Valtteri Bottas, Mercedes, Shanghai International Circuit, 2018

Bottas “so hungry for the win” after two near-misses

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Valtteri Bottas says he’s “so hungry” to win after coming close in Bahrain and China.

What they say

Bottas was asked if Sunday’s race was his strongest so far this year:

Yeah I think so. Qualifying was good, we just couldn’t match Ferrari, but against my team mate it was fine.

And race pace was good, it definitely felt today like I could get everything out of the car there was to get. But unfortunately the end result wasn’t what we wanted.

I’m looking forward to Baku, it’s another opportunity. And now it’s two races in the row the win has been so close. I’m so hungry for the win.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Will a much higher rev limit and the removal of the fuel flow limit allow drivers to push flat out all the time in 2021?

I don’t think Liberty nor anybody within F1 really thinks that it would be a race full of qualifying laps, as there are other things to conserve, but I think the intention is that we should no longer hear on the radio that a driver is running to a delta time, and not actually racing in the pinnacle of racing, due to fuel conservation.

In other words, I envision that a driver, when it is appropriate to race due to circumstance, and tyre states etc… will not have to hold back due to fuel concerns. i.e. of course this doesn’t mean all drivers will be driving full out at all times. Just that at any and all times, when it is necessary to race someone, they can, and will not have to worry about fuel.
@Robbie

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Alan and Consi!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

Quotes: Dieter Rencken

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories RaceFans Round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 67 comments on “Bottas “so hungry for the win” after two near-misses”

    1. @ COTD: We’ll go back to Schumi days where only two teams ran for the WDC and everyone knew only two guys would be able to do it. Especially now with the PU-limits, you’ll have people striking birds in FP and see their entire seasons ruined, because you wouldn’t be able to tune the rev and fuel limit engine’s down. People don’t get it because they are all like sheep when they hear a GP is boring because of conserving tyres. Which isn’t true, but explaining a vortex and front-wing or disturbance and the FIA money-model will never work with 70% of viewers. You either have Le Mans like perfection or spectacle as in GP2 or GP3. This is the future. You can’t have both.

      Btw….
      Maybe just like Toyota lacked creativeness to work with the UK-centric politics of the sport, maybe Ferrari without Brawn lacks the create intelligence for the post-millennial F1 world, but every weekend Ferrari seems to lower the bar. That’s also why I hinted Danny Ric would suddenly emerge as Nr.1 driver at RBR: Ferrari can’t play with 2 drivers. Nobody will survive that there. @peartree
      Does anyone still get how Ferrari plans to win this WDC? I kept thinking, you’ll run a longer first stint in China as everyone will be stuck, you go for a 2 stopper cause you can undercut very effectively on Shanghai at the end of the second stint on the S, you finish on the US. And the RBR would’ve had harder and older tyres in the last stint so they’d be dead weight and the Ferrari could overtake with softer tyres.
      But nah, they give Kimi a 1 stopper, cause, ”ah, they’ll have to pass him, you know, and they can get slowed down”….. look, Ferrari wants to WDC, with Vettel. Done, We know that. But how on earth can that whole room of strategists not find anything more useful than ”You know what, keep him out, he’ll slow Seb’s opponents”. If their numbers actually showed it would’ve helped Vettel, they need to give me the lottery numbers as well or get the broom.
      Ferrari keeps wasting their chances to luck Kimi in a WDC. It’s not like he’s Heidfeld… he can…well could do this.

      1. That engine thing explained: If all PUs will run with more performance comparable with what we now call STRAT mode 10/12 because of less restrictions, it will look like ’14 again. Most teams don’t have the budget or the people to get it right, even with 1,5 year preparation. Even with no MGU-H. History proved that. Simple as that.

    2. I disagree with the COTD. If the engineers thinks that 90 kilos is the optimum amount of fuel, even if you put a 300 kilos limit, they still will be putting 90, telling the driver to manage the fuel, and stick to a delta. If Liberty don’t want us to hear about fuel management, they’ll keep doing the same as they’ve been doing: not broadcasting those radio messages unless is good for the show.

