2014 Italian Grand Prix

Gutierrez is making a bit of a habit of getting involved in idiotic accidents this year...

Quite annoyed that Rosberg couldn't keep it on the road at turn 1, that could've been interesting otherwise.
 
Dodzzz
Totally agree with you!
It was like a "go get him, Lewis!!" move from Massa :)
Click to expand...

To be fair, it was more "I don't want to get caught up in this drama-vortex" than anything else. :lol:

-

Seeing a lot of crackpot conspiracy talk about Nico's offs. Bull. Nico has gone off while defending from Hamilton before... at Canada... in both cases, they didn't seem like they were on purpose. Though again, keeping his foot down at Canada was very naughty... and it came back to bite him today.

Nico's first off in this race, that was obviously tactical. He didn't want to flat-spot his tires so early in the race, and he had a commanding lead, anyway, so he just let it slide... errh... didn't let it slide.

The second one, Nico had possibly just heard that Hamilton was being told to keep a 2.5 second margin, and would be concerned at the sight of his team-mate growing larger in his mirrors. Missing his braking point would be an understandable lapse of concentration (Lewis did it too, later in the race).

Nico, on missing his braking point, had the choice of straightlining the chicane or braking hard into the chicane and flat-spotting his tires. He would have either:

a. Made the turn, but would have lost a second to Lewis, putting Lewis in DRS range the next time around, with Nico on compromised tires affecting his braking.

b. Still hit the run-off, bouncing across the chicane, putting Lewis in DRS range with Nico on compromised tires and possibly a penalty for cutting the chicane. (As for the reason he slowed right down in the run-off... he already has a warning from Canada... he can no longer keep his foot in it when he goes off).

Both outcomes would have put Nico on slower tires by the end race... which had a high chance of giving Lewis the victory.

Nico's decision to straightline the chicane to preserve his tires would have worked if he had the pace to make it work. He didn't. He should have held off and tried to defend against Hamilton, hoping the Brit would wear down his tires on the offense.

Still, these decisions are made in the blink of an eye... so I don't really take it against Rosberg. But the fans, robbed of a potential dozen lap battle for the lead, apparently did.

Stupid fans. Shut up and let them race.
 
Top left:
u035Jwi.jpg
 
MHPALA
Top left:
u035Jwi.jpg
Click to expand...

Give that man a medal.


EDIT:

Also did anyone see the tweet from Adam Parr regarding next season?

It was picked up by Sky Sports and broadcasted just after they interviewed Lewis in the Mercedes garage.

It said something along the lines of only 8 teams next year fielding 3 cars each and this is the last year of F1 as we know it.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. If one team dominates, then maybe (but even without the drama, the Rosberg-Hamilton rivalry is thrilling). But what do the likes of Marussia, Sauber, Lotus and Caterham actually add to the sport? With three cars, we would get the opportunity to see drivers like Bianchi actually have a chance at a decent seat, and dead wood like Ericsson and Chilton cast off like the flotsam and jetsam they are.

Three cars is only really a problem if it's optional rather than mandatory.
 
niky
Seeing a lot of crackpot conspiracy talk about Nico's offs.
Click to expand...
Considering it was pretty much the first thing Eddie Jordan asked Toto Wolff after the race, I wouldn't call it 'crackpot' at all. Doesn't it strike anyone else as being a bit odd that Rosberg, once again, makes an error that is 'just so' - no damage, completely under control, etc., not once but twice in the same race? Conversely, I find it astonishing that Rosberg can say "What would be the reason for me to do something like that deliberately? There is no possible reason." with a straight face. No possible reason?? Hardly...
 
Given that the boss of the team specifically said "Don't hit each other" minutes before the race, it seems well beyond coincidence to me that Lewis got passed Rosberg in this manner. Don't get me wrong - if it was deliberate, I'd be happy with that, and I think Merc would be well within their rights (and completely justified) in telling Rosberg to yield to Hamilton. It also wouldn't surprise me if they wanted to do it in a way that made it look like Rosberg wasn't yielding. It makes perfect sense to me.
 
