Formula 1 Grand Prix du Canada 2011

[Bram Turismo]

RBR have admitted to having KERS issues this weekend. It will be interesting to see. Alonso did shoot from a cannon in Spain. Who's to say it won't happen here? Should be good.

I'm not sure in what way I'll keep continue to buy into RBR's KERS "issues". Apparently they have KERS issues in each qualifying and race session

 

[UK-Gamer]

They've had Verizon sponsorship on the back of the rear wing for a little while now.

Oops, haven't really noticed it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm not sure in what way I'll keep continue to buy into RBR's KERS "issues". Apparently they have KERS issues in each qualifying and race session

The graphic you see on the screen is provided by the FOM feed from the FIA computers. You can see that RB don't have KERS at times... and that's in every kind of session, race or otherwise.

Webber had no KERS today - if he HAD then you'd see it being used.

Apparently the 107% rule only applies to the first GP of the season.

Not so - or if it is then it seems that noone else is aware of that. If it DID only apply to the first race then HRT wouldn't have had to appeal against a potential exclusion at... erm... Monaco?

 

[PeterJB]

Seems a little bit silly to allow d'Ambrosio to race. He has had the pace in previous GPs, but if the 107% is applied to the whole weekend, he was only within it on Friday Practice 1.

 

[Ardius]

Seems a little bit silly to allow d'Ambrosio to race. He has had the pace in previous GPs, but if the 107% is applied to the whole weekend, he was only within it on Friday Practice 1.

I don't see it as silly, D'Ambrosio has shown in previous races that he isn't a terrible driver, Glock has shown in Qualy today that the car wasn't too slow to race. Therefore Virgin must have had a good reason why Jerome didn't set a good enough time (maybe DRS failure or it could be anything).

Again, the 107% rule is just a safety rule. Its to prevent massively slow cars from competing such as the 1997 Mastercard Lola. Its not to penalise drivers and teams. I don't know about you, but I don't consider the Virgin so slow that it should be prevented from racing.

Apparently the 107% rule only applies to the first GP of the season. D'Ambrosio didn't have speed all weekend.

No it applies to the whole season. Hispania were clearly unprepared to race in Melbourne with bits falling off their cars and their pace being miles away. It wasn't safe to let them race till they had spent some time setting up their cars properly and completed proper shakedown and installation checks.

This isn't the same as D'ambrosio who has proven in previous races he is good enough and the car is clearly good enough as Glock qualified it. I'm almost certain Virgin had a reasonable excuse why they didn't set a good enough laptime.

 

[F1 fan]

SpeedTV didn't show a live broadcast. It was off by 30mins I believe.

Then that explains it. That sucks that speed wouldn't show it live. Probably a good idea to avoid the forum if it's going to be delayed so no-one inadvertently spoils the result.

You know, with Alonso's "electric" starts this season, I wonder if he might catch Vettel by turn 1. Also, Vettel's KERS might go wrong, giving Alonso and Massa a MUCH better start.

But of course, I am always hoping for McLaren to win, not Ferrari.

And I really HATE Red Bull.

Interesting that you think the "no double post" rule doesn't apply to you. Or maybe you just haven't seen the "edit" button. Double posting like that within one minute of each other may lead to trouble with the mods.

I'm not sure in what way I'll keep continue to buy into RBR's KERS "issues". Apparently they have KERS issues in each qualifying and race session

As someone else has stated you can clearly see on the graphics that their Kers doesn't always function. What more proof do you need?

 

[hampus_dh]

(we honestly have nothing to really go in this regard as Massa is/has been all over the grid all season)

Actually we do.

2010 race positions and qualifying positions.
2011 race positions and qualifying positions.

Massa isn´t half the driver Alonso is, only fans of massa would disagree on that one.
He´s a good driver but by no means a top driver like Vettel Alonso and Hamilton.

 

[Rossticles]

I'm not sure in what way I'll keep continue to buy into RBR's KERS "issues". Apparently they have KERS issues in each qualifying and race session

Apparently the issues were serious enough that Webber couldn't take place in FP3 before qualifying. RBR wasn't making it up as you seem to suggest.

No it applies to the whole season. Hispania were clearly unprepared to race in Melbourne with bits falling off their cars and their pace being miles away. It wasn't safe to let them race till they had spent some time setting up their cars properly and completed proper shakedown and installation checks.

This isn't the same as D'ambrosio who has proven in previous races he is good enough and the car is clearly good enough as Glock qualified it. I'm almost certain Virgin had a reasonable excuse why they didn't set a good enough laptime.

