Hamilton takes fastest time off Alonso in first practice

32 comments on “Hamilton takes fastest time off Alonso in first practice”

1. IrfanHardila
   12th October 2012, 2:38

   RT @f1fanatic_co_uk: Hamilton takes fastest time off Alonso in first practice: http://t.co/5iFXTLGM #F1
2. amoseleorah
   12th October 2012, 2:38

   RT @f1fanatic_co_uk: Hamilton takes fastest time off Alonso in first practice: http://t.co/5iFXTLGM #F1
3. tf1xx
   12th October 2012, 2:39

   RT @f1fanatic_co_uk: Hamilton takes fastest time off Alonso in first practice: http://t.co/5iFXTLGM #F1
4. 

   Eggry (@eggry)
   12th October 2012, 3:39

   Good start from Mclaren and Ferrari guys. Still I fear boune back of Newey squad.
5. 

   Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
   12th October 2012, 3:45

   Looks like the dire predictions for the championship fight might not be as doomy and gloomy as first thought. It’s only FP1, of course, but it’s pretty clear that Ferrari have not had the alarming slump in form that so many feared. And, in retrospect, Alonso’s difficulties in Japan were not really of his own making. By rights, he should have qualified on the second row, were it not for Raikkonen spinning, in which case he would have avoided contact on the first lap and would be enjoying a much bigger championship lead.
   1. 

      Kimi4WDC
      12th October 2012, 3:57

      Wishful thinking much? Would have been taken out by Grosjean instead of Webber :) Or by Vettel if he pulled the same thing he did on Kimi.
      1. 

         Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
         12th October 2012, 4:14

         If Alonso had started the race on the second row of the grid, it would have put Grosjean in sixth instead of fifth, which would have changed the start entirely since Grosjean’s problem was that he cut across the circuit and tried to dive down the inside of Webber. If he started on the side closer to the pit wall, he would have already been on the side that would allow him to aim down the inside. Alonso, meanwhile, would have been able to go around the outside of Webber at the start, so that even if Grosjean and Webber made contact, he would be unaffected.

         Also, with the start playing out the way it did, Alonso had the racing line going into the first corner. Raikkonen was in a position where he had to yield to other cars or hit them – there was no way he would have been able to driver around the outside of them through the first corner, because of its shape. He would have gotten to the second half of the turn and found himself out in the boondocks, trundling around until a gap in the traffic appeared and allowing him to merge back onto the racing line. Alonso’s retirement was the best thing that could have happened for Raikkonen’s start because he was so far off the line going into the first corner.
         1. 

            Kimi4WDC
            12th October 2012, 7:42

            Alonso himself set up whole situation. While both him and Kimi got similar start, he intentionally – constantly looking at the mirror – pushed Lotus on to the grass – /YOU HAVE ALWAYS LEAVE A SPACE – while having plenty of space on his right even before the corner.

            Frankly, how whole situation unfolded, your prediction of how it would have turned out for Alonso if he stated higher is faulty due to him overcommitment with Kimi, he might have done same thing with any other driver. He did get away easy in Monaco.
         2. 

            Hotbottoms (@hotbottoms)
            12th October 2012, 13:33

            @prisoner-monkeys
            Alonso caused the accident by himself, so it’s a bit far-fetched to blame Kimi’s qualifying spin for Alonso’s retirement. Alonso hit Kimi so he could’ve hit any other driver as well.

            There are so many variables in a Formula1 start that any change on the starting grid has a chance of affecting the outcome. But I don’t think it’s reasonable at all to start thinking these ‘what if’ scenarios.
   2. 

      Tim Hutchinson (@darak)
      12th October 2012, 4:28

      True, I’ve always felt people seem to swing to and fro far too easily on who is the “dominant” team at any given time.

      But, at the same time, with only a 4 point gap, Alonso essentially has to beat Vettel (ignoring any other potential challengers for now) over the remainder of the season. While he has been excellent this season and the car is not as bad as it once was, I don’t know if that’s possible when Red Bull seem to be hitting their stride, barring any more mistakes/DNFs.
6. 

   Theoddkiwi (@theoddkiwi)
   12th October 2012, 3:54

   That’s scary that Hamilton was posting fastest laps at the end of a long stint. Hope he can drag himself back into contention for a good three way fight until the end.
   1. 

      Kimi4WDC
      12th October 2012, 3:58

      Too bad McLaren don’t share your optimism. Obviously Button needs points more than Lewis :)
      1. 

         Ed Marques (@edmarques)
         12th October 2012, 5:04

         Haha, great!
      2. 

         tharris19 (@tharris19)
         12th October 2012, 11:55

         Yeah, check out Hamilton’s FP2 times.
   2. 

      AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner)
      12th October 2012, 7:34

      @theoddkiwi Massa was also able to improve on a sector time after a long stint. Looks like the dust is making the track a little softer!
7. 

   Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
   12th October 2012, 4:07

   Conclusion after FP1: this track still looks as if it’s yet to be completed. What a dreadful sight…
   1. 

      Scalextric (@scalextric)
      12th October 2012, 4:27

      I wonder how much longer this venue will stay on the calendar. Two sponsors have dropped out, the F1 travelling circus don’t seem to like the area around the track, crowds seem to stay away, development of the surrounding area clearly hasn’t happened, other venues are trying to attract a race.
      1. 

         RL
         12th October 2012, 5:40

         yeah, I must say this one is in the lead to be dropped. South Korea’s a great place to visit, and is a powerful East Asian economy, but those things hardly resonate in its Grand Prix.
         1. 

            Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
            12th October 2012, 6:10

            I must say this one is in the lead to be dropped

            I think that’s a bit presumptuous. The race has a brand-new deal for this year – one that is much better form them than it has been in the past two years – so a lot of its future is going to hinge on how well this Grand Prix does. We can’t really say one way or the other at to what will happen with any degree of certainty until at least Monday.
   2. 

      Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
      12th October 2012, 4:32

      @fer-no65 – The Koreans seem to have given up on sinking any more money than they absolutely have to into the circuit. And with the circuit and the event running at such a substantial loss, who can blame them? It’s a wonder they haven’t backed out of the contract entirely by now. Sure, there will be some kind of financial penalty involved, but they might as well take the hit now rather than suffer the prolonged financial torture they’re going through now. No doubt they hope to minimise the losses over time and then start on rebuilding the project as originally intended, but that will probably be years in the making. In the meantime, the least they could do would be to run the short form of the circuit, which is made up of all the good corners (I kept the zig-zag at the start because it requires a very unusual, arrhythmic racing line to set a fast time) and might have some real character to it.

      It wouldn’t surprise me if the Korean Grand Prix is moved from KIC to the Autopia circuit – which is currently under construction for the reborn Asian Le Mans Series and is much, much closer to Seoul – in the future.
      1. 

         Thecollaroyboys (@thecollaroyboys)
         12th October 2012, 7:58

         If they jump ship now they might just bring forward future losses. Not that I’m an expert on Korean accounting law but it can happen in Aus law.
         1. 

            Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
            12th October 2012, 10:27

            If it’s under GAAP – Generally Accepted Accounting Prinicples – then yes, it can happen. Accounting is pretty much the same the world over.

            However, a lot of it would like hinge on the exact terms of the contract with FOM and the exit clauses.
      2. 

         Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
         12th October 2012, 19:04

         @prisoner-monkeys Not blaming the Koreans. Well, in part, I am blaming them for trying to build something spectacularly awesome that was waaaaaaaay too low in the “possible thing to happen” list. The whole “circuit within a city” was a horrible idea.

         But I’m not completely blaming them because we all know getting money, and organizing a sucessful Grand Prix doesn’t happen that often (if it happens at all).

         It’s just the look of the thing that annoys me the most, it’s a really horrible thing to see. And it’s sad, because some drivers think the track is actually pretty good.
8. 

   StefMeister (@stefmeister)
   12th October 2012, 5:41

   Anyone notice the on throttle traction control like noise on the McLaren’s?
   http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xu9oas_fp1-ob-jb-korea-2012
   1. 

      bag0 (@bag0)
      12th October 2012, 6:01

      Interesting, it really does sound like TC, but I dont think it is, TRs and Caterhams had a simmilar sound on the Hungaroring.
   2. 

      PieLighter (@pielighter)
      12th October 2012, 6:04

      @stefmeister You’re not the only one. Anything else it could be? I can’t think how McLaren could possibly find a loophole that would allow them to use a pseudo-TC.
   3. 

      bag0 (@bag0)
      12th October 2012, 6:25

      @stefmeister @pielighter
      Ted said on Sky, that only 4 cylinders working mid corner, and thats causing the sound.
      1. 

         PieLighter (@pielighter)
         12th October 2012, 7:04

         @bag0 Oh yes, I remember now.
      2. 

         Adam Tate (@adam-tate)
         12th October 2012, 7:19

         Did he say why only 4 cylinders were working mid-corner? The G’s really that high?
         1. 

            @HoHum (@hohum)
            12th October 2012, 7:37

            Intentional, to reduce torque and therefore wheelspin, but I thought that had been outlawed after RBRs torque maps were investigated.
            1. 

               bag0 (@bag0)
               12th October 2012, 8:03

               @hohum

               I think the main difference is, that the RB solution was using all cylinders, and decreased the torque by reducing RPM, while in this case, they are reducing the torque output by using less cylinders, but maintaining the same RPMs as before. And this might sound silly but I think its operated by steering angle, when the driver turns the wheel fully to either side, the noise kicks in, if it works like this, than its driver operated, and not aerodynamic element, thus legal. Of course it might be something else.
9. 

   @HoHum (@hohum)
   13th October 2012, 0:15

   @bago, Very clever of you to work that out, the things they spend money on!

Comments are closed.