We're completing the circle. You've had your say on what we wrote after the Belgian GP. Now it's our turn to respond...
"Red Bull and Christian Horner will go down in history as one of the worst capitulations in F1 history, if they dont win the titles this year and no more than they deserve for their incompetence" - Mcgills.
PG: Somewhere between a little unfair and just downright harsh. Red Bull have scored a couple of spectacular own-goals but never underestimate the challenge of trying to beat two such giants behemoths as McLaren and Ferrari. Red Bull have a financial arsenal of their own but the size of the opponents they are fighting against is massive. It's also easy to forget that their car isn't armed with a f-duct (just as they didn't possess a double diffuser last season when they nearly managed to stop Button and Brawn). Looked at from that perspective, it's quite astounding that they are still the team to beat.
"Vettel has been overated ever since he joined Red Bull, and will not win a world championship any time soon. Webber is on a 'one season wonder' due to the speed of his car and will not get a better chance to win the title. Button has done far better than anyone could have expected this year, but only truly great drivers win back to back titles. Therfore despite shocking errors this year Alonso is still capable of doing something in the 2010 title race but its probaly too late for him to win it and the Ferrari is not the best car on the grid either. But he is the 2nd best driver in F1 currently, 3rd is Button, then Kubica. And you dont need me to tell you who is number one!" - Mcgills.
PG: Interesting that you dismiss Webber as a 'one-season wonder' without assessing his title chances. To use a laboured bit of word play, what's been impressive about Webber is that he has driven so wonderfully in what is probably destined to be his one and only season as a leading title challenger. Many, in the similar circumstances of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, would have crumbled. For Webber, it's inspired the form of his life.
"Glad someone finally mentioned Sutil, who keeps getting the most out of the car he has. But, the absence of any mention of Robert Kubica is odd, at least. Renault's pace seems to increase every race, and Kubica is still F1's most underrated driver" - Kevinish.
PG: I'm glad that Robert is staying on with Renault because it's good for F1 - and makes for good viewing - for there to be one of the elite drivers in the employment of a non-elite team. And with all due respect to Renault, they are no longer part of the elite.
Kubica has clearly thrived at Renault and relished having the team built around him. Perhaps he's one of those drivers who are at their best when a big fish in a small pond, rather than an equal-sized fish in a big pond?
"One other possible conclusion that got a bit lost in the weekend's variable weather conditions is that Red Bull has lost a big chunk of it's advantage to McLaren since they can no longer use their extra bendy front end and wings. The FIA introduced new tests at Spa, and though Red Bull claim they changed nothing, it was very obvious from photos and video over the weekend that the ground clearance at speed of the leading edge of the Red Bulls was much higher than in recent Grand Prix. At Hungary they had an 8/10ths advantage over McLaren. Here, Webber on a fully dry lap beat Hamilton by only 0.08, when Hamilton's lap was set when it was drizzling. In the race, McLaren were clearly faster, while in Hungary Red Bull had a 1 second advantage. Some of that may be due to the nature of the circuit, but not all that much. I think that the balance of the championship changed in more ways than one in Spa" - Stevem.
PG: Well that's one of the ongoing fascinations. I suspect that you've underestimated the extent to which a circuit's characteristic can alter the balance of power/speed - remember, Ferrari looked to be fastest of all in Hockenheim but Red Bull were in a league of one in Hungary.
My guessestimate is that the shift towards McLaren at Spa was 50% a consequence of Belgium suiting their cars and 50% a result of the Bulls having their wings clipped. But nobody, other than perhaps Adrian Newey, really knows. What should be stressed, however, is that with the long straights of Monza also likely to suit McLaren because it maximises the effect of the F-Duct, the team have essentially been given a month to put together a new aerodynamic package that should enable them to challenge and possibly even beat the Bulls on those circuits - such as Singapore - that currently don't suit them. For a team of McLaren's resource, one month should be ample time for them to produce a very competitive retort.
"At last some comment about how the Red Bulls seem to have serious problems getting off the line cleanly. So much has been made of the bulls, mainly Vettel seeing as he's been there more often, "throwing pole position away" - Redballs.
PG: Not quite for the first time. To quote from the Conclusions From Germany article:
'How different - and bereft of talking points - the last two races would have been if the pole-sitter had led into the first corner. Vettel was so bogged down on the line in Germany that, in his own words, he was "lucky not to stall". It is food for thought, and presumably an internal investigation at Red Bull, that Vettel has so far won just one of the six grands prix he has started from pole this season.'
What's as certain as Sunday following Saturday is that Red Bull will have been throwing plenty of time and resources at this problem over the last two months. Spa's revelation that they have still yet to find a solution is thus deeply concerning. If they haven't fixed it yet, the problem must be fundamental. And if the problem is fundamental, then it's unlikely to be cured before the season's end.
"It's a shame that so few people can be objective when LH is involved and people will no doubt argue I'm not objective because I don't agree with their opinion" - Ragerod.
PG: A shame? Only in terms of hindering debate. In terms of providing entertainment, Hamilton is F1's Box Office commodity because he divides opinion so vividly. He's the marmite of our sport: you either love him or hate him. For me, that's what makes him so fantastic to write about.
"PG, it wasn't luck that made Lewis win, it was a dominating performance from lights to flag. He had eked out a huge lead due to his amazing pace, he avoided beaching in the gravel by the correct touch on the throttle (he was only in there because his stupid team made him stay out a lap too long), and he negotiated the last tricky laps on intermediates with consummate skill. Not to mention his great start taking advantage of Webber's stall and defending against all the others barging through. Talk about taking credit away from a marvellous drive. P-F1's articles are so capricious" - Fluffy.
PG: Great use of the word 'capricious'.
Unfortunately, I think you've misread how the word 