Formula 1 2019 - General Discussion Thread

El_Duderino 09

vectra wrote: »

Hamilton was approaching the chicane when Vettel went off so had had plenty of time to react.

Vettel - Hamilton Canada 2019

How does it differ to this??

Hamilton - Ricardo Monaco 2016

If it is a different scenario then I am either confused/blind or am on another planet

If he's committed to the corner to take a wide exit, he can't just take a different line out of it. Can't easily just brake again in the middle of the corner and take a shallow exit.

I don't see much difference between the incidents. What's the point about them?

pjohnson

BikeRacer wrote: »

If Lewis, or indeed Seb, had that mentality of not going for a gap they'd have exactly 0 world championships between them. What you're describing is less motorsport and more 'Driving Miss Daisy'.

This whole idea of "having to go for a gap" is stupid. If theres a 1% chance of succeeding and a 99% chance of crashing only a moron would think to take that chance. Or do you think Leclerc race ending attempt in Monaco was peak motorsport as he limped around destroying his car? Or even Giovinazzi who spun Kubica with his woeful attempt? Ide and Maldonado went for gaps but generally they didn't reap rewards. Lewis could have tried the cutback if he broke let Seb skitter across and then put the power down while Seb was still correcting. Again plenty of drivers have pointed this out that it was unavoidable Seb was gunna be swiping across the track on his return its all he could do with his cars angle. Lewis didnt need to put himself in the path of the Ferrari.

tigerboon

pjohnson wrote: »

This whole idea of "having to go for a gap" is stupid. If theres a 1% chance of succeeding and a 99% chance of crashing only a moron would think to take that chance. Or do you think Leclerc race ending attempt in Monaco was peak motorsport as he limped around destroying his car? Or even Giovinazzi who spun Kubica with his woeful attempt? Ide and Maldonado went for gaps but generally they didn't reap rewards. Lewis could have tried the cutback if he broke let Seb skitter across and then put the power down while Seb was still correcting. Again plenty of drivers have pointed this out that it was unavoidable Seb was gunna be swiping across the track on his return its all he could do with his cars angle. Lewis didnt need to put himself in the path of the Ferrari.

And Hamilton's not stupid. He stuck the nose into the gap enough that he could shout about a dangerous re-entry as he had to brake. He played for the penalty. A little unsporting but nothing wrong as such.

Joeface

https://twitter.com/tgruener/status/1138341923394113537


Interesting Topic

El_Duderino 09

tigerboon wrote: »

And Hamilton's not stupid. He stuck the nose into the gap enough that he could shout about a dangerous re-entry as he had to brake. He played for the penalty. A little unsporting but nothing wrong as such.

If he could have overtaken he would have. He went for the gap on the outside but Vettel slid Into it.

To be fair, Vettel did great to get the car back on track and lifting as little as possible. He used all the width of the track and kept it lit. Full credit to him but he cut Hamilton off and held his position while not really in control of the car.

I think it's hard to complain about the penalty.

patmahe

I was watching a video autosport made about this controversy and how best to stop the situation we had on Sunday where all Hamilton had to do was stay within 5 seconds of Vettel because there were no more pitstops so the time penalty could only be applied post race.

What they proposed was a penalty corner, so for example at the hairpin in Canada there would be a lane around the outside of the corner that the penalized driver would need to take within a certain number of laps. That way the penalty is done and dusted during the race and if the penalized driver loses the place then its just hard luck and he has to get on with it and overtake. It saves us the spectacle of the driver who finishes second on the road being the winner of the race. It sounds reasonable and would have been an interesting one for Sunday's issue.

meeeeh

What about just being consistent and not penalise every little thing. Hamilton was not penalized for Monaco and Vettel shouldn't be in Canada. A bit of hard racing is a lot more fun than 16 different penalties every time the driver behind needs to press the brakes a bit harder.

tigerboon

patmahe wrote: »

I was watching a video autosport made about this controversy and how best to stop the situation we had on Sunday where all Hamilton had to do was stay within 5 seconds of Vettel because there were no more pitstops so the time penalty could only be applied post race.

What they proposed was a penalty corner, so for example at the hairpin in Canada there would be a lane around the outside of the corner that the penalized driver would need to take within a certain number of laps. That way the penalty is done and dusted during the race and if the penalized driver loses the place then its just hard luck and he has to get on with it and overtake. It saves us the spectacle of the driver who finishes second on the road being the winner of the race. It sounds reasonable and would have been an interesting one for Sunday's issue.

