1 team has revealed that Lewis Hamilton's hydraulic leak in the Canadian GP was related to the throttle actuator.

    The leak was discovered after qualifying, however, the car then went into parc ferme and the crew left the circuit on Saturday evening not knowing the source of the leak, or how serious it was.

    "We had some issues with Lewis's car before the race and this actually became apparent after qualifying," said trackside engineering director Andrew Shovlin in a Mercedes video.

    "We dropped the floor, we noticed there was some oil on the floor, so somewhere there was a leak. We could also see on the data we were losing some hydraulic pressure.


    "The issue is that the cars are then in parc ferme overnight, we are not allowed to touch them or to investigate it further.

    "So, that investigation moved to Sunday morning, when we are allowed to access the cars again, the mechanics can work on them."

    It was then that the team confirmed that it faced a serious task, one that involved removing the power unit to replace part of the hydraulic system.

    Fortunately, that diagnosis was made early enough to give the team confidence that it could fix it in time, although there was no margin for error.

    "We had to take the power unit out. We traced the leak to the throttle actuator, and then we made a request to the FIA to change the throttle actuator and some of the associated hydraulics.


    "So, that work was quite a big job though, there's a lot to do within that. And it was pretty tight to get Lewis's car back together for the start of the race.

    "Now, we are fairly happy we can do the work in that time. The issue when you have an unknown fault or a leak is you don't know how long it is going to take you to find it, to identify it. We were able to get the car back together.

    "Where we were at risk was if we then fired up and we found another problem, if the engine had to come out again, that's when we would've got short on time and perhaps not even been able to start the race.

    "But, it was a great job by all the mechanics involved and quite happily the car was back together in time and finished the race successfully."

    After the race, the FIA checked that the replacement parts satisfied the rule which says they must be "similar in design, mass, inertia and function to the original" when making changes under parc ferme conditions and deemed it was in compliance with the regulations.

    https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mercedes-reveals-cause-hamilton-hydraulic-leak-/4470936/
     

Share This Page