2011 Formula 1 Shell Belgian Grand Prix

  • Thread starter Thread starter LewyOs
  • 545 comments
  • 38,475 views
I can't link to videos as they are BBC and therefore UK only, but it was along the lines of 'Kobayashi ran into the back of Hamilton/should have got on the brakes earlier/should have given him more space', even though it was as clear as day that he was on the racing line and the defending Hamilton moved over into the side of him, thinking he was far ahead. Not intentional, but Hamilton was the one at fault, 100%..

I could not believe it when Whitmarsh kept saying Hamilton was hit from behind even after he watched the replay multiple times. I didn't expect him to blame Hamilton since he is McLaren's Team Principal. But come on...

And DC's argument that Kobayashi should have backed off made no sense considering Kamui was in the racing line and both drivers were nearly side-by-side entering the braking zone. Kobayashi would have assumed that Hamilton seen him on the outside, and would have expected Lewis to take a tighter line entering the corner. Leaving the two drivers with plenty of room to operate. Hamilton moving into the racing was totally unexpected.
 
Discussing these incidents and the rulings from the stewards is fine. But everyone needs to remember a few simple rules -

1. Follow the AUP. And that means no abusive comments directed toward other members. There have been some borderline posts, those need to stop.

2. Stick to the available facts. Be prepared to back your statements with verifiable proof. There's a lot of speculation going on, which is driving a lot of the frustrations. Don't make a speculative comment in a manner that makes it appear to be a known fact.
 
For the actual collision with Maldonado on the straight. If he didn't do ANYTHING wrong why did he get reprimanded at all then?

The wrong thing was the bumping Maldonado out of the way to finish his flying lap. That's what he got reprimanded for, and that's all he did wrong.
 
Webber on that overtake (crash.net)

Mark Webber may only have finished second in the Belgian Grand Prix, but he produced perhaps the moment of the race as he charged back from a poor start and passed Fernando Alonso going into Eau Rouge.

The two frontrunners met as Alonso exited the pits on lap nine, with both having been forced into early stops by concerns over blisters on their Pirelli tyres. Webber, despite running the harder of the two compounds on offer, enjoyed the benefit of better tyre temperature as he homed in on the back of the Ferrari, and knew that, with Ferrari having shown good early pace on the softer option, he had to make a move sooner rather than later.

Asked whether he had planned the move in advance, the Australian admitted that there had been no preconceived intent - or even time to think about it.

"You don't have much time to get the calculator out at that point, so I think, for most of the race, I was still charged with frustration from the start," he explained, "When I came out behind Fernando, obviously we were very, very close going down into Eau Rouge, and I knew Fernando would have been using some KERS, so I was using some KERS as well.

"I got a tow, obviously, and then I thought, if I can get to the inside, then I might have the line. But, obviously, both of us are very experienced, we both don't give much too easily, so it was a good battle and very, very rewarding that it worked out okay."

Although Alonso would return the favour at Les Combes on the very next lap, Webber eventually got the upper hand as the Ferrari later proved less effective on the harder tyre, fading to fourth at the chequered flag. The lap nine pass remained a talking point post-race, however, although Webber admitted that he may have thought twice had it not been Alonso that he was battling with.

"It takes two guys doing a good job to get all that right obviously," he noted, "so it's more rewarding when you can do it with someone like Fernando, because he's a world-class driver and knows when enough is enough.

"Obviously, my attitude might have been a bit different with someone else, let's say, but, in the end, it worked out for me today but, in Monza, maybe it's his turn to do it to me.

"I was breathing in at the bottom, I got in and I looked in the mirror at the top and I saw he was still in... Well, he had no choice, obviously, in the end. He had to... one of us had to lift and I had a slightly better line, so it was he who had to lift."
 
Wow, this actually become a really heated discussion, my position on is that both sides have to carry some guilt, but is Hamilton who should(and in fact did)take responsibility for his acts.

