Vettel took the pole but had the slowest speed through the trap? I expect to see some of this reverse order stuff but that's extreme, esp. at Monza. Hard to imagine how they pulled that off. Analysis: Monza qualifying speed trap (gpupdate.net)
This year, it's more than just choosing a compromise between low drag (good on the straights, but slow on the corners) and higher downforce (quicker in the corners and probably quicker over a whole lap - but you can't overtake in corners). With DRS (drag reduction system) available all the time in practice, but only when following another car on the designated one or two straights in the race, they have choose between gearing that gives a good qualifying lap time (higher gearing, so that the car can run flat out with the DRS flap open - which will also overtake more easily with DRS in the race) and good general race setup (lower gearing, so the car runs up to max rpm and power on the straights without the DRS flap open). Remember that the standard ECU has a 18,000 rpm rev limiter, so that opening the DRS flap doesn't do you any good if you're already at 18,000 - you just bang into the rev limiter. I liked Martin Brundle's comment that "these cars feel dog slow if you only get to 17,000" (or words to that effect) - meaning that gearing the cars high to optimise DRS effect leaves them a lot slower the rest of the time. So one might expect Red Bull to be 'slow' on qualifying top speed (ie, with DRS flap open) as if you're quick enough to get pole position, you won't be doing much overtaking so you want a car that does quick laps in the race with the DRS shut. And it took me 30,000 iterations of my Fisher Price F1 Race Simulator ("makes authentic brmm, brmm noises"), including crying a spare set of AA batteries out of Mum, to work that out so don't be asking any tricky questions, or my rattle's going through the plasma screen.
Not sure how competitive over all it is to see the top three teams lap everyone else, but there were a lot of good scraps to watch. Good race. The podium ceremony is very impressive, indeed.
With all that is Monza, today's F1 was over when it started. Hard to believe that just a few weeks ago this F1 fan was so excited about the new found competitiveness and actually thought some teams might be catching up to the Red Bull dream wrecker that is Mr Vettel... Well after today's total domination by Vettel and Red Bull, we are left scratching our heads along with the other teams and drivers wondering if there is such a thing as kryptonite.... Congratulations Red Bull and Seb, well done indeed!!
All true, but it make one wonder (or at least this one) who well guys like Alguishari, Buemi, etc. who routinely make up several place from the starting grid would do in more competitive cars.
As always success of this magnitude is a convergence of talent occupying the same place in space and time...
Please, forgive the illiteracy of my previous post. I think one of the spell checkers went rogue on me. And yes, convergence is a factor. I think that was very much hinted at in the Senna documentary when they were discussing that one of the marks of a great driver was picking a winning/competitive team.
That goes both ways.. But don't you think it goes deeper than that? Convergence of the right driving skills, technology, personalities, etc., when the sum of the whole is greater than the some of the parts? 2 + 2 = 5?
Oh, absolutely. Look at Alonso experiment at McLearen. Given a best driver, team and an engineer, there is still a pinch of the magic potion that brings it all together that everyone is still trying to bottle consistently.
Couldn't a set of rules also be part of that convergence? A particular drivers, engineers, etc's talents and the technology a team possesses, may be magic under one set of rules and with another set, their combined efforts might merely be mediocre.....
Bear in mind that Formula 1, as a predominantly Europe-oriented sport, has always had a different balance between absolute competition and public entertainment than most American sports. In most years, one or two teams are dominant - because they have built the best interpretation of the rules. Ensuring equality between teams, so as to give the public the spectacle of lots of possible winning cars, has never been an objective - or at least, it didn't used to be, though maybe rule changes like cutting testing have benefited the lesser-funded teams more than others (then again, maybe not). It's odd that socialist Europe should want a dog-eat-dog sport whereas free market America should want a everybody-gets-a-turn-at-the-front sport, but that seems to be what we've got.
The "winning" team since there have been rules, has always been the team who best exploits the rule book, be it F1, NASCAR or at the local go cart track... Read: "The Unfair Advantage". The observations on the societal differences are very interesting too. But one could hardly refer to F1 as being Socialistic nor Democratic; it is by all definitions a Dictatorship, ruled by the great Bernie... Also find it interesting that here in America the most conservative, God fearing bunch of fans and the sanctioning bodies as a whole, want everyone to have the "opportunity" to win. Hardly sounds like a bunch of SOBs does it? But that is a whole another ball of wax and another thread... lol
Daimler CEO Zetsche: Formula One ‘not going satisfactorily’ STUTTGART - Daimler CEO Dieter Zetsche isn't satisfied with the results of the Mercedes-Benz GP Formula One Team and its drivers Michael Schumacher and Nico Rosberg. "Things are not going satisfactorily for the second season with the new team," Zetsche said in an interview with Automotive News Europe. "The hoped-for improvements have not been realized. But you can’t force it." Zetsche said he is confident that the team will win races and said Daimler's Formula One strategy will not be changed. He said: "Formula One has a huge presence, especially in all the important growth markets. It’s clear that a presence alone doesn’t go far enough but has to be demonstrated positively, with cars capable of winning. We have staying power." Source - Automotive News Euroupe
I would never suggest for a moment that the US attitude was 'socialist', just business-oriented - the fans like to see lots of competition at the front and so it's good business to 'design' a spectator sport to deliver that. In contrast, we Yurpeens tend to get a bit high and mighty about the purity of sporting competition particularly at the top of the motorsport pyramid. Intentionally interfering with a sporting event to make it more interesting for spectators tends to get frowned upon here, particularly by older gents in blazers - that was a common criticism of the pace/safety car idea when that was imported from the US into F1, as it was feared that it would get used for this purpose. Now we have gone some way the other way - touring cars get 'success ballast' to intentionally stop successful teams from running away with race series, and the second race of a two-race day uses a reverse grid for the top ten - in Britain, we even have a lottery-style draw to pick how many of the front cars get reverse-gridded! I've still never got over my first (ice) hockey game when my Canuckian friend pointed out one break in the play was to allow the TV station to fit some ads into their broadcast....
To the contrary I never took it at all that you were suggesting that our racing was Socialistic. Yes in the quest for equality and a good show we can muck with the rules too much. Think we call that professional wrestling...lol Being one that doesn't think a teams hard work should be taken away lightly, so that those that haven't can have success too..... I find it to be a bit of a metaphor for what we are going through socially, don't you think? Seb and Red Bull have put in the work to succeed the way they are and they should be congratulated for it!!