2016 Formula 1 Etihad Airways Abu Dhabi Grand Prix

[Roo]

I really hope they get rid of these ridiculous engine rules, I just want to see flat out racing.

Speaking as someone who grew up watching flat out racing... no, no you don't. Flat out racing is boring because everyone just runs at their maximum, the field - already in fastest-first order thanks to qualifying - gets strung out with big gaps between them, and nothing interesting happens. In my eyes, 2004 was a nadir for this - of the tracks that remain on the calendar since then, almost all of them have lap records set that year, but it was one of the most dull seasons ever.

At least with the current regs there's the possibility of a mixed up grid due to engine penalties, or battles because of drivers not looking after their tyres, or even, with DRS... whisper it... overtaking! In 2004, when none of those things were around, if you'd suggested F1 could actually be exciting most people would look at you like you're insane. We actually get battles now, and people overtake each other on track!

 

[andrea]

Cya in Melbourne.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Hamilton out on track... those tyres look brilliant! All they need to do now is bring back smoking during pit stops!

More in Pirelli's Twaddle-feedings.

 

[daan]

Hamilton's "back up into Nico" tactics were all irrelevant anyway. He was never going to be able to get Rosberg down into 4th. If Vettel had got past Nico, then Seb would have had no restriction in sticking one up the inside of Lewis and going for the win as he wasn't thinking about the championship (obviously Nico wasn't going to do that as he had a championship to lose,) so Lewis would have had to speed up a bit to protect the win that he had to get. Nico would then have been safe in 3rd as Max's tyres were long past their best and would have dropped back.



Edited to add.
The other thing I was looking at with this is that recently we have been unused to a driver with a faster team mate winning the title. The increase in the reliability of cars has made this an unusual occurrence where, back in the day, it was relatively commonplace.

We have to go back well over 20 years to the last time that happened with Prost's win in 1989 even though Senna was the faster driver of the two, but then you've got 1987 (Piquet, despite Mansell being faster), 1984 (Lauda, despite Prost being faster) & 1979 (Scheckter, despite Villeneuve being faster) all in relatively quick succession.

 

[niky]

Feels like that's been said a million times, and people keep ignoring that.

Nico didn't seem all too bothered. A bit pissed, but he knew that Lewis couldn't bunch him down into 4th without risking his lead.

It is now. Unfortunately.

As Famine said: Red Bull, all of two races ago.

 

[RX-7_FD3S]

@daan I dont agree, Senna wasnt faster than Prost they had different way of doing things that's all.

Senna was faster on pole but Prost was faster in GP, check it if you dont believe me. Senna had lots of pole but Prost had lots of fastest lap during the race (and yes it was relevant at that time). And even if Senna won in 88, Prost still had a better ratio of point per finish but because only 11 GP were tallied at the end of the season Senna won it.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

As Famine said: Red Bull, all of two races ago.

There's a difference between backing a driver up to aid your team-mate and backing your team-mate up to ruin his race.

 

[Tired Tyres]

There's a difference between backing a driver up to aid your team-mate and backing your team-mate up to ruin his race.

Dropping back into your biased anti Hamilton stance again! He did the ONLY thing he could do to try to WIN the world championship. He broke exactly ZERO rules doing it. You think he should mildly give in and say "after you dear boy" to Rosberg? What should Rosberg have done then? Try to PASS HIM or, as he did, get on the radio to moan about it to his team?

His team promised EQUAL treatment and NO favouritism to either driver and yet broke its word by giving Hamilton an instruction to go faster. That very clearly means "We want Rosberg to be Champion" by attempting to interfere with the championship by trying to prevent the tactic Hamilton employed.

Get over yourself.

None of what happened would have meant Hamilton wouldn't be a worthy champion if it had worked.

Nothing of which stops Rosberg from being a worthy champion for his season which has been his best so far.

 

[Famine]

There's a difference between backing a driver up to aid your team-mate and backing your team-mate up to ruin his race.

So we've now established that it's okay to drive slowly to slow someone else down and it's neither unsafe or unsporting.

It would seem that the only problem is with the colour of the car you're slowing up. And that's race-ist...