The problem in that incident: Hamilton pass Kobayashi with DRS/KERS, he is sure that he passed Kobayashi correctly and therefore ignores a counter manoeuvre from Kobayashi, Kobayashi is well know for his counter passes once he is passed(this event was not an exception to this), therefore he decided that he could take Hamilton with the slipstream at the end of the straight maintaining his racing line, Hamilton then changes his racing line to take the optimal position for the corner, this happens to coincide with Kobayashi's trajectory, both unaware of the other's manoeuvre keep doing their own respective manoeuvre which ends up in the crash.

Kobayashi probably could not avoided that incident because he was impulsed by the slipstream, therefore stopping would probably be pretty useless. Hamilton in the other hand completely ignores the car behind, which happened to be next to him and will use a cross trajectory, he isn't aware of this(but he should) and he ends up causing the crash.

That's my opinion, the only fact that I can be assure of is that Hamilton wasn't paying attention to the car behind, causing the crash.
 
I do think Button and Schumacher delivered the best performances that day, but we have to remember they had a huge advantage in strategy. The ones that criticize Button for his qualy mistake saying he could have won the race if not for it forget that this year it counts A LOT to have extra new tyre sets and because of his mistake Button only raced THREE laps on the harder tyre. Schumacher raced only FIVE laps on the harder compound. So their races were faster because their had more laps on (new) soft tyres. I dont think Button could have won this race had he started from the first rows, just as I dont think Lewis could have won it.
 
I could not believe it when Whitmarsh kept saying Hamilton was hit from behind even after he watched the replay multiple times. I didn't expect him to blame Hamilton since he is McLaren's Team Principal. But come on...

And DC's argument that Kobayashi should have backed off made no sense considering Kamui was in the racing line and both drivers were nearly side-by-side entering the braking zone. Kobayashi would have assumed that Hamilton seen him on the outside, and would have expected Lewis to take a tighter line entering the corner. Leaving the two drivers with plenty of room to operate. Hamilton moving into the racing was totally unexpected.

I agree, Whitmarsh's comments after the race were bizarre. He kept stating Kobayashi ran into the back of Lewis even when the video showed it wasn't true. Actually after much protesting by Eddie he finally shut up because I think he realised he was talking rubbish yet he still obviously had to be seen as defending his driver.

They were along side each other and Hamilton would (or rather should) have seen Kobayashi coming up the side to over take and pulled in behind rather than continuing on the racing line. Yet again it seems Hamilton thinks others should get out of his way but never the other way round and he seems to do very little to avoid accidents regardless of fault.

The wrong thing was the bumping Maldonado out of the way to finish his flying lap. That's what he got reprimanded for, and that's all he did wrong.

Well the stewards never said that in the statement.
 
Wow, this actually become a really heated discussion, my position on is that both sides have to carry some guilt, but is Hamilton who should(and in fact did)take responsibility for his acts.

The problem in that incident: Hamilton pass Kobayashi with DRS/KERS, he is sure that he passed Kobayashi correctly and therefore ignores a counter manoeuvre from Kobayashi, Kobayashi is well know for his counter passes once he is passed(this event was not an exception to this), therefore he decided that he could take Hamilton with the slipstream at the end of the straight maintaining his racing line, Hamilton then changes his racing line to take the optimal position for the corner, this happens to coincide with Kobayashi's trajectory, both unaware of the other's manoeuvre keep doing their own respective manoeuvre which ends up in the crash.

Kobayashi probably could not avoided that incident because he was impulsed by the slipstream, therefore stopping would probably be pretty useless. Hamilton in the other hand completely ignores the car behind, which happened to be next to him and will use a cross trajectory, he isn't aware of this(but he should) and he ends up causing the crash.

That's my opinion, the only fact that I can be assure of is that Hamilton wasn't paying attention to the car behind, causing the crash.