They have it in moto gp but at least in moto gp if you have to take the penalty loop you probably deserved it....

El_Duderino 09

patmahe wrote: »

I was watching a video autosport made about this controversy and how best to stop the situation we had on Sunday where all Hamilton had to do was stay within 5 seconds of Vettel because there were no more pitstops so the time penalty could only be applied post race.

What they proposed was a penalty corner, so for example at the hairpin in Canada there would be a lane around the outside of the corner that the penalized driver would need to take within a certain number of laps. That way the penalty is done and dusted during the race and if the penalized driver loses the place then its just hard luck and he has to get on with it and overtake. It saves us the spectacle of the driver who finishes second on the road being the winner of the race. It sounds reasonable and would have been an interesting one for Sunday's issue.

Oh come on. Between this and the punishment engine mode. I can only imagine the complaints about artificially interfering with the race if they actually did either of those things.

I'm fine with the 5s penalty. They could have told Vettel to give the place to Hamilton. But I'm fine with a small penalty like 5s.

d8491prj5boyvg

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh come on. Between this and the punishment engine mode. I can only imagine the complaints about artificially interfering with the race if they actually did either of those things.

I'm fine with the 5s penalty. They could have told Vettel to give the place to Hamilton. But I'm fine with a small penalty like 5s.

I think it all boils down to the fact that F1 is so uncompetitive. A penalty is not a roll of the die in favour of the opposition like it is in other sports, it is deciding the place because the person getting penalised can't fight back. If you get a free kick against you, you can defend. The equivalent small penalty in F1 is a 5 second penalty which can decide the race. It's like a penalty kick in soccer which is for much bigger offences. So the solution is either find a smaller penalty, the granting of which doesn't automatically determine the outcome, or let these things slide. Having seen the Lewis at Monaco defence, I'd let stuff like that and Vettel's mistake slide.

But a day will come when a small penalty is deserved and the outcome of the race will be made in the steward's room if its a 5 second penalty. A penalty lap around a wide loop has the same effect IMO. Slow engine mode means the guy behind has to pass so the outcome is still decided on the track. It could be tailored to suit the track too depending on how easy it is to pass.

d8491prj5boyvg

Payton Low Corkscrew wrote: »

I think it all boils down to the fact that F1 is so uncompetitive. A penalty is not a roll of the die in favour of the opposition like it is in other sports, it is deciding the place because the person getting penalised can't fight back. If you get a free kick against you, you can defend. The equivalent small penalty in F1 is a 5 second penalty which can decide the race. It's like a penalty kick in soccer which is for much bigger offences. So the solution is either find a smaller penalty, the granting of which doesn't automatically determine the outcome, or let these things slide. Having seen the Lewis at Monaco defence, I'd let stuff like that and Vettel's mistake slide.

But a day will come when a small penalty is deserved and the outcome of the race will be made in the steward's room if its a 5 second penalty. A penalty lap around a wide loop has the same effect IMO. Slow engine mode means the guy behind has to pass so the outcome is still decided on the track. It could be tailored to suit the track too depending on how easy it is to pass.

It also gets over the crude design of the current regulations. It could be coded so that there is an x% of a successful overtake. With all the modern simulations they can figure this out. That would give the stewards the discretion to pick a punishment that suited the context of the day. The 5 seconds gave Hamilton a 90% chance of winning yesterday. Maybe a 40% chance of winning would have been fairer. Still up to Hamilton to make the pass, Vettel has been slapped on the wrist, and we get to see some racing.

Harika

Wanna see a real car crash, just watch rich energy at twitter
https://mobile.twitter.com/rich_energy/status/1138109173722484736
And
https://mobile.twitter.com/rich_energy/status/1138211817916981248

Frank Bullitt

Harika wrote: »

Wanna see a real car crash, just watch rich energy at twitter
https://mobile.twitter.com/rich_energy/status/1138109173722484736
And
https://mobile.twitter.com/rich_energy/status/1138211817916981248

I am waiting for Whyte bikes to sponsor a team and to throw their logo on another car.

Honestly though, this is an absolute war crime in PR.