I know it does. But when the stewards keep deciding that cars falling outside of 107% can compete in the race it makes the rule humorous at best. It also makes one wonder when the next time they are going to not let someone compete in the race after breaking the rule as well as what the excuse for letting them get away with breaking the rule is. D'Ambrosio didn't set a time within 107% of any fast lap in any session this weekend.

Then that explains it. That sucks that speed wouldn't show it live. Probably a good idea to avoid the forum if it's going to be delayed so no-one inadvertently spoils the result.

I stayed away when I saw the following post and NASCAR qualifying was still on. Canada is only one hour off from here and it's been confusing me all weekend. I should have known something was amiss that it was scheduled to broadcast at 12:30.

And the qualify is on!

 

[F1 fan]

I stayed away when I saw the following post and NASCAR qualifying was still on. Canada is only one hour off from here and it's been confusing me all weekend. I should have known something was amiss that it was scheduled to broadcast at 12:30.

Having recently made the move to Toronto from Scotland, F1 start times have been confusing me recently. The official website has a countdown. Bearing in mind, it's a countdown to official session start time and not a countdown to any pre show your network may provide.

 

[Ardius]

I know it does. But when the stewards keep deciding that cars falling outside of 107% can compete in the race it makes the rule humorous at best. It also makes one wonder when the next time they are going to not let someone compete in the race after breaking the rule as well as what the excuse for letting them get away with breaking the rule is. D'Ambrosio didn't set a time within 107% of any fast lap in any session this weekend.

I already covered this. Its not a rule to penalise the drivers/teams. The rule is there to allow the stewards to prevent unsafe cars particpating. Do you think Heidfeld, D'Ambrosio, or any of the other 107% failures were unsafe to race?

Its only humourous to you because you don't understand the intention of the rule.

 

[Rossticles]

D'Ambrosio has been off the pace all weekend. How is it safe to let him compete when he's obviously slow?

 

[VRracingfan]

D'Ambrosio has been off the pace all weekend. How is it safe to let him compete when he's obviously slow?

It's because he had a different chassis which is the main reason that they have let him back in.

 

[Ardius]

Because he isn't dangerously slow. Shall I repeat it again?

 

[Rossticles]

The rule is 107% because it was deemed that anything outside that percentage is an unsafe pace. Repeat yourself all you want, D'Ambrosio has lacked pace in Canada and shouldn't be allowed to race. If Virgin wanted to change his chassis and it made him slow, that's their fault and they shouldn't be racing tomorrow.

Elsewhere in motor racing where they have the 107% rule, there aren't near as many exceptions made.

 

[Terronium-12]

Actually we do.

2010 race positions and qualifying positions.
2011 race positions and qualifying positions.

Massa isn´t half the driver Alonso is, only fans of massa would disagree on that one.
He´s a good driver but by no means a top driver like Vettel Alonso and Hamilton.

If Massa weren't half the driver Alonso is he wouldn't have qualified within a few tenths of Alonso, so that's debunked automatically. And if I remember correctly from coverage (I forget what season it was) Hamilton's first (?) WDC was won by the skin of his teeth...which he snagged from Massa. Not a top driver you say? He's definitely nowhere near as good as he was before his accident, which whether anyone accepts the excuse or not it quite apparently has affected his performance. And hasn't Massa already finished ahead of Alonso twice this season alone? Again, not a top driver you say?

 

[Rossticles]

And if I remember correctly from coverage (I forget what season it was) Hamilton's first (?) WDC was won by the skin of his teeth...which he snagged from Massa.

Yep. Massa was Drivers' Champion for a few seconds. Hamilton won the title in the last turn of the last lap of the last GP of 2008, which Massa actually won. Massa was beaten by a single point. It's hard to say he's not a top driver.

 

[Ardius]

The rule is 107% because it was deemed that anything outside that percentage is an unsafe pace. Repeat yourself all you want, D'Ambrosio has lacked pace in Canada and shouldn't be allowed to race. If Virgin wanted to change his chassis and it made him slow, that's their fault and they shouldn't be racing tomorrow.

Elsewhere in motor racing where they have the 107% rule, there aren't near as many exceptions made.

Well lets turn the argument around, why would the stewards let in a car/driver combination that is considered unsafe? Because it isn't and because there are reasonable excuses for pace.

 

[hampus_dh]

If Massa weren't half the driver Alonso is he wouldn't have qualified within a few tenths of Alonso, so that's debunked automatically. And if I remember correctly from coverage (I forget what season it was) Hamilton's first (?) WDC was won by the skin of his teeth...which he snagged from Massa. Not a top driver you say? He's definitely nowhere near as good as he was before his accident, which whether anyone accepts the excuse or not it quite apparently has affected his performance. And hasn't Massa already finished ahead of Alonso twice this season alone? Again, not a top driver you say?

doesn't change the fact that he's been dominated by alonso since he arrived.
he hasn't won a world title, close but still doesn't count.
if you check hamiltons rookie year he lost by 1 point and that was with a team mate who was a 2 time world champion beating alonso in q and finishing positions.
the only year when massa shined was when it went bad for kimi.

all drivers in f1 are top drivers but very few are "top"'drivers.
Massa has nothing on those guys.