      1. I thought the same thing. It doesn’t matter if the tank size is increased if teams know they won’t likely need or want to fill it to capacity every race, and even more so with the current power unit regulations. With only three available units of each component, teams aren’t going to be running flat out all the time because they don’t want to wear out the precious few parts they have to work with.

      2. There is always some element of fuel saving but it won’t be nearly as bad as it is now. And I think liberty is already censoring the fuel comments from the drivers. We don’t hear any fuel saving comments from the drivers during a race even if the fuel saving is currently at an all time high in f1.

      3. Actually that means you agree with the COTD then @matiascasali, because that also states that while it will be allowed/possible, there are still enough reasons not to go full out in the race.

        You are spot on that engineers will calculate whether it is better to put in all the fuel and lose time from being heavy or rather underfuel and have to count on SC/VSC or a lull in the race with fuelsaving to make it to the flag. We saw that happening more or less all the time in the last years of the V8 engines too.

        1. I think the fuel saving could also increase if the kinetic energy recovery factor increases. The way the energy recovery works is that most of the recovery (or energy generation) happens in braking zones. The easiest way to recharge the energy is to coast into a corner in braking zone and let the energy recovery slow down the car.

          In the end the physics is pretty simple. You use the energy where you you get the biggest lap time out of it and save it or generate it where it hurts your lap time the least. Coasting into corners in these hybrids saves fuel and recharges the batteries which you can then use elsewhere. The energy is consumed accelerating out of corners because that is where the biggest lap time gains come from. From acceleration. Not top speed. And in the next braking zone you coast again to recover some of that energy.

          The hybrids can do one lap without coasting, maybe two if you harvest some energy all the time because nobody wants to coast on qualifying lap but in a race it is coasting into every long braking zone. And because you are coasting to recharge the batteries you have bigger incentive to also coast to also save fuel. Just another reason why hybrids suck as racing engines. It is all about slowing down so you can harvest or save energy.

      4. @keithcollantine Thank you for COTD. Seems it is continuing the discussion.

        @matiascasali While you are right that they are still going to put in the minimum amount of fuel needed, a higher or no limit to the amount of fuel available at least provides teams with options other than not racing due to having to conserve fuel. Obviously Liberty’s approach is not to simply shelter us from radio chatter that involves fuel savings, but rather to open up the racing in the pinnacle of racing, and give the teams the option such that even if we heard all the radio chatter all day, we would not be hearing of drivers told to not race due to fuel issues.

        You give an example of 90kg of fuel. What if a team was confident enough in their engine reliability over 7 races that they can crank their engine up and even at the max of 105 kg they still have to sit and run delta times and not race at a time when they really would prefer to be on it? If they could have just put even a few more kilos in the car, they extra bit of weight might have been well worth actually being able to race in the pinnacle of racing, rather than just trundling along. I don’t think Liberty thinks it is enthralling for fans to hear of drivers not allowed to race in F1, when passing is already hard enough as it is.

        1. it’s a bit difficult to me to discuss this, remember english isn’t my first language! but, you may take an example on airplanes: they don’t fill the tanks up, they put the bare minimum. Why? because the extra consumption because more weight of the fuel itself. In F1, every kilo counts, right? how many tenths faster can a PU go with more fuel? how many tenths that extra kilos of fuel means? is a good idea to overload the tyres, the PU, the brakes with those extra kilos? that’s the point, not the reliability of the PU.
          Today they have a limit of 105 kilos, and i’m pretty sure that they run with 95 or less fuel, because as the weight is costly in lap times, in tyres and brakes. So, unless you had a 110 kilos limit, but you can refuel as the race go (start with 60 kilos, and then put the other 50), but i don’t see any team wanting to carry all the refueling equipement, less so when they’re trying to reduce costs. And another thing: this PU are getting to 50% thermal efficiency wich is pretty much amazing (considering a normal road car barely hits 30%), and it is only because fuel flow and amount limitation. I would surely keep it that way.