El_Duderino 09

Payton Low Corkscrew wrote: »

I think it all boils down to the fact that F1 is so uncompetitive. A penalty is not a roll of the die in favour of the opposition like it is in other sports, it is deciding the place because the person getting penalised can't fight back. If you get a free kick against you, you can defend. The equivalent small penalty in F1 is a 5 second penalty which can decide the race. It's like a penalty kick in soccer which is for much bigger offences. So the solution is either find a smaller penalty, the granting of which doesn't automatically determine the outcome, or let these things slide. Having seen the Lewis at Monaco defence, I'd let stuff like that and Vettel's mistake slide.

But a day will come when a small penalty is deserved and the outcome of the race will be made in the steward's room if its a 5 second penalty. A penalty lap around a wide loop has the same effect IMO. Slow engine mode means the guy behind has to pass so the outcome is still decided on the track. It could be tailored to suit the track too depending on how easy it is to pass.

A 5second penalty doesn't necessarily decide the outcome. There are lots of instances where a car finishes 5s or more ahead of the car behind, that applies up and down the grid. If Vettel could pull out 5seconds on Hamilton then it would have been irrelevant.

And a penalty kick at goal in rugby, for example, can't be defended. It's a free shot. But I don't think you can really compare penalties across field and motor sports

d8491prj5boyvg

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

A 5second penalty doesn't necessarily decide the outcome. There are lots of instances where a car finishes 5s or more ahead of the car behind, that applies up and down the grid. If Vettel could pull out 5seconds on Hamilton then it would have been irrelevant.

And a penalty kick at goal in rugby, for example, can't be defended. It's a free shot. But I don't think you can really compare penalties across field and motor sports

Of course not always. It did however decide the outcome on Sunday. Its never certain but was highly highly likely as soon as they pulled tge trigger that Hamilton was gonna win. A fairer outcome would have been a penalty that shifted the balance closer in Hamilton's favour, not completely.

The analogy is in relation to soccer. Hamilton was given a penalty spot kick when he should have been given a free kick from outside the box.

El_Duderino 09

Payton Low Corkscrew wrote: »

Of course not always. It did however decide the outcome on Sunday. Its never certain but was highly highly likely as soon as they pulled tge trigger that Hamilton was gonna win. A fairer outcome would have been a penalty that shifted the balance closer in Hamilton's favour, not completely.

The analogy is in relation to soccer. Hamilton was given a penalty spot kick when he should have been given a free kick from outside the box.

Should the penalty be adjusted so it doesn't give too much advantage circumstance by circumstance?

If they have Hamilton any advantage he would have passes Vettel and disappeared up the road. He was clearly faster than Vettel and was getting to within 0.4s on the straights with DRS. He would have won if Vettel got any kind of penalty.

patmahe

meeeeh wrote: »

What about just being consistent and not penalise every little thing. Hamilton was not penalized for Monaco and Vettel shouldn't be in Canada. A bit of hard racing is a lot more fun than 16 different penalties every time the driver behind needs to press the brakes a bit harder.

For what it's worth I agree with you, I wouldn't have penalised Vettel for what he did on Sunday, I'm just pointing out there are alternatives to simple time penalties in a case where a punishment is merited, ones that don't necessarily ruin the racing as much.

But yes I'd rather see some proper wheel banging racing and drivers being told 'tough he got past, pass him back if you don't like it' when they come on the radio whining.

vectra

BikeRacer wrote: »

If Lewis, or indeed Seb, had that mentality of not going for a gap they'd have exactly 0 world championships between them. What you're describing is less motorsport and more 'Driving Miss Daisy'.

Lewis went for a gap he knew was not going to be there.
He played the game because he knew Vettel had him beat.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If he's committed to the corner to take a wide exit, he can't just take a different line out of it. Can't easily just brake again in the middle of the corner and take a shallow exit.

I don't see much difference between the incidents. What's the point about them?

Vettel slid before Hamilton got to corner one, He had plenty of time to react.
After all, he was well able to slow milliseconds before he moaned about the unsafe track re entry.

As for what the difference between both video clips?
Are you being serious?
literally identical incidents.
Vettel gets punished
Hamilton did not and was allowed to go on and win the race.

Frank Bullitt

https://twitter.com/harrismonkey/status/1138540745168752640

It's only getting better and better (or worse, depends on your view point).

pjohnson

Would love to hear Steiners take or get Gene Haas to comment aswell.

Infoanon

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/harrismonkey/status/1138540745168752640

It's only getting better and better (or worse, depends on your view point).

It must be a fake account? ???

