|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
View Poll Results: Who do you think? | |||
Mercedes | 3 | 7.89% | |
Williams | 0 | 0% | |
Ferrari | 9 | 23.68% | |
Red Bull | 24 | 63.16% | |
Force India | 1 | 2.63% | |
Toro Rosso | 0 | 0% | |
McLaren | 1 | 2.63% | |
Haas | 0 | 0% | |
Renault | 0 | 0% | |
Sauber | 0 | 0% | |
Manor | 0 | 0% | |
Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
16 May 2016, 08:50 (Ref:3642031) | #1 | ||
Admin
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,058
|
Team Of The Grand Prix: Spanish GP 2016
Which team excelled in Spain?
|
||
|
16 May 2016, 09:09 (Ref:3642035) | #2 | ||
Llama Assassin and Sheep Botherer
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,212
|
Mercedes for their team formation exit.
|
||
|
16 May 2016, 09:13 (Ref:3642038) | #3 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,756
|
Red Bull.
|
|
|
16 May 2016, 09:24 (Ref:3642043) | #4 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 10,320
|
Err maybe Red Bull? Although they did cock up a bit on strategy. Trouble is pretty much everyone else cocked something up as well.
|
||
|
16 May 2016, 09:53 (Ref:3642048) | #5 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,888
|
RBR, who the hell voted for mercs and ferrari, voting should be about performance in the race and nothing else
|
||
|
16 May 2016, 09:58 (Ref:3642050) | #6 | ||
Admin
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,058
|
I voted Ferrari as I believe they improved in the race compared to their performance over the weekend, and if you're going just by performance in the race, 2nd and 3rd is pretty good performance in my book.
|
||
|
16 May 2016, 10:30 (Ref:3642059) | #7 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 10,320
|
I tend to base it on performance over the whole weekend - Williams for example screwed up their race in qualifying by losing Massa in Q1, so although Massa recovered well in the race he could (would/should?) have finished much higher if they hadn't made an arse of qualifying.
|
||
|
16 May 2016, 10:52 (Ref:3642067) | #8 | |
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 18,834
|
Difficult but at the end I voted for RBR.
|
|
|
16 May 2016, 11:32 (Ref:3642080) | #9 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,419
|
Mercedes, of course, for being so kind to gift us such a gloriously marvellous race.
|
|
|
16 May 2016, 15:01 (Ref:3642125) | #10 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,949
|
Quote:
but in the end i gave it to RB for what is in hindsight an inspired driver selection choice. |
|||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
16 May 2016, 15:31 (Ref:3642142) | #11 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,742
|
Ferrari.
|
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
16 May 2016, 17:41 (Ref:3642187) | #12 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 734
|
I'll vote for Merc if they can promise to screw up a bit more, because when they do the race is fantastic. But if they can't promise, Red Bull
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk |
||
__________________
Eat, sleep, race, repeat. |
16 May 2016, 18:35 (Ref:3642214) | #13 | ||
14th
1% Club
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 44,011
|
Mercedes, they were just let down by their drivers.
|
||
__________________
Brum brum |
16 May 2016, 18:58 (Ref:3642225) | #14 | ||
Team Crouton
20KPINAL
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 39,931
|
Red Bull.
|
||
__________________
280 days...... |
16 May 2016, 22:45 (Ref:3642275) | #15 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,971
|
Well, Mercedes shot themselves in both feet, so they're out for a start. Ferrari under-performed in qually. Red Bull exceeded expectations (Max especially) and their only failing was to split the strategy and give Smiler the bum deal. In other circumstances the split strategy might have looked smart, but not yesterday. No-one else got me especially excited so RBR gets my vote.
|
||
__________________
The older I get, the faster I was. |
16 May 2016, 23:49 (Ref:3642284) | #16 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
RBR, made the call to switch drivers which came off spectacularly and scored more points than anyone else.
Let Dani Ricc down a bit, but it was probably the right call at the time. |
|
|
17 May 2016, 03:09 (Ref:3642316) | #17 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,525
|
Ferrari. Red Bull made a hash of the strategy and only managed a 1st and 4th when a 1st and 2nd was on the cards after Mercedes self destructed.
|
||
__________________
ยินดีที่ได้รู้จัก |
17 May 2016, 04:35 (Ref:3642325) | #18 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 825
|
Ferrari. Good results from a car that wasn't quite there. Kudos to Red Bull also.
|
||
|
18 May 2016, 18:13 (Ref:3642699) | #19 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 6,635
|
Both Red Bull drivers did a great race, and is to note that ALL four Red Bull-sponsored cars entered on poins. So my vote is defined.
|
||
|
24 May 2016, 10:33 (Ref:3644047) | #20 | |
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,114
|
What is really interesting to me is what exactly went on with Red Bull and Ferrari's strategies. There are some intriguing questions here.