Kobayashi said in an interview that he knew Hamilton was faster and wasn't aiming to repass him. He got a bit of a toe and then pulled out of it and took the regular line in behind Hamilton into the braking zone. If he'd wanted to overtake he would have pulled into the inside instead, Hamilton left room on both sides but then moved too far left.

I'm agreeing with you that it was Hamilton's fault, but Kobayashi was not trying to pass, he was just carrying on with his race, knowing that realistically he could not have challenged Hamilton and would only have cost himself time if he tried.
 
EDK
F1 fan and homeforsummer. You guys just need to chill out. Posts on both sides are borderline in terms of being directed at the person.

I don't think anything productive can come from further discussion of the incident, so just move on.

Ok. Noted. But have we really been that bad? Not questioning you or anything, but I haven't been in the least bit insulted by any of Homeforsummer's posts. I will try and cool things down from now on though.
 
Ok. Noted. But have we really been that bad? Not questioning you or anything, but I haven't been in the least bit insulted by any of Homeforsummer's posts. I will try and cool things down from now on though.

Seconded on all counts :cheers:

Robin - since both drivers received their warning/penalty from the stewards for causing a collision, and given that there were two collisions within the space of a minute, it doesn't take much working out which incident each was for. Lewis was at fault for the collision at the chicane on his hot lap, and Maldonado obviously caused the collision on the way down to Eau Rouge.

You're right, I'm not a steward and can't say that's the case for sure, but if Hamilton got a reprimand for getting side-swiped from nowhere and not for knocking Maldonado out the way at the chicane, then there's something very wrong with the stewards' decision-making process.

That said, none of that has anything to do with your original point, which was that Hamilton should have braked to avoid a collision, on which I've already explained.
 
I really think we should have more feedback from the stewards. Technically, there are two seperate incidents between the two drivers. While one may seem much more obvious, it would be nice if we actually got a brief summary of what exactly each driver did wrong. Rather than just quoting the rule that was broken.

At least, it would stop a lot of arguing on forums:sly:.
 
I really think we should have more feedback from the stewards. Technically, there are two seperate incidents between the two drivers. While one may seem much more obvious, it would be nice if we actually got a brief summary of what exactly each driver did wrong. Rather than just quoting the rule that was broken.

At least, it would stop a lot of arguing on forums:sly:.

Heh, agreed. A little clarity wouldn't go amiss...

Did find it interesting how Maldonado basically admitted that he was trying to spook Lewis to Coulthard in the BBC coverage though. Probably just as well for his sake the weekend was over when he said that otherwise his penalty could have been very different. Definitely got the impression the stewards gave him the benefit of the doubt when he said he must have made a mistake...
 
wow, this actually become a really heated discussion, my position on is that both sides have to carry some guilt, but is hamilton who should(and in fact did)take responsibility for his acts.

The problem in that incident: Hamilton pass kobayashi with drs/kers, he is sure that he passed kobayashi correctly and therefore ignores a counter manoeuvre from kobayashi, kobayashi is well know for his counter passes once he is passed(this event was not an exception to this), therefore he decided that he could take hamilton with the slipstream at the end of the straight maintaining his racing line, hamilton then changes his racing line to take the optimal position for the corner, this happens to coincide with kobayashi's trajectory, both unaware of the other's manoeuvre keep doing their own respective manoeuvre which ends up in the crash.

Kobayashi probably could not avoided that incident because he was impulsed by the slipstream, therefore stopping would probably be pretty useless. Hamilton in the other hand completely ignores the car behind, which happened to be next to him and will use a cross trajectory, he isn't aware of this(but he should) and he ends up causing the crash.

That's my opinion, the only fact that i can be assure of is that hamilton wasn't paying attention to the car behind, causing the crash.
+1
 
Ok. Noted. But have we really been that bad? Not questioning you or anything, but I haven't been in the least bit insulted by any of Homeforsummer's posts. I will try and cool things down from now on though.


Seconded on all counts :cheers:

I just did not want it to degrade any further. I'm not going to quote specifics, but from my perspective, some of the posts were very close to being directed at the member, not the argument itself. As long as you keep that in mind, everything will be fine.
 
I do think Button and Schumacher delivered the best performances that day, but we have to remember they had a huge advantage in strategy. The ones that criticize Button for his qualy mistake saying he could have won the race if not for it forget that this year it counts A LOT to have extra new tyre sets and because of his mistake Button only raced THREE laps on the harder tyre. Schumacher raced only FIVE laps on the harder compound. So their races were faster because their had more laps on (new) soft tyres. I dont think Button could have won this race had he started from the first rows, just as I dont think Lewis could have won it.

The frontrunners still had 2 fresh sets of the soft tyres because of the rain throughout the weekend. As most drivers did 3 stops, with one stint on the prime and 3 on the option, Are you saying Button made all of his gains in one stint? Button simply had the faster race package (From what I saw) and looked after his tyres better, meaning he could maintain good pace for more of his stint than the frontrunners did, even if they ran the same number of laps on the tyres (Other drivers' times tend to be faster, but drop off a lot sooner into the stint). His car was also damaged from contact in turn 1.

Button lost several seconds when he had to replace his front wing and he also lost time as he had to conserve his option tyres later on. He may even have attempted a 2-stop if he had a long stint on the hards, mathematically this was the fastest way even accounting for the slower tyre, meaning he could of won if it wasn't for the first corner mayhem.

It has to be said also that Mark Webber did most of his race on the hard tyre and didn't finish too far behind Vettel despite falling back in the first stint on the softs, so the hard medium tyre isn't that slow, unless you're driving a Ferrari.

I really feel for Button, if it wasn't for the DNFs at Silverstone and the Nurburgring (Neither of which were a result of driver error), he would be second in the WDC and in with a shot of chasing Vettel down.
 
Last edited:
i don't understand why Webber can't get good starts, he's had over 100 cracks at it, you'd think he'd get a good start ONCE in all of these, but that's never happened.
 
i don't understand why Webber can't get good starts, he's had over 100 cracks at it, you'd think he'd get a good start ONCE in all of these, but that's never happened.

It's almost like he's forgotton, before he didn't really make bad starts, but since spa last year he usually loses a place or two at the start, maybe Red Bull got a new system for starting because Vettel had a couple in the early stages of last year if I remember right but now he's flawless on the start.
 
It's almost like he's forgotton, before he didn't really make bad starts, but since spa last year he usually loses a place or two at the start, maybe Red Bull got a new system for starting because Vettel had a couple in the early stages of last year if I remember right but now he's flawless on the start.

Clearly something's gotten in his head there, at this point it's become a running joke.

There was speculation about KERS issues at one point, but related to this race this race, comments were made after about his anti-stall engaging, which would lead me to believe it's an issue with his technique.
 
EDK
Clearly something's gotten in his head there, at this point it's become a running joke.

There was speculation about KERS issues at one point, but related to this race this race, comments were made after about his anti-stall engaging, which would lead me to believe it's an issue with his technique.

He seems to lose all revs just before the start, like he's jumping the start but the engine won't allow it.

I wouldn't imagine KERS to cause his launch problems, only if his problems are in the second phase, which they aren't.
 
MarkWebber
i don't understand why Webber can't get good starts, he's had over 100 cracks at it, you'd think he'd get a good start ONCE in all of these, but that's never happened.

You tell us, sir!

Yes, a mystery...maybe he gets nervous?
 
EDK
Clearly something's gotten in his head there, at this point it's become a running joke.

It's a pity too because there was nothing at all wrong with his race pace. That start basically ruined his whole race.
 
The frontrunners still had 2 fresh sets of the soft tyres because of the rain throughout the weekend. As most drivers did 3 stops, with one stint on the prime and 3 on the option, Are you saying Button made all of his gains in one stint? Button simply had the faster race package (From what I saw) and looked after his tyres better, meaning he could maintain good pace for more of his stint than the frontrunners did, even if they ran the same number of laps on the tyres (Other drivers' times tend to be faster, but drop off a lot sooner into the stint). His car was also damaged from contact in turn 1.

Button lost several seconds when he had to replace his front wing and he also lost time as he had to conserve his option tyres later on. He may even have attempted a 2-stop if he had a long stint on the hards, mathematically this was the fastest way even accounting for the slower tyre, meaning he could of won if it wasn't for the first corner mayhem.

It has to be said also that Mark Webber did most of his race on the hard tyre and didn't finish too far behind Vettel despite falling back in the first stint on the softs, so the hard medium tyre isn't that slow, unless you're driving a Ferrari.

I really feel for Button, if it wasn't for the DNFs at Silverstone and the Nurburgring (Neither of which were a result of driver error), he would be second in the WDC and in with a shot of chasing Vettel down.

You cant really compare it with Webber because for some reason he was destroying the soft tyres this weekend so two stints on the medium was faster for the aussie. Note that Vettel on the same machine did not run this strategy, choosing the obvious of running 3 stints on soft tyres.

Yes, Button did lose a few seconds to replace his front wing, but Vettel had to run 14 laps on the medium tyre. Pirelli said the tyre difference was 1,5secs, so Button easily gained 15secs for running on mediums for only three laps.

And I am not even counting the time advantage he got for having one extra new soft set compared to the other top drivers. If you remember Q3, every driver did some 5-6 laps on the sets they started the race with. That is more than half the life of a soft set in Spa.

You said he could even have gone for a 2 stop, but Alonso and Rosberg went for that and moved backwards. You can say the hard (medium) is bad for Ferrari, but Rosberg did a soft-soft-medium strategy that was clearly not the fastest way to go. Who passed Rosberg near the end? Schumacher, on the same strategy as Button.

So yes, Button had the faster race package yeasterday but only because of all his new soft tyres. Had he started up front, that would not have been the case.
 
You cant really compare it with Webber because for some reason he was destroying the soft tyres this weekend so two stints on the medium was faster for the aussie. Note that Vettel on the same machine did not run this strategy, choosing the obvious of running 3 stints on soft tyres.

Yes, Button did lose a few seconds to replace his front wing, but Vettel had to run 14 laps on the medium tyre. Pirelli said the tyre difference was 1,5secs, so Button easily gained 15secs for running on mediums for only three laps.

And I am not even counting the time advantage he got for having one extra new soft set compared to the other top drivers. If you remember Q3, every driver did some 5-6 laps on the sets they started the race with. That is more than half the life of a soft set in Spa.

You said he could even have gone for a 2 stop, but Alonso and Rosberg went for that and moved backwards. You can say the hard (medium) is bad for Ferrari, but Rosberg did a soft-soft-medium strategy that was clearly not the fastest way to go. Who passed Rosberg near the end? Schumacher, on the same strategy as Button.

So yes, Button had the faster race package yeasterday but only because of all his new soft tyres. Had he started up front, that would not have been the case.

I think you forgot to calculate the pit lane bogey. Normally that's around 20 seconds, I'm not sure how much longer or shorter it was here. But that 15 seconds you say he gained by running for fewer laps on hard tires goes away with an additional stop.
 
Button's big advantage wasn't in the number of soft tires he had... but in the fact that he could use them later in the race where they wouldn't degrade as badly, thanks to starting on the primes.

Or... that would have been the case if not for his early pitstop due to the damage.

Vettel was extremely handicapped in that race. It all could have gone wrong for him, as he absolutely HAD to use the softs during the first half of the race to hold off Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton. Just matching their pace destroyed his tires, whereas the Ferrari and McLaren were able to keep up their speed and pit later than the Red Bull. If not for Lewis's accident, Button's incident and Alonso's poor pit call during the safety car... hell, let's throw in Webber's poor start! Vettel could well have been a few steps lower on the podium.
 
EDK
I think you forgot to calculate the pit lane bogey. Normally that's around 20 seconds, I'm not sure how much longer or shorter it was here. But that 15 seconds you say he gained by running for fewer laps on hard tires goes away with an additional stop.

I did not forget. I was comparing Button to Vettel, if you read back my point was that Button could not have won the race. Both Button and Vettel pitted 3 times.
 
I did not forget. I was comparing Button to Vettel, if you read back my point was that Button could not have won the race. Both Button and Vettel pitted 3 times.

Button could have won the race had he not gone back down to 19th after his wing change. He was only 9 seconds behind Vettel by the end of the race, despite having had to come through 3/4 of the field to get there.

It's academic because the race is over now, but he easily had the pace and was kinder on his tyres. I know he wouldn't have had the same tyre options had he started nearer the front, but then had he started nearer the front he might not have had to pit for damage either, taking that 20-odd seconds out of the equation.

Plus, he would have been in a position to put Vettel under pressure, and we know what always happens in those scenarios... :sly: (JOKE!)

Hell, technically Schumacher had the pace too. His last stint was pretty slow but he was setting fastest first sectors throughout the race. I'm not surprised Schumi and Rosberg were passing people left, right and centre because the Mercedes had amazing straight line speed. Button aside most people were having a job passing the Mercs even with KERS and DRS.

And that was despite Schumacher being about 10km/h slower through Eau Rouge than someone like Alonso, who was absolutely mighty through there all race long.
 
Last edited:
EDK
I think you forgot to calculate the pit lane bogey. Normally that's around 20 seconds, I'm not sure how much longer or shorter it was here. But that 15 seconds you say he gained by running for fewer laps on hard tires goes away with an additional stop.

Button could have won the race had he not gone back down to 19th after his wing change. He was only 9 seconds behind Vettel by the end of the race, despite having had to come through 3/4 of the field to get there.

It's academic because the race is over now, but he easily had the pace and was kinder on his tyres. I know he wouldn't have had the same tyre options had he started nearer the front, but then had he started nearer the front he might not have had to pit for damage either, taking that 20-odd seconds out of the equation.

Whilst it's detrimental to my pro-Button argument, even without his damaged wing he would have most likely stopped 3 times.

My point was, a pit stop takes longer when you are replacing a wing (Which must have cost him around 3-5 seconds. Then you take into account the time he lost on track from his damaged car, for 5 laps, which must have been over a second a lap (As he was missing half of his front wing effectively). Then you have to take into account time he lost later in the race when conserving tyres due to the fact his first stint was significantly shorter than it should have been. New primes are faster than old options by quite a margin, we saw this in Hungary, and we saw it this weekend when Webber was setting fastest laps on the prime.

This was Vettel's race to lose and as niky pointed out, everything seemed to go his way this weekend.
 
Oh, and all props to the RBR team for that absolutely inspired gamble on camber. Rumors have it they were running nearly five degrees of front camber just to eke out that extra grip over the other front-runners. By all rights, Red Bull should have lost this race, but adding that extra bit of (supposedly unsafe) camber managed to get them pole and the win.
 
Whilst it's detrimental to my pro-Button argument, even without his damaged wing he would have most likely stopped 3 times.

Oh yeah, I don't dispute that. He still needed tyres, after all. Just running with a damaged wing and being forced to come in late to repair it hampered his pace, as did needing to overtake virtually the whole field.

We'll never know for sure if he could have won but it was definitely possible and his pace all weekend was right up there.
 
It has to be said that JB is driving at his absolute best, maybe even the best driving of his entire career. Its funny to think now that people were critical of his decision to leave Brawn/Mercedes for McLaren in 2009, it now looks like the perfect choice as he has not only saved his career but taken it to a whole new level. Of course its helped a lot that Hamilton has seemingly gotten worse at the same time, which has made Button a very handy asset for McLaren when Hamilton crashes.
 
Back