          1. @matiascasali I think your English is great for someone for whom it is not their first language.

            I do take your point about the minimum amount of fuel, and therefore weight they put in the car, and the trade off that exists between having a slightly faster car due to slightly less fuel, vs having to take something off one’s lap times voluntarily in order to finish the race. It’s a very valid argument that the teams live with all the time.

            So I can only assume there is more to it than that if indeed Liberty has made the claim that this would help the teams race full out more. Perhaps indeed some teams are needing the full 105kg now, and still have to conserve and therefore would love a few more kilos so they don’t have to spend some laps underperforming just to finish. Liberty has also talked about higher revs for more performance and louder engines, and they would all burn more fuel with higher revs. Just not sure the order of what happens soon and what happens only with the next gen of cars in 2021.

    3. COTD is wrong. There are multiple reasons for fuel conservation – technical and sporting both. Technical reasons include things like conserving engines for 7 races; these can be fixed by modifying rules. But nothing can be done about the sporting reasons. Consider below:

      If the car is qualified on pole and you expect to drive in clean air for most of the race and only need to break out of DRS range by lap 3; the engineer is likely to fill up 1-2 kg lesser than the fuel limit for several reasons as below: 1) Lighter car will break out of DRS faster, 2) Although there is insufficient fuel, there may be a SC or VSC which will ensure some fuel savings 3) If there is no SC / VSC, there will be phases in race with no traffic and fuel can be saved there.

      1. Read this article for more detail:
        https://www.pitpass.com/54081/Lift-and-coast-explained

        To summarize, “lift and coast”, “fuel saving” can be eliminated only if in-race refueling is brought back. But I don’t think that should be done. Fuel saving is a better problem to have than race-fueling and associated ‘passing in pits’

        1. @sumedh I don’t see how I am wrong in your opinion, when you seem to agree with what I have said. In my first sentence I comment that ‘there are other things to conserve.’

          What I was commenting on came from the comment Liberty made that there would be full out racing all the time with no fuel limit, followed by immediate responses by posters to say there is never full out racing all the time due to tire and component conservation. I stated that I’m pretty sure Liberty gets that too, therefore their comment must mean not literally a race full of everyone doing quali laps, but rather just that at any given time during a race, when appropriate, all other conservation in mind, fuel will no longer be another obstacle to racing in the pinnacle of racing.

          Your scenario of the guy on pole doesn’t account for the other 19 guys in the track. And of course teams are not going to put in more fuel ie. weight in the car than necessary, but perhaps being allowed just a few more kilos will be worth it for them in terms of the weight of they don’t have to spend a portion of the race trundling along, holding station out of fear of fuel, when they could be lapping faster and catching up to somebody.

          I’m sure Liberty’s intention here is to promote racing in the pinnacle of racing, and perhaps they get that F1 is supposed to be more akin to a sprint than a WEC race, as many fans have pointed out.

      2. But will that happen?! Will that happen enough times in a season to really make a difference? What do you do if the team behind is starting on a faster tyre (like RBR did in China compared to Ferrari and Mercedes)?! Then, what if the teams behind fill up the tanks at max and raise the power, hoping for the best… how’s the car in front supposed to keep behind a car using the party mode for 1 lap to make the overtake?! So, agree it might work for from time to time, but pretty sure it’s not the best formula for any given situation. Works for me tho, more strategies increases the chances to have better racing.

      3. it’s not completely true to say that fuel saving=engine saving – actually, running the engines lean puts a strain on them and that is one of the reasons we are hearing more about fuel savings this season: they need to run a richer fuel map to conserve the health of the engines.

    4. I think we need a minimum fuel limit… say 105 kg, which is the current limit (or 100 kg also is fine if cars are being underfuelled today). That’ll incentivize teams to burn it through the (first part of the) race, rather than carry it through to the chequered flag.

