Japanese Grand Prix 2019: Grand Prix Weekend Thread - Round 17 of 21

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

No, just looking for conspiracy in Mercedes tactics.

Why?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Why?

Because the Mercedes' strategy during the race was illogical, and benefitted one driver over the other to a point where the team's result was compromised, they should have had a 1-2.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist

No, just looking for conspiracy in Mercedes tactics. When Mercedes have used Bottas to help Hamilton it has been quite open. Done the other way (if that's what it was in Japan), it seems to have been more covert. Perhaps because Hamilton wouldn't have complied if they had done it more openly? Location doesn't check out.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/50031830 - echolocation stuck
'They left Hamilton out and told him he was going for one stop on lap 21 for medium tyres.

But the high tyre degradation on a 'green' track washed clean on Saturday by Typhoon Hagibis forced them to change their minds and he ran a divergent two-stop, stopping 11 laps after Vettel and hoping to chase him down on fresh tyres in the closing laps.'

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by wnut

Because the Mercedes' strategy during the race was illogical, and benefitted one driver over the other to a point where the team's result was compromised, they should have had a 1-2.

Or the strategy was just poor. The most likely reason is they got it wrong. If they had got it right they could have got a 1-2.

Most conspiracy theories just serve the purpose to make people who have a little intellect feel like they have a lot.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Or the strategy was just poor. The most likely reason is they got it wrong. If they had got it right they could have got a 1-2.

Most conspiracy theories just serve the purpose to make people who have a little intellect feel like they have a lot.

Sure - every official line is legitimate, "plausible deniability is a myth."

Let's just look at the finishing order and not comment any further Adam.

Not only was the original strategy poor, they also just neglected the obvious effects of it and let the race position deteriorate without taking steps to correct the issue. Problem?

[S griffin]

Unfortunately that's the way it goes, teams tend to stick to their original plan now. Just wish pitstops weren't so influential on the race

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Unfortunately that's the way it goes, teams tend to stick to their original plan now. Just wish pitstops weren't so influential on the race

in fairness i would say that without the pit stops the running order would be much more predicable no?

the last few races have been interesting because of undercuts (or lack of the them), pitting during V/SC periods, and teams changing their running order via pit stop order (basically all the fun Ferrari have been having).



this may not be the thread for this question, but in all fairness i have never understood the anti pit stop philosophy.

personally i like tire changes, adding fuel, and the fortuitous nature of a well timed pit stop. one of my all time favorite races was Schumi back in 04(?) at the french GP where on the fly Ferrari decided to switch to a 4 stop strategy and Micheal used track position and low fuel runs to absolutely nail every in and out lap. magic!

anyways, the problem, imo, is not pitstops (or lack of them), its that no one on the pitwall seems to have the ability to look up from their monitors and use a stop watch. they are slaves to a simulation and blind to what their own eyes show them (it is no conspiracy why Merc make such a mess of their strategies right). they are unwilling to trust that their driver can do something that a computer cannot predict.

anyways its friday and im just looking for something to wax philosophical about!

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by S griffin

It would be nice if drivers had a bit more freedom with regards to what strategy to use. Seems it’s a bit too easy to predict at the moment

It would be nice to think that strategy decisions were just between the driver and his race engineer. With the team just ensuring they don't trip each other up.

[greentrumpet]

Can't see it having much effect on the wdc unless LH gets all sulky, goes vegan and Formula E.
Can't see why he wants to waste all that electrical energy on "music" tho.

[steve nielsen]

Renault now officialy disqualified from the Japanese GP

https://www.fia.com/news/decisions-p...ese-grand-prix

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by steve nielsen

Renault now officialy disqualified from the Japanese GP

https://www.fia.com/news/decisions-p...ese-grand-prix

I scanned through the document and read a summary elsewhere. Basically a key argument is that this automated system is a driver's aid because it didn't require the driver to make manual adjustments to enact the brake balance changes. And that the ruling also notes that this is not a driver aid that operates in some type of feedback loop (I assume traction control would be good example in that traction is measured and then power is reduced when traction is lost).