Pun aside, it's pretty much the oldest tenet in racing that the first guy you have to beat is your teammate. They have the same kit so they're the first rival for your finishing position in the table.

When it comes to backing a rival up so they can be passed, the only surprise is that it hasn't happened between team mates before. In fact it probably has.

 

[PzR Slim]

Brundle on twitter.

Rarely seen an F1 subject creating such diametrically opposed fan divide. Spoke to quarter of grid afterwards, all said they'd do the same.

Guess all the drivers are dirty, evil, hateful humans then

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

So we've now established that it's okay to drive slowly to slow someone else down and it's neither unsafe or unsporting.

It would seem that the only problem is with the colour of the car you're slowing up. And that's race-ist...


Pun aside, it's pretty much the oldest tenet in racing that the first guy you have to beat is your teammate. They have the same kit so they're the first rival for your finishing position in the table.

When it comes to backing a rival up so they can be passed, the only surprise is that it hasn't happened between team mates before. In fact it probably has.

So, it sounds like LH is doing a one of a kind rubber banding to NR

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Dropping back into your biased anti Hamilton stance again!

Not at all. I don't like the idea of deliberately slowing another driver down at all, but I am more willing to accept drivers doing it to support a team-mate than I am their doing it to manipulate race results in their favour.

And you're right - I am anti-Hamilton. I'm anti-Hamilton because he's a dirty driver. Deliberately slowing other drivers down, forcing them wide at the start, ignoring instructions from the team, and so on and so forth. They all might be legal under the rules, but that just makes them cynical and premeditated.

 

[PzR Slim]

Not at all. I don't like the idea of deliberately slowing another driver down at all, but I am more willing to accept drivers doing it to support a team-mate than I am their doing it to manipulate race results in their favour.

And you're right - I am anti-Hamilton. I'm anti-Hamilton because he's a dirty driver. Deliberately slowing other drivers down, forcing them wide at the start, ignoring instructions from the team, and so on and so forth. They all might be legal under the rules, but that just makes them cynical and premeditated.

You must have disliked the vast majority of drivers you have ever seen race then

Brundle spoke to quarter of the grid and every single one of them said they would have done what Hamilton did. Don't let hate cloud your judgement

 

[Famine]

I am more willing to accept drivers doing it to support a team-mate than I am their doing it to manipulate race results in their favour.

Just to make it truly apples to apples, the above should read:

"I am more willing to accept drivers doing it to manipulate race results in their team's favour than I am their doing it to manipulate race results in their own favour."

Which begs the question of why, if it's so dirty and cynical, it's okay for teams to do it...

 

[ScottPuss20]

Hamilton out on track... those tyres look brilliant! All they need to do now is bring back smoking during pit stops!

More in Pirelli's Twaddle-feedings.

View attachment 610950

Those new tyres look sick AF bro...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Which begs the question of why, if it's so dirty and cynical, it's okay for teams to do it...

I didn't say that. I said that I was "more okay with it" if teams did it.

Brundle spoke to quarter of the grid and every single one of them said they would have done what Hamilton did.

Did he also ask them if they would ignore team instructions, force other drivers off the circuit, deliberately disrupt the team with the media and cut corners?

Taken in isolation, slowing another driver down isn't as bad as some of the things that could be done. But how many other drivers do questionable things, much less to the extent that Hamilton does? He's one of the dirtiest drivers in the sport.

 

[noshog]

I didn't say that. I said that I was "more okay with it" if teams did it.


Did he also ask them if they would ignore team instructions, force other drivers off the circuit, deliberately disrupt the team with the media and cut corners?

Taken in isolation, slowing another driver down isn't as bad as some of the things that could be done. But how many other drivers do questionable things, much less to the extent that Hamilton does? He's one of the dirtiest drivers in the sport.

Wow your hate of Hamilton is strong I'm not a Hamilton fan either but actually don't consider his tactics at this race dirty...or whatever. Actually have no issues at all with how he drives....What I see is a driver who is ruthless, and you have to be to win titles....Hamilton, Vettel, Schumacher...All of them as ruthless as each other, and that's why they will be in the history books as some of the greats of the sport.