El_Duderino 09

vectra wrote: »

Lewis went for a gap he knew was not going to be there.
He played the game because he knew Vettel had him beat.



Vettel slid before Hamilton got to corner one, He had plenty of time to react.
After all, he was well able to slow milliseconds before he moaned about the unsafe track re entry.

As for what the difference between both video clips?
Are you being serious?
literally identical incidents.
Vettel gets punished
Hamilton did not and was allowed to go on and win the race.

Ah, we're Back to mind reading again. Even if Vettel slid before Hamilton braked, how was Hamilton supposed to know whether Vettel would rejoin the track and stay left or slid right across the track?

He went for the gap on the outside and Vettel was unable to regain control of the car and slid into the gap.

If he could have simply overtaken Vettel when he went off track, he Would have done it.

d8491prj5boyvg

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Should the penalty be adjusted so it doesn't give too much advantage circumstance by circumstance?

If they have Hamilton any advantage he would have passes Vettel and disappeared up the road. He was clearly faster than Vettel and was getting to within 0.4s on the straights with DRS. He would have won if Vettel got any kind of penalty.

If he was clearly faster then it was likely he was gonna pass anyway.

El_Duderino 09

Payton Low Corkscrew wrote: »

If he was clearly faster then it was likely he was gonna pass anyway.

Ha. Cos that's the way F1 works. You know simply being faster doesn't mean you can overtake with the aerodynamic challenges. What's the differential needed to overcome the reduced downforce these days? He was well able to keep within the 1s for DRS activation, but he failed to actually overtake.

vectra

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah, we're Back to mind reading again. Even if Vettel slid before Hamilton braked, how was Hamilton supposed to know whether Vettel would rejoin the track and stay left or slid right across the track?

He went for the gap on the outside and Vettel was unable to regain control of the car and slid into the gap.

If he could have simply overtaken Vettel when he went off track, he Would have done it.

Not mind reading, no.

Put it in simpler terms.
Those guys are being paid multiple of millions every year because they are the best of the best, and as such they have a vision you or I could only imagine.
They are so long at this game they are not stupid.
Did you not see Hamiltons all 4 wheels off the track when he was went to pass Vettel?
Sure isn't that a rule break as well.
Anyway,
You are entitles to your opinion as I am entitles to mine.

I guess all of these professional drivers opinions are wrong as well.

A recap of what drivers/ex drivers have said on the Vettel/Hamilton incident.

Brundle - “may as well pack and go home”
Andretti - “not acceptable”
Herbert - “wrong, wrong, wrong”
McNish - “tough decision for VET”
Wurz - “a penalty? Not in my view”
Hill - “There was enough doubt to let them carry on.”
Mansell - “Very, very embarrassing”
Coulthard - “Whatever happened to racing?”
Chandhok - “Its just racing”
Button - “It doesn’t deserve a penalty”
Van der Garde - “Wouldn’t go to the podium if I was Vettel. Honestly.”
Webber - “Mental penalty”
Di Grassi - “MAKE RACING GREAT AGAIN!”
Chilton - “All drivers know Vettel could have not gone back to power and joined safely on the inside.”
Casey Stoner - “F1 that is the worst decision you have ever made”
Jason Plato - “Terrible decision”
Hamilton - “I’d have done the same as Vettel”

d8491prj5boyvg

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ha. Cos that's the way F1 works. You know simply being faster doesn't mean you can overtake with the aerodynamic challenges. What's the differential needed to overcome the reduced downforce these days? He was well able to keep within the 1s for DRS activation, but he failed to actually overtake.

Well then it sounds like the penalty mode would be an excellent solution.

El_Duderino 09

vectra wrote: »

Not mind reading, no.

Put it in simpler terms.
Those guys are being paid multiple of millions every year because they are the best of the best, and as such they have a vision you or I could only imagine.
They are so long at this game they are not stupid.
Did you not see Hamiltons all 4 wheels off the track when he was went to pass Vettel?
Sure isn't that a rule break as well.
Anyway,
You are entitles to your opinion as I am entitles to mine.

I guess all of these professional drivers opinions are wrong as well.

It is mind reading though. It's assuming you know his motivation. It's assuming he chose to "play for the penalty" as one poster put it, instead of simply trying to overtake Vettel. Madness.

If the guy's are the best in the world then who are we to seriously presume we know better?

El_Duderino 09

Payton Low Corkscrew wrote: »

Well then it sounds like the penalty mode would be an excellent solution.