I am currently of the opinion that this is argument is a bit of a stretch. There are probably a number of things already in the car that make adjustments without the driver's input. The first one that jumped into my mind is spark advance. I know early cars used to include a manual spark advance. Now for many decades this has been automated. Why is brake balance any different?

My thought is that they didn't want teams to go down this road. That however they had implemented it wasn't directly illegal, but that the "driver's aid" rule is a general "catch all" rule that is broadly written so that it can be applied as needed. That gave them an easy way to rule the system illegal. Non-movable aero devices is another one of those that gets used in this way. I think brake duct stuff was hit by that recently.

With all of that being said. I am not sure what I think of the actual concept of automated brake bias. I am of two minds. First... it's F1. Why shouldn't a "high tech" car be able to handle this. Second... it's a slippery slope toward more and more automation.

Richard

[wnut]

Originally Posted by steve nielsen

Renault now officialy disqualified from the Japanese GP

https://www.fia.com/news/decisions-p...ese-grand-prix

Points 5 and 6 appear to conform to usual stewarding practice.

5. States in effectnot actual words) The system is legal in terms of the F1 technical regulations, but we deem that it is a driver aid.

6. We admit that the penalty is more severe than recent penalties handed out, but hey ho this is what you're getting.

Nice work gentlemen!

[chillibowl]

isn't DRS also an automated drivers aid?

[Adam43]

5 is that it was legal with the specific reg about brakes, but not with the overall driver aid rule. The driver aid rule is designed to be used exactly like this. Otherwise you have to write even more specific rules and think of all the “loop holes” beforehand. Which is, of course, impossible.

For 6 they compared to previous breaches of the driver aid rule. What are the differences and benefits of these?

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

isn't DRS also an automated drivers aid?

It is opened by the driver and closed by the driver. Albeit one way is with the application of the brake.

Besides it would be silly to ban this as it was introduced by the governing body. There is no benefit to F1 or indeed discussion to explore this.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Adam43

It is opened by the driver and closed by the driver. Albeit one way is with the application of the brake.

Besides it would be silly to ban this as it was introduced by the governing body. There is no benefit to F1 or indeed discussion to explore this.

You have just provided the lie to this ruling Adam.
The system has a driver feedback loop through the application of the brake pedal as above. ????

[Adam43]

I was pointing out that it wasn't as simple as only one on off DRS switch, hence the use of the word albeit. However it’s not what they are getting at with feedback loop. Think TC for that. This is more that there is also a switch on the brake pedal.

Whatever this was said right before I pointed out that it was a fatuous point. To have a problem with that “contradiction” is a waste of time and irrelevant.

[chillibowl]

You know I always thought the drs flap open and closed automatically.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

You know I always thought the drs flap open and closed automatically.

I believe that there is still a driver aid we can worry about though. Isn’t there a beep in the driver’s ear when they can activate it?

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Adam43

For 6 they compared to previous breaches of the driver aid rule. What are the differences and benefits of these?

Does anyone know what the previous examples were?

[Adam43]

This hints that a previous example is the Alfa starts a few races ago. https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14...gal-driver-aid

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

isn't DRS also an automated drivers aid?

Already good comments above, but DRS is a system called out as being OK. Its clearly a movable aero system which would be otherwise illegal, but is called out as a permissible solution with specific constraints. Also makes it a legal drivers aid as well I guess.

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Does anyone know what the previous examples were?

The now illegal clutch bite point solutions from a few years ago maybe?

Richard

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

The now illegal clutch bite point solutions from a few years ago maybe?

Richard

Alfa were penalized in Germany for softening the clutches for the wet start.

10 second penalty for each of them.

[bjohnsonsmith]

The FIA is in contradiction with itself over this. The system was entirely legal under the FIA technical regulations, though it was judged by the stewards to be in breach of the FIA sporting regulations, regarding driver aids. In which case Renault's DSQ should be lifted, with the FIA stepping in and giving clarify to the situation.