Would he really say this if it was intentional?

"It's a terrible feeling to lose the lead like that but in the end Lewis was really quick in the whole race. He came like a rocket and I had to push and I made the mistake. He drove really well and deserved it."
 
I think that would have been more Rosberg's choice than the team's. I'm convinced that the statement he was trying to make in Belgium was aimed at the team's management. Their troubles started when they began bowing to public pressure to support Hamilton. For them to tell Rosberg to move over for Hamilton would only reaffirm that grievance - that Mercedes are making decisions based on what is good for their public relations, not their actual championship campaign.
 
I pretty much agree with that. Mercedes had already told Hamilton not to challenge. If there was anything doing that was suspicious, it would have been decided inside the car by Rosberg himself.

Maybe.

You could also make a case that both Rosberg and Massa were making statements here (as Massa said last race that he felt Nico should have gotten that penalty), but you could also make a case that neither wanted to risk an incident with a hard-charging Hamilton.

In the end, we can second guess every single "mistake" Nico makes... but at the end of it all, Nico wants to win that championship, and he's not likely to do anything to risk that from this point forward... even if the team demands it.

Or said in a more concrete manner:

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2014/...y-theories-on-nico-rosbergs-mistake-in-monza/
 
niky
You could also make a case that both Rosberg and Massa were making statements here (as Massa said last race that he felt Nico should have gotten that penalty), but you could also make a case that neither wanted to risk an incident with a hard-charging Hamilton.
Click to expand...
I think Massa went a bit easy on Hamilton because he wouldn't want to decide the championship by having an accident with him, he knew Hamilton would get past eventually.
 
prisonermonkeys
But what do the likes of Marussia, Sauber, Lotus and Caterham actually add to the sport?
Click to expand...
I think it's a big mistake to consider only the current year's performances when considering which team to "sack" from F1.

In my opinion a team like Sauber did a lot more for this sport than Force India did so far for example(nothing against Force India, just an example). Even if you don't take into account their BMW related years with a top team budget. They've usually struggled with lack of money, still they had some great seasons as a team. They've "discovered" talents like Raikkonen, Frentzen and Heidfeld, and they've also brought to the sport huge partners like Red Bull and Petronas, which weren't involved in F1 at the time. They're having a really poor season this year (also due to the Ferrari Power Unit) but I think Peter Sauber and his team deserve great respect, not only for their past.
Same for Lotus, we know there's nothing historic behind them, apart from the name and the livery. But they've already showed they're able to build a car which can be regularly in the top 10 in the last couple of years. Able to win actually, in the right hands. They know how to catch fans and sponsors, despite their terrible season. Next year they've got the best engine too.
prisonermonkeys
...and dead wood like Ericsson and Chilton cast off like the flotsam and jetsam they are.
Click to expand...

Are we sure about that? Or maybe with a third car, low-budget teams will be even more stimulated to have a paying driver, since there are 2 other cars to put in safe hands?
Or maybe 2 paying drivers, to have more money to develop a good car to give to the first, "proper" driver a car for a podium finish?
 
marco89IT
Same for Lotus, we know there's nothing historic behind them, apart from the name and the livery. But they've already showed they're able to build a car which can be regularly in the top 10 in the last couple of years. Able to win actually, in the right hands. They know how to catch fans and sponsors, despite their terrible season. Next year they've got the best engine too.
Click to expand...
They do have some history behind them. They used to be Renault F1 and Benetton Formula before that. Both have two Drivers World Championships and quite big list of important drivers.
 
Legro
They do have some history behind them. They used to be Renault F1 and Benetton Formula before that. Both have two Drivers World Championships and quite big list of important drivers.
Click to expand...