      1. Hm, but then you take out the advantage of an engine being more efficient with its fuel (like Mercedes vs the Ferrari now, and in the past the Renault used to be less thirsty) @phylyp. I don’t really see the need to push teams to use a minimum of fuel.

        1. Isn’t this fuel argument about driving harder for longer?

          More fuel should mean driving in ‘race mode’ for longer and no ‘oil burning’ to get that advantage over the rest. The down side is you carry more weight as fuel, plus there’s the extra strain on the engine being driven harder.

          This just adds another level of strategy but should allow the poorer teams to compete where their engines aren’t as efficient.

        2. Well it should be a race of who can drive fastest. Not about who can save the most amount of fuel. And efficiency is not just about saving fuel. It is also about using what you have as efficiently as possible to generate the most amount of power out of the fuel load. Everybody agrees that fuel saving is boring (I think even you) and minimum fuel limit could be a nice way to solve it.

          1. A better way to say it:
            Efficiency is not just about using as little fuel as possible. It is also about getting the most amount of power out of the fuel.

      2. jsw11984 (@jarred-walmsley)
        18th April 2018, 22:51

        Something that I think could be looked at is the Australian Supercars approach, which is to have refuelling, but also have a minimum fuel dump.

        i.e During the race you must add 100L of fuel to your fuel tank, this would minimise the concerns regarding pitstops having a massive influence on the race on how much is added, as all cars would need to add the same level of fuel.

        This should encourage more racing as teams will know they have to add a certain level of fuel, so they may as well burn as much as they can by racing hard.

    5. Even with the planned increase in total fuel capacity, I doubt they’d still get entirely rid of ‘fuel-saving’ as it’s faster to start a race under-fuelled rather than with a full tank. Furthermore, fuel-saving has always existed in F1 to some extent even during the refuelling era, of course, not to the same extent as since the ban on it, but still.

    6. This driver weight saving is going out of hand. Bottas is now so hungry for a win and had to skip two. Maybe let.the boy eat?

      1. Ahahahahahaaaaaaaa.

      2. ;)
        But we now know that will be gone in 2019: minimum driver/seat weight and Bottas might be gone as well (failing to attack VET, only shutting door halfway with RIC).

      3. Seriously though. I see Mercedes as up to the same shenanigans. Their efforts to bolster their B-driver with a token win is costing them points. The result is you have Hamilton being ‘oddly’ out performed by Bottas who still lacks the race craft to match the Ferraris.

        If they must do this then only do this on tracks where Hamilton stands a chance of overtaking, at least then we can say it provides ‘entertainment’, even if it’s not quite sporting.

        You could then argue by not driving the car as hard in qualifying, you save the engine, or that you only need to drive the car ‘hard’ on those tracks were overtaking is otherwise impossible.

        At the very least your A-driver should be kept in the loop and not left floundering for answers where his car has been poorly set up.

        1. They are leading WCC, must be doing something right.

    7. Slightly surprised thsi excitement about Ricciardo and Red Bull as title contenders. They won a great race but only courtesy of a well timed strategy that gave them a vastly superior tyre advantage. On a normal day, they’re well off the Mercedes and Ferrari pace.

    8. Why would the win in China convince Ricciardo to stay? If anything it proved that he can win despite the car. If I were him I’d move. But he needs to be careful: as much as RB adore Verstappen and on pace he seems to have Ric for now, at least he has parity. Will he at Ferrari, at Merc?

      1. @hahostolze I agree that he has to be very careful. His choices now are going to determine if he becomes WDC, as he’s shown he certainly has the ability if he can get the machinery.

        With regards to the parity though, we have to ask if he really wants parity if it is only coming at the cost of having a non-WDC car… Would RBR be providing parity if they were racing at the front?

        Personally I think he should go to Maranello (although I’d love to see RBR bring him to a three-way fight) and reignite the rivalry with Seb. He’s a known quantity and he handled him before. Can he do it again now…?