And as for Brundle asking the grid if they would do the same...I believe all of them would, probably only half would admit it though. And frankly if you don't have that ruthless determination to win a title then you shouldn't be in the sport in the first place.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

What I see is a driver who is ruthless, and you have to be to win titles....Hamilton, Vettel, Schumacher...All of them as ruthless as each other, and that's why they will be in the history books as some of the greats of the sport.

But if the ends justify the means, where does it end? Was Schumacher justified in crashing into Villeneuve in 1997? And if so, why was he penalised?

For some insane reason, we treat ruthlessness as if it is a virtue. But just imagine if every driver on the grid drove the way Hamilton did - backing other drivers up, forcing other drivers off the circuit, openly short-cutting the circuit, and so on and so forth.

Consider the following scenario: it's the final lap in Abu Dhabi. Hamilton slows down the back straight, giving Rosberg an opportunity. Naturally, Rosberg takes it, but Hamilton holds on. He runs wide, but as Rosberg never took the position a post-race investigation finds that Rosberg forced Hamilton off the circuit. He gets a five-second penalty and falls to fourth, which means Hamilton is champion. Would he be justified in his actions if he set Rosberg up to take a penalty? He was, after all, ruthless. He did what he had to do to win. And technically, he did not do anything wrong. But in this scenario, Rosberg didn't do anything wrong - Hamilton simply used the rule book to force a penalty.

Once you start allowing questionable behaviour and justifying it as ruthlessness, you start down a slippery slope.

 

[Jubby]

But if the ends justify the means, where does it end? Was Schumacher justified in crashing into Villeneuve in 1997? And if so, why was he penalised?

No crashing into Villeneuve was unsafe. I don't think many of us condone crashing out.

For some insane reason, we treat ruthlessness as if it is a virtue. But just imagine if every driver on the grid drove the way Hamilton did - backing other drivers up, forcing other drivers off the circuit, openly short-cutting the circuit, and so on and so forth... {snip} Once you start allowing questionable behaviour and justifying it as ruthlessness, you start down a slippery slope.

What do you think about the 1989 and 1990 Championship outcomes?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

What do you think about the 1989 and 1990 Championship outcomes?

Very little.

 

[Tired Tyres]

But if the ends justify the means, where does it end? Was Schumacher justified in crashing into Villeneuve in 1997? And if so, why was he penalised?

For some insane reason, we treat ruthlessness as if it is a virtue. But just imagine if every driver on the grid drove the way Hamilton did - backing other drivers up, forcing other drivers off the circuit, openly short-cutting the circuit, and so on and so forth.

Consider the following scenario: it's the final lap in Abu Dhabi. Hamilton slows down the back straight, giving Rosberg an opportunity. Naturally, Rosberg takes it, but Hamilton holds on. He runs wide, but as Rosberg never took the position a post-race investigation finds that Rosberg forced Hamilton off the circuit. He gets a five-second penalty and falls to fourth, which means Hamilton is champion. Would he be justified in his actions if he set Rosberg up to take a penalty? He was, after all, ruthless. He did what he had to do to win. And technically, he did not do anything wrong. But in this scenario, Rosberg didn't do anything wrong - Hamilton simply used the rule book to force a penalty.

Once you start allowing questionable behaviour and justifying it as ruthlessness, you start down a slippery slope.

This is good. Now you make things up to justify your hate. Clever. As for all the other things you accused him of doing. Where exactly did he do these things in the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix 2016? I notice you have never criticised Rosberg for pushing another driver off the track or deliberately missing the chicane in Canada to avoid losing position? Double standards indeed.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

This is good. Now you make things up to justify your hate. Clever.

I'm not convinced that Verstappen didn't do exactly that in Germany. Sure, Rosberg forced him wide, but I think he had plenty of space to catch it.

Besides, my point was that if we continue to accept unsporting conduct as being justified because ruthlessness is somehow a virtue, it's the start of a slippery slope. Hamilton might not have forced Rosberg to take a penalty this time, but since blocking him didn't work, what's to say he wouldn't do it next time?