So, although Pirelli had been talking about a 3-stop being theoretically quicker, that theory didn't take account of the difficulty of overtaking in Barcelona and how 2-stoppers would have to do more of that. The degradation levels were shown to be fine for two stops on Friday. Why did Red Bull switch Ricciardo's strategy? And then when Ferrari saw they were, why did they switch Vettel's? Both Ricciardo and Vettel were planning to do two. Ricciardo stopped on Lap 11 and then Vettel ran until Lap 15. It was clear at this point that at least Vettel was intending to 2-stop. Ricciardo had track position and was stroking his tyres before he got called in on only Lap 28, thereby committing him to a 2-stop strategy. Christian Horner said after the race that they were pre-empting Ferrari going aggressive on strategy with a 3-stop, to assure the win. Perhaps they were, but if they were going to split the strategies, wouldn't it have been better to put the second car on the more aggressive strategy? Perhaps they really believed that Ferrari, with underlying pace in their car which they had not shown in qualifying, would seize the initiative with a 3-stopper and so they could get the undercut on Vettel. However, with Ricciardo out front a comfortable distance in front, I think Daniel would have had enough in reserve to cover any attempt at the undercut. So, instead of Ricciardo's tyre saving having been a good reason to negate the negative effect of running slower than optimum, he had been unnecessarily driving slightly slowly on a 3-stop strategy which was to become a 2. Red Bull having made what at least retrospectively transpired to be an error, Ferrari then made a bigger gaffe, one of which I don't see why it wasn't at least obvious to their strategists. They followed Ricciardo in one lap later. Why did they do this? They didn't have the undercut and they condemned him to remain behind Ricciardo, on the same strategy and on a track that's difficult to overtake on (if you can't get good drive out of the final sector as their other car later couldn't to stand a chance against eventual Grand Prix winner Max Verstappen). I therefore can't vote for Ferrari nor Red Bull. Williams finished 5th and 8th, with Massa having a good result but they were a long way off the battle up front. Mercedes were quick all weekend as usual, but didn't figure in the race of course. McLaren are an option, just because of the improvement, but with one car failing like that, it makes me say no. Toro Rosso did well, although I'm more impressed with Sainz's performance in this race than the team doing anything spectacular. I'm going to abstain this time, I'm afraid! |
|
|
24 May 2016, 16:00 (Ref:3644103) | #21 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,949
|
i thought it was smart to hedge their bets.
personally i like the mixed strategy/split strategy approach as i find that more preferable then keeping both drivers on the same strategy and then forcing on one of the cars the less optimal version of it (either having them stop a lap earlier or a lap later/making them subject to the undercut). for me they were both looking for the win as opposed to what has become the typical Williams approach of just going for points and somewhat afraid of ever taking a chance to aim for the top step or the Merc approach of needing to keep everything equal. so i guess i found both Ferrari's and RB's approach a bit old school and refreshing in that decisions were made on the pit wall and not based on some computer model which said what the optimal theoretical strategy should be and then being bound by it....so imo i dont think they messed up at all. quite the opposite really in that it showed flexibility that said, that was just my perception as i havent read anything yet from them talking about the logic of their decisions. |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
25 May 2016, 04:36 (Ref:3644234) | #22 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,525
|
|||
__________________
ยินดีที่ได้รู้จัก |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Official] Spanish Grand Prix 2016: Grand Prix Weekend Thread | Born Racer | Formula One | 175 | 1 Jun 2016 00:05 |
[Official] Team of the Grand Prix: Chinese Grand Prix 2016 | Born Racer | Formula One | 19 | 19 Apr 2016 10:05 |
[Official] Team of the Grand Prix: Bahrain Grand Prix 2016 | Born Racer | Formula One | 23 | 9 Apr 2016 02:46 |
[Official] Team of the Grand Prix: Australian Grand Prix 2016 | Born Racer | Formula One | 39 | 25 Mar 2016 13:57 |
[Official] Team of the Grand Prix: Spanish Grand Prix 2015 | Born Racer | Formula One | 13 | 11 May 2015 04:24 |