Argue for a penalty mode if you want. I don't have a strong opinion either way. But just wait for wave after wave of whinging from f1 fans if it actually happened.

F1 fans are never happy when they are ignored, but their never less happy than when they get their way.

eviltimeban

There's enough negativity about this that I reckon the FIA will do something about it. Not the result directly, but the penalty system as it stands.

I wonder what Bernie would've said about it?

Joeface

eviltimeban wrote:

I wonder what Bernie would've said about it?

"Where's my money? "

El_Duderino 09

eviltimeban wrote: »

I wonder what Bernie would've said about it?

Whatever suits Bernie at the time. Now that he's not involved and it's unpopular he would probably "it wouldn't have happened when I was In charge".

I don't believe anything Bernie says just because he saidit.

Frank Bullitt

Infoanon wrote: »

It must be a fake account? ???

I thought it was a parody, it is not.

chicorytip

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

If the guy's are the best in the world then who are we to seriously presume we know better?

What do we do - throw away the rulebook? It was a blatant infringement and the correct penalty was applied. There is no ambiguity with the regulation that governs these type of incidents, as Nico Rosberg succinctly put it. Vettel knows this full well. His post-race histrionics were a little bit childish to say the least.

vectra

chicorytip wrote: »

What do we do - throw away the rulebook? It was a blatant infringement and the correct penalty was applied. There is no ambiguity with the regulation that governs these type of incidents, as Nico Rosberg succinctly put it. Vettel knows this full well. His post-race histrionics were a little bit childish to say the least.

If that is the case, then I will ask again.
Why did Hamilton not get a penalty in Monaco 2016?

El_Duderino 09

vectra wrote: »

If that is the case, then I will ask again.
Why did Hamilton not get a penalty in Monaco 2016?

I don't think anyone here is responsible for handing out penalties in either Monaco 16 or Canada 19.

What makes Monaco 16 the gold standard anyway?

meeeeh

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't think anyone here is responsible for handing out penalties in either Monaco 16 or Canada 19.

What makes Monaco 16 the gold standard anyway?

I think some sort of consistency in how penalties are applied shouldn't be too much to expect. You make something a penalty just because of driver's surname.

Joeface

Its not that its the gold standard , its incidents are very similar . Yet one is given a five second penalty the other is not .

The problem isn't with the drivers in both cases its with the stewards . They never repsond in a consistant fashion.

From Canada , Perez went for the overtake on Grosjean they bumped tires . Grosjean complained . nothing happened . Racing incident < Totally agree ) but last year Gasly got the over take on Perez in a very similar move Perez complained . 5Sec penalty for Gasly causing a collision . There are loads examples across every season . Where the rules bend one way and then not the other.

This year Sainz got a penatly for blocking Albon . Hamilton had 2 in a row blocking in Qual against KMag and Erricson I think in Monaco . No Penatly ( This is not against Hamilton by the way ) . Inconsistant stewards . They really need to sort this out . In the end F1 is either about Racing or Rules . At the moment it is certainly not about Racing.


It has become a bit of a joke in the sport . Not sure how the fix it .

El_Duderino 09

meeeeh wrote: »

I think some sort of consistency in how penalties are applied shouldn't be too much to expect. You make something a penalty just because of driver's surname.

Who makes something a penalty because of the driver's surname?

Consistency is great. But we have 2 very similar instances with different outcomes. So what makes the Monaco outcome correct and Canada incorrect?

d8491prj5boyvg

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't think anyone here is responsible for handing out penalties in either Monaco 16 or Canada 19.

What makes Monaco 16 the gold standard anyway?

This video makes a good argument for differentiating between Vettel in Canada and Hamilton in Monaco. Not sure I agree 100% (my view is both such incidents should be allowed), but it does identify some different factors particular to each decision.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvBKv5jPvrk

meeeeh

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Who makes something a penalty because of the driver's surname?

Consistency is great. But we have 2 very similar instances with different outcomes. So what makes the Monaco outcome correct and Canada incorrect?

I don't remember anyone overly complaining that Hamilton should get the penalty. So it's seems the same action was not overly contentious then. So either people calling for a penalty suddenly changed their opinion of the rules or it's the surname of tge driver that changed.

Btw I also think Max was at one stage treated a bit harsher by stewards than for example Bottas.

d8491prj5boyvg

Joeface wrote: »

Its not that its the gold standard , its incidents are very similar . Yet one is given a five second penalty the other is not .