So, would you consider it to be acceptable if a driver - any driver - feigned a disadvantage so that a championship rival took a penalty and lost the title? Where do you draw the line?

Where exactly did he do these things in the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix 2016?

I didn't say that he did them all in Abu Dhabi.

I notice you have never criticised Rosberg for pushing another driver off the track

I can't think of a single instance where Rosberg did it and escaped without penalty.

deliberately missing the chicane in Canada to avoid losing position?

He went around the bollard the way he was supposed to.

A better comparison would be the opening lap in Mexico. Rosberg at least attempted to make the second corner. Hamilton didn't even bother.

 

[Tired Tyres]

I can't think of a single instance where Rosberg did it and escaped without penalty.


He went around the bollard the way he was supposed to.

A better comparison would be the opening lap in Mexico. Rosberg at least attempted to make the second corner. Hamilton didn't even bother.

He did not deviate from full throttle at any point in canada after missing out the chicane. That proves premeditation. No punishment was issued for either missing out part of the track or doing it to avoid losing position.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

He did not deviate from full throttle at any point in canada after missing out the chicane. That proves premeditation. No punishment was issued for either missing out part of the track or doing it to avoid losing position.

And yet, he went around the bollard the way that he was supposed to. You can't defend Hamilton as being in the right because he didn't break the rules and then attack Rosberg for having done the wrong thing despite not breaking the rules.

Nor did you answer my question - would you consider a driver feigning disadvantage to see a rival penalised to be acceptable?

 

[Famine]

I didn't say that. I said that I was "more okay with it" if teams did it.

Then let's simplify the question:

Just to make it truly apples to apples, the above should read:

"I am more willing to accept drivers doing it to manipulate race results in their team's favour than I am their doing it to manipulate race results in their own favour."

Which begs the question of why, if it's so dirty and cynical...

 

[Tired Tyres]

And yet, he went around the bollard the way that he was supposed to. You can't defend Hamilton as being in the right because he didn't break the rules and then attack Rosberg for having done the wrong thing despite not breaking the rules.

Nor did you answer my question - would you consider a driver feigning disadvantage to see a rival penalised to be acceptable?

He did not feign a problem. The end.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

He did not feign a problem. The end.

I'm not asking you if he actually did it, I am asking you what you would think if he did it. Since you seem intent on dodging the question, I can only assume that you would frown upon it, but you don't want to admit it.

 

[Tired Tyres]

I'm not asking you if he actually did it, I am asking you what you would think if he did it. Since you seem intent on dodging the question, I can only assume that you would frown upon it, but you don't want to admit it.

I'm not dodging the question. I'm not answering it. Loaded dice questions are loaded dice questions. You don't deserve an answer. Nor would you get one for any other IT DID NOT HAPPEN question.

Fact. Hamilton did not do anything against either the written rules or the spirit of those rules. He tried to win the Championship. That's his job. His tactic didn't work and thus Rosberg is the Champion. The end.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Fact. Hamilton did not do anything against either the written rules or the spirit of those rules.

And I am asking you where you, personally, would draw the line. What behaviour would you consider to be unsportsmanlike even if there was nothing specifically against it in the rules?

Then let's simplify the question:

A team at least has strategic options to get out of the situation. Say Verstappen is trying to back Vettel into Ricciardo; Ferrari would at least be able to pit Vettel and go for an undercut, or change Räikkönen's strategy to force Red Bull to think ahead. But when Hamilton is backing Rosberg up, Mercedes cannot do anything because Hamilton will spit the dummy and generate negative publicity for the team.

 

[Tired Tyres]

And I am asking you where you, personally, would draw the line. What behaviour would you consider to be unsportsmanlike even if there was nothing specifically against it in the rules?


A team at least has strategic options to get out of the situation. Say Verstappen is trying to back Vettel into Ricciardo; Ferrari would at least be able to pit Vettel and go for an undercut, or change Räikkönen's strategy to force Red Bull to think ahead. But when Hamilton is backing Rosberg up, Mercedes cannot do anything because Hamilton will spit the dummy and generate negative publicity for the team.

I'll make a judgement call when I see it happen. Not before.