 

[Terronium-12]

doesn't change the fact that he's been dominated by alonso since he arrived.
he hasn't won a world title, close but still doesn't count.
if you check hamiltons rookie year he lost by 1 point and that was with a team mate who was a 2 time world champion beating alonso in q and finishing positions.
the only year when massa shined was when it went bad for kimi.

all drivers in f1 are top drivers but very few are "top"'drivers.
Massa has nothing on those guys.

You seem to have it out for Massa for some reason as you appear to be oblivious as to how good he is/can be. Anyone who's only lost the championship by one (1) point to someone who got that one point on the last corner of the last lap isn't a "top" driver? Again, if Massa had nothing on those guys...why is he in third whereas Hamilton lies in sixth?

Just sayin'...

 

[The Outlaw]

It all depends on what your definition of a "top driver" is. Simple as that.

 

[hampus_dh]

You seem to have it out for Massa for some reason as you appear to be oblivious as to how good he is/can be. Anyone who's only lost the championship by one (1) point to someone who got that one point on the last corner of the last lap isn't a "top" driver? Again, if Massa had nothing on those guys...why is he in third whereas Hamilton lies in sixth?

Just sayin'...

again, one year, and the year where it did not went good for kimi. the ferrari was good so that's expected of him.

and you keep brining up one session.
how about taking a look at where he stacks up against hamilton in points or qualifying positions from 08.

im not out for massa, nor am i a fanboy like you who can't see things objectively.

the time massa has been in a top team and the little he has accomplished is enough for me.
the fact that you even compare him to the likes of alonso, hamilton, vettel or raikkonen says more about your knowledge then mine.

 

[Hollidog]

Well lets turn the argument around, why would the stewards let in a car/driver combination that is considered unsafe? Because it isn't and because there are reasonable excuses for pace.

Because the rule is the rule and the exception to the rule is only applicable if the driver sets a good enough time in one of the sessions (usually FP3 because FP1 and 2 are typically slower). Im not certain about this case but I dont think that D'Ambrosio set a time in FP3 that would have qualified him in the rule, and I am pretty sure that that is the benchmark.

Personally I never rated Alonso as a driver. Im not trying to incite a war here but taking Massa out of the equation so it doesnt become a "who is better than who" argument, which is entirely subjective. When Alonso won one of his championships (I think the second one) he got lucky when Schumachers engine blew up in one of the last few races of the season which pretty much handed it to Alonso. That year he won the Singapore GP in the Renault it was down to bad luck for I think Massa who was leading and then a pitstop error (IIRC), and of course there was the big scandal about Piquet. So essentially he cheated his way to that win. (Or at least Renault did). When he won the Bahrain GP last year (someone was saying that they had a better start to last season than this one) he also only won that race because of a spark plug failure for Vettel.
Obviously there are races that he won on out and out skill but he certainly has a lot of luck on his side and inherits a lot of wins.

Now ignoring Alonso, Massa is doing great for a driver in his position (or anyone for that matter). I mean the guy was in a freakin coma. (personally) I dont know anyone who has been in a coma, and in wider publications I cant think of anyone who has been in a coma to come back and do anything as mentally draining as driving an F1 car. Or even do anything for that matter.

 

[hampus_dh]

Because the rule is the rule and the exception to the rule is only applicable if the driver sets a good enough time in one of the sessions (usually FP3 because FP1 and 2 are typically slower). Im not certain about this case but I dont think that D'Ambrosio set a time in FP3 that would have qualified him in the rule, and I am pretty sure that that is the benchmark.

Personally I never rated Alonso as a driver. Im not trying to incite a war here but taking Massa out of the equation so it doesnt become a "who is better than who" argument, which is entirely subjective. When Alonso won one of his championships (I think the second one) he got lucky when Schumachers engine blew up in one of the last few races of the season which pretty much handed it to Alonso. That year he won the Singapore GP in the Renault it was down to bad luck for I think Massa who was leading and then a pitstop error (IIRC), and of course there was the big scandal about Piquet. So essentially he cheated his way to that win. (Or at least Renault did). When he won the Bahrain GP last year (someone was saying that they had a better start to last season than this one) he also only won that race because of a spark plug failure for Vettel.
Obviously there are races that he won on out and out skill but he certainly has a lot of luck on his side and inherits a lot of wins.