The problem isn't with the drivers in both cases its with the stewards . They never repsond in a consistant fashion.

From Canada , Perez went for the overtake on Grosjean they bumped tires . Grosjean complained . nothing happened . Racing incident < Totally agree ) but last year Gasly got the over take on Perez in a very similar move Perez complained . 5Sec penalty for Gasly causing a collision . There are loads examples across every season . Where the rules bend one way and then not the other.

This year Sainz got a penatly for blocking Albon . Hamilton had 2 in a row blocking in Qual against KMag and Erricson I think in Monaco . No Penatly ( This is not against Hamilton by the way ) . Inconsistant stewards . They really need to sort this out . In the end F1 is either about Racing or Rules . At the moment it is certainly not about Racing.


It has become a bit of a joke in the sport . Not sure how the fix it .

One elegant solution would be to make the rules simpler, let the minor blocking slide, but throw the book at anything that could have caused a considerable risk. If Canada 2019 or Hamilton at Monaco 2016 ended in tears, it would have just resulted in two guys out of the race. Let them at it I say. Monaco 2019 where Verstappen nearly caused a crash in the pits, was very much deserving of a 5 second penalty - consequences could have been much worse.

El_Duderino 09

meeeeh wrote: »

I don't remember anyone overly complaining that Hamilton should get the penalty. So it's seems the same action was not overly contentious then. So either people calling for a penalty suddenly changed their opinion of the rules or it's the surname of tge driver that changed.

Btw I also think Max was at one stage treated a bit harsher by stewards than for example Bottas.

I can't claim to remember how much discussion there was about a particular incident which wasn't penalised 3 years ago. If you can claim to remember it, then fair play to you.

This is particularly contentious because of the impact on the championship. Hamilton is already streaking away with the championship.

meeeeh

Actually this decision will have very little impact on the championship. It might be one of few chances for Ferrari to win a race but considering Ferarri already admitted they messed up this year's concept they won't be fighting for the title. Unless people think those points will be relevant between Bottas and Hamilton.

Adamocovic

My only hope is that it fires Ferrari and Vettel up.

Create a bit more of an edge between the rivalries and hopefully bring out the best in them. Wishful thinking but we've seen in the past drivers performing brilliantly with chips on their shoulders.

Regardless of the penalty decision the aftermath was one of the most captivatingly entertaining post-race antics I've seen in a long while.

Joeface

So France this weekend . How are we feeling ?.

Will Renault be closer to the mix with all the upgrades ( i believe engine included ) coming this weekend .

Jordan 199

I'm hoping for a good race. That is all.

El_Duderino 09

Joeface wrote: »

So France this weekend . How are we feeling ?.

Will Renault be closer to the mix with all the upgrades ( i believe engine included ) coming this weekend .

Well, Renault is doing a lot of chat and making a lot of noise about upgrades etc. But it’s their home race so they are bound to say all that regardless of whether it’s true or not.

After the lacklustre start to the season, I wouldn’t bet too heavily on them. Good improvement last week though. I’d put it down to hype until I see the results on the track.

supremenovice

Its hard to look past the top 3 teams on the podium anyway. The cars are just so reliable now and race ending collisions are not as common. There aren't as many wet weather races as there used to either. I keep hoping for Hulk to get his podium but I just can't see it when you look at the gap from top 3 to the rest.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.gpfans.com/en/articles/40992/kubica-sponsor-hints-at-williams-exit/

Kubica sponsor looking to move its sponsorship to another team to get Kubica further up the grid. The company is said to be paying $10m for Kubica to drive.

Given he’s being comprehensively beaten by his rookie teammate it Doesn’t look good for Kubica as a serious driver on merit. He’s firmly in the pay driver category now if this is anything to go by.

El_Duderino 09

supremenovice wrote: »

Its hard to look past the top 3 teams on the podium anyway. The cars are just so reliable now and race ending collisions are not as common. There aren't as many wet weather races as there used to either. I keep hoping for Hulk to get his podium but I just can't see it when you look at the gap from top 3 to the rest.

Agree on all that but I question the rain point. Are there really fewer rain races now or is just how we remember it? Like the way people remember the past as being great. Summers school holidays were guaranteed sunny weather every day and football was much better.

I wonder if there's any actual data on wet weather races over time. The inclusion of middle east races decreases the chance of rain at those weekends alright.