        1. I’d like to see him at Maranello too. But two issues. One, Vettel has that team eating out of the palm of his hand. They’re his, and that will be very difficult even subconsciously to change. Secondly, that whole 2014 story really doesn’t mean Ricciardo would do it again. It was one season of a difficult car and flukes. Obviously Ricciardo believes he can, and perhaps he should believe that, but it’s by no means certain.

      2. @hahostolze

        at least he has parity. Will he at Ferrari, at Merc?

        At Mercedes.. yes. At Ferrari… highly doubtful.

        1. If we take last year as example, he won’t have parity in any of those two.

          Regardless, it is also up to him if he bows down to the team or stands up

      3. I really doubt he can beat Lewis at Mercedes. He might beat Vettel but the risk of being a nr 2 driver is significant. And his situation at redbull is really depending on Max’s development. Max is already faster, so it seems to me all 3 of his options are risky. So I’d go where you think the car is quickest.

        1. Yeah, if Ricciardo has true innate self belief that he can beat anyone he should go where the fastest car is. But does he really have that belief? If you’re not the best on pure pace, not enough races might come along where being smart and steady wins the race. Verstappen is already showing him up, will Vettel, Hamilton? Even Bottas, maybe?

      4. @hahostolze I think that’s his biggest problem. He’s pretending he’s valuable real estate in a market with zero buyers.

        ‘I want to be with the best car’: Ricciardo demands more from Red Bull (the Sydney Morning Herald)

        This indicates, or he pretends to, he has another option already available. But I simply don’t believe either Mercedes or Ferrari are even remotely interested. They want Vettel and Hamilton for the foreseeable future, and when eventually either of the two retire there will be a big war between the two for Verstappen. That is if Red Bull by then haven’t built another real championship contender.

        The only option besides those is either McLaren but that’s a big dream, or Renault. Both need to make massive strides before top drivers will see them as an option towards championships.

        In the meantime the breeding chambers are filling up with younger talent, LeClerc, Sainz, Ocon, Norris, …

        My idea is that within the top three teams nobody will move in 2019. In 2020 Kimi will finally retire and that’ll open up the market. And my guess is that Ricciardo will not even be considered.

        On top I’m also fairly convinced 2014 was possible Ricciardo his best season combined with Vettel his worst. Verstappen has been making quite some mistakes and still Ricciardo has his hands full beating him. I don’t think Ricciardo is a match for either Hamilton or Vettel when both perform at 90%.

        1. @flatsix I’m with you, 2014 was anomalous yet it’s being held as some sort of permanent indicator of his ability. If anything 2016 was more, and he stood out that season because Hamilton didn’t win the WDC, Rosberg did despite not being the best, the Ferrari was a bad car and Verstappen was still learning the ropes. Ricciardo does have this ungraspable ability to fly under the radar in races and suddenly pop up in really promising positions, and he actually has the goods to make those moments stick – his China win really was impressive for his self control and tactical thinking, which Verstappen still lacks. But will Ricciardo ever be good enough to do what Vettel and Hamilton do, utterly dominate a race (Verstappen already did that twice last year) or even race-weekend? All his wins are from outside the top three. All his wins come from some form of anomaly. Teams look to a team leader to be able to consistently ride out front. Even at RB, I think Verstappen is more likely to be that person than Ricciardo.

        2. Agree, except for the part where RIC is not a match for HAM or VET even when performing at 90%. In my opinion, I think both will have to perform at max most of the time to beat RIC over the length of a season. I agree that 2014 is not very relevant, but we’ve got a glimpse of what might happen: that RIC is no VER, that he’s fast enough, consistent and lucky so things won’t be easy for VET or even HAM. Overall, I think RIC is at the same level with ROS – but a better wheel-to-wheel racer, not fully tier1 material (like HAM, VET, ALO), but better than tier2 material (BOT, MAS). Plus, the age favours him too: 2 year younger than VET, +4 years younger than HAM. Pretty sure he’ll be quite a pain in the back, at least the way ROS has been for HAM all these recent years, but I tend to think he’ll be more the nightmare HAM was to ALO back in 2007.