Now ignoring Alonso, Massa is doing great for a driver in his position (or anyone for that matter). I mean the guy was in a freakin coma. (personally) I dont know anyone who has been in a coma, and in wider publications I cant think of anyone who has been in a coma to come back and do anything as mentally draining as driving an F1 car. Or even do anything for that matter.

there is no such thing as luck.
whatever happens happens.
vettel had some help by alonso and webber to clinch his title.

a title alonso was very close to winning but ferrari made a strategic mistake.
and that was in an inferior car grabbing 75 points in a row mid season.

 

[The Outlaw]

Personally I never rated Alonso as a driver. Im not trying to incite a war here but taking Massa out of the equation so it doesnt become a "who is better than who" argument, which is entirely subjective. When Alonso won one of his championships (I think the second one) he got lucky when Schumachers engine blew up in one of the last few races of the season which pretty much handed it to Alonso. That year he won the Singapore GP in the Renault it was down to bad luck for I think Massa who was leading and then a pitstop error (IIRC), and of course there was the big scandal about Piquet. So essentially he cheated his way to that win. (Or at least Renault did). When he won the Bahrain GP last year (someone was saying that they had a better start to last season than this one) he also only won that race because of a spark plug failure for Vettel.
Obviously there are races that he won on out and out skill but he certainly has a lot of luck on his side and inherits a lot of wins.
.

I agree, and I don't rate Vettel either because he inherits a lot of wins and pole positions, because of the fact that he has lucked into a superior car jk (but the same logic applies).

 

[Rossticles]

Ugh!

Who wins a championship without a superior car? That argument is old and stupid. Anyone hating on Vettel wishes their favorite driver was in a Red Bull.

 

[The Outlaw]

What does winning a Championship have to do with anything?

Edit: And btw, my statement was just a counter argument to the rather odd (IMO) perspective Hollidog has when it comes to rating Alonso.

 

[hampus_dh]

Ugh!

Who wins a championship without a superior car? That argument is old and stupid. Anyone hating on Vettel wishes their favorite driver was in a Red Bull.

the thing i would like to see is him against another top driver in the same car.
then we will see really if he is that quick.

 

[Hollidog]

there is no such thing as luck.
whatever happens happens.
vettel had some help by alonso and webber to clinch his title.

a title alonso was very close to winning but ferrari made a strategic mistake.
and that was in an inferior car grabbing 75 points in a row mid season.

Well there is belief in luck the same as there is belief in anything else. Obviously the past is the past but you cant deny that it had nothing to do with him when Vettels plugs failed. (using that as just one example)

I dont think Vettel was "lucky" to get into a good car. Its not like how
Button was lucky to still be able to drive in the season when he won the championship. Someone (Ross Brawn) took a chance on that team and the risk paid off. Luck. Buttons car went from tail ender to Championship winner over 1 season.

What does winning a Championship have to do with anything?

Edit: And btw, my statement was just a counter argument to the rather odd (IMO) perspective Hollidog has when it comes to rating Alonso.

Odd, yes, but not without basis, considering my selective memory.

 

[The Outlaw]

I dont think Vettel was "lucky" to get into a good car. Its not like how Button was lucky to still be able to drive in the season when he won the championship. Someone (Ross Brawn) took a chance on that team and the risk paid off. Luck. Buttons car went from tail ender to Championship winner over 1 season.

Why's it any different? It's not like Vettel single handedly found Adrian Newey out in the country and told him to build a magical RB7, or was the one who designed the RB7 himself. There's a lot of luck in everything...this doesn't mean you should discount someones obvious talent (whether it's Vettel or Alonso) just because they have a bit of luck on their side (I'd say Vettel more than Alonso personally...as Alonso's had a much less given to him on a silver platter on a regular basis than Vettel...no pun intended).

 

[hampus_dh]

Well there is belief in luck the same as there is belief in anything else. Obviously the past is the past but you cant deny that it had nothing to do with him when Vettels plugs failed. (using that as just one example)

I dont think Vettel was "lucky" to get into a good car. Its not like how
Button was lucky to still be able to drive in the season when he won the championship. Someone (Ross Brawn) took a chance on that team and the risk paid off. Luck. Buttons car went from tail ender to Championship winner over 1 season.

Odd, yes, but not without basis, considering my selective memory.

belief is only belief though. doesnt make it one bit true though.
you can't go back in a season and say well if this guy had not done this he would have won that. doesnt work like that.

Button wasnt lucky at all. Brawn had developed that car for 18 months AND they found a loophole that gave them a huge advantage in the beginning of the season.

Luck? no.. excellence in designers and very hard work..

luck doesn't exist no matter how much you believe in it.