THAT Lotus has huge, immense history behind them. The Lotus of Chapman with Clark, Moss, Rindt, Andretti, Peterson, Senna...The drivers, the cars, the wins, the innovations etc. makes them one of the most legendary teams in the whole motorsport history. The "problem" in this case is that the modern Lotus isn't directly linked to that team. Lotus is just a name nowadays, as far as I know. As you said, current Lotus derives from Renault factory team, which was Benetton, and Toleman before. The team founded by Chapman died in the 90s if I'm not wrong, the current one isn't even related to the company which makes Lotus road cars. Lotus road cars makers used to be a sponsor of the Lotus F1 team until a couple of years ago, now that link is gone as well.
 
marco89IT
THAT Lotus has huge, immense history behind them. The Lotus of Chapman with Clark, Moss, Rindt, Andretti, Peterson, Senna...The drivers, the cars, the wins, the innovations etc. makes them one of the most legendary teams in the whole motorsport history. The "problem" in this case is that the modern Lotus isn't directly linked to that team. Lotus is just a name nowadays, as far as I know. As you said, current Lotus derives from Renault factory team, which was Benetton, and Toleman before. The team founded by Chapman died in the 90s if I'm not wrong, the current one isn't even related to the company which makes Lotus road cars. Lotus road cars makers used to be a sponsor of the Lotus F1 team until a couple of years ago, now that link is gone as well.
Click to expand...
I understand that modern Lotus isn't as historical as original Lotus, but saying that it doesn't have any history is just wrong. I would understand, if you were talking about 2010 Lotus that is now Caterham.
 
Enstone has the ability to have a top car but they are very financially troubled with all the mismanagement from Genji Capital, most of the staff there where around in the Benetton/Renault era and some even from the Toleman days.
marco89IT
THAT Lotus has huge, immense history behind them. The Lotus of Chapman with Clark, Moss, Rindt, Andretti, Peterson, Senna...The drivers, the cars, the wins, the innovations etc. makes them one of the most legendary teams in the whole motorsport history. The "problem" in this case is that the modern Lotus isn't directly linked to that team. Lotus is just a name nowadays, as far as I know. As you said, current Lotus derives from Renault factory team, which was Benetton, and Toleman before. The team founded by Chapman died in the 90s if I'm not wrong, the current one isn't even related to the company which makes Lotus road cars. Lotus road cars makers used to be a sponsor of the Lotus F1 team until a couple of years ago, now that link is gone as well.
Click to expand...

when you consider that basically Senna, Schumacher and Alonso arguably some of the 3 greatest F1 drivers of all time, made their careers from this team. Coming from what the current Lotus stemmed from which is Enstone which Benetton moved the HQ to after they moved from the Tolemen Witney base after they bought them, then you understand this team has plenty of history Enstone alone is home to 4X WDC and 3X WCC titles.
 
marco89IT
Are we sure about that? Or maybe with a third car, low-budget teams will be even more stimulated to have a paying driver, since there are 2 other cars to put in safe hands?
Click to expand...
The eight biggest teams will have the eight biggest budgets. In terms of developing a car from its inception to unveiling, actually building a car is relatively cheap compared to the actual development phase. Most of the big teams will use several chassis over the course of a season, so they already have the ability to run a third car right now. They will need a bit of infrastructure to run the third car, but it's a one-time expense.
 
Never mind Nico second is a good place after the shnanigans. Few races for Nico to widen the gap at the top, come on Nico I have faith in you.
Shame Alonso hasn't got the car to compete he would wipe the floor with both merc drivers when it comes to ability and being under pressure,best driver on the grid I think.
 
justin credible
Never mind Nico second is a good place after the shnanigans. Few races for Nico to widen the gap at the top, come on Nico I have faith in you.
Shame Alonso hasn't got the car to compete he would wipe the floor with both merc drivers when it comes to ability and being under pressure,best driver on the grid I think.
Click to expand...

Do you comment on the Sky Sports F1 website? You sound precisely like 50% of the people who do.
 
It's almost like Merc knew before the season begun they would win most of the races because they have released quite a few promotional pics like this immediately after the races.
 

Latest Posts

Back