          1. Danny Ric is the new Jenson Button except he can overtake. Really, really well.

        3. @flatsix @hahostolze Agree with what both of you are saying re DR.

          And I was quite surprised to see, ahead of the Martin Brundle commentary above “Ricciardo becomes a contender for the 2018 title.” Maybe by virtue of just gaining 25 points he’s bolstered his standing after 3 races and therefore on paper looks to be in the running…but…over the season? a contender for the WDC? I think the vast majority would disagree with that.

          I don’t dislike DR, but I can’t call myself a fan or a supporter either. He simply has never enthralled me. I was impressed with what he did in China, but with an asterisk…he was on vastly better tires due to the lottery that can happen when a safety car comes out. For sure he made some great moves, and was more in control than Max, but he also made a ‘hero to zero’ type move on a compliant VB that could have gone as wrong for him as Max’s moves did. Had he made contact, totally different story.

          This to say it is not like DR has now set the tone and will be rushing up through the field for the win every time now. There were unique circumstances that led to his win. I would also say that if Max was already the slightly more thoughtful person that he needs to become, ahead of making moves that perhaps could have waited for a better spot, then he’d be already quite outperforming DR and would have won China instead of DR. Max already has out qualified DR 2 out of 3 times, picking up where he left off last season. Max lead DR for the majority of the race until his run off the track behind LH allowed DR through.

          So yeah I think it will be very interesting to see where DR ends up next year. I think that unless he goes to Renault to form the team around himself, he’s going to be a strong natural number two driver at Merc, Ferrari, or RBR.

        4. Everybody keeps talking about Ferrari & Mercedes being his only options. (Or staying at RBR)

          I think Dan’s had enough of the Max worship and will leave RBR if he has a drive to go to as long as it’s a good car or has the potential to be a good car.

          He’s not particularly bothered about going up against another driver, but would be I think if it was plainly obvious that the team favoured only one of them ( Vettel in Ferrari’s case, maybe not so much Hamilton in the case of Merc) so you can rule out Ferrari.

          For mine, I see him doing what Hamilton did whe he joined Mercedes – they were “upper midfield” but had plans to get to the top. (And of course have)

          So the choice is really a choice of 1 – Renault are the only team that fit that category. Instead of making a play for Alonso again, I see Renault being prepared to pay Dan the big $ to join them and move them to the top in 2 or 3 years.

      5. RB adore Verstappen and on pace he seems to have Ric for now

        There is more than pure pace which wins you points and races, @hahostolze.
        In China VER might have been a tad (if any) faster, but RIC’s overtakes were smoother (even when disregarding VER’s bumper car move on VET).

        1. True. No denying that. But if you are in the best car, pace is what wins you races, pace from the front. Being second-fastest means you finish second.

          1. You’re full of it.

      6. If anything Ferrari should take him. And he should accept. As long as there is MaxV, he is #2 anway.

    9. Interesting views on Ricciardo here. I think we should always bear in mind the unpredictable. He may not be the out and out fastest driver compared to Hamilton, Vettel or Verstappen. However as we all know the fastest driver doesn’t always win the championship. Even in the same car.

      Did anyone really think Rosberg would win over Hamilton? All it needs is for one if them to have an off season or too many non results. I am still not convinced Verstappen will turn out to be as great as everyone thinks over the long term either.

      Of course none of this means that the Merc or Ferrari are willing to take the risk of upsetting their current stars. It depends if either team think there is any advantage to be gained by having Ricciardo in the car rather than Bottas or Kimi. I am pretty sure Ric would be as fast or faster than both but there are other issues in play. Especially at Ferrari.

      1. On Rosberg’s win – I would say in hindsight he was ‘gifted’ that win by the highers-ups in Mercedes. He still representing the ‘brand’ with that image as a former world champion.

        1. Sure. Why wait for so long then, not knowing their dominance would stretch so far? Ros beat Ham fair and square. Cope with reality, don’t try to alter it.

      2. Ricciardo was routinely faster than vettel in their one season together.

    10. Was that a dig to his teammate? “I’m hungrier than Lewis.”
      I shall respect Bottas more.

      1. How does “I’m so hungry for the win” translate to “I’m hungrier than Lewis?”

    11. But not hungry enough to late-brake Vettel into turn one.

      1. Or hungry enough to firmly close the door on RIC in China.

    12. The only season of F1 I can recall where an eventual drivers champion didn’t win one of the first three races was 2012 and Vettel won the fourth race that year.

      Funnily enough this season for Hamilton is starting to remind me a little of his 2012 season. Consistent points early on with wins slipping through his fingers and a very competitive car being squandered by niggling details in the race.

      1. @philipgb – 2012… is that the year Massa and Hamilton kept banging wheels like they were in love?

        1. @phylyp No, that was the preceding before (2011).

          1. @phylyp ‘preceding season.’

          2. Thank you @jerejj – that season was amusing, it almost felt like a Murphy’s law: “If Hamilton and Massa are within collision distance, they will make contact”.

        2. @phylyp

          Yeah as @jerejj said that was 2011

          Hamilton came into 2012 like a new driver, he tempered his speed and aggression and I think this was his turning point as a driver.

          Bernie Ecclestone summed it up towards the end of the season when he was asked who he thought deserved to win (at the point at which only Vettel or Alonso could) and he responded “probably Lewis”.

          1. @philipgb – ah, so this was the season where the seeds of his move to Mercedes for 2013 were sown. To be honest, if it took 2012 to help him make that decision, then it was worth it, as he went to a team where he could demonstrate his skill well, and not get caught up in McLaren’s woes.

            1. @phylyp

              Yeah in 2012 Hamilton drove a nearly flawless season. He got wiped out by Maldonado and Grosjean, and there was a catalogue of operational errors and reliability problems that deprived him of several wins.

              Singapore was the last straw for him though ironically it was a Mercedes provided part that failed that race.

          2. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
            18th April 2018, 22:06

            It wasn’t just Massa although that was a guaranteed collision. Someone on this forum had come up with the perfect word for it – the South American Brigade or something crazy like that.

            McLaren would put Lewis always behind Massa and I think Dave Hobbs was wondering if that was simply coincidental because it was hilarious and just didn’t make any sense whatsoever.

            I think Massa would ruin Lewis’ race and Lewis would get drive through penalties on top of that – it was pretty insane. Wasn’t there some contact (a tap on the shoulder and some words) in an interview as well?

            I think after that crazy year, Lewis really upped his wheel-to-wheel racecraft – his pushes became very measured giving the other driver time to react and correct and avoid a collision.

            He’s also very careful at the starts of the race – he’s paranoid drivers will clip him on the 1st few turns.

    13. “Red Bull win confirmed belief in Renault’s engine (Racer)

      Daniel Ricciardo’s victory in the Chinese Grand Prix was confirmation of Renault’s belief that it had a power unit capable of beating Mercedes and Ferrari in a straight fight this season.”

      Really Renault? Why pretend they won on pure pace? They won a half-distance dash on brand spanking new, softer tires, from a strategy that the leaders couldn’t use.

    14. I think the comments about Ricciardo not being a match for Lewis or Seb are a little off. Put him in a Merc or Ferrari and I would bet a lot of money he would be more than a match for both of them. Maybe not in his first season as he gets used to the car/team but after that I would see him beating either of them. I really hope to see him away from Red Bull next season.

    15. What a shocking news about Barrichello! Hadn’t heard at all about his failing healthiness. So glad to hear he is recovering exceptionally well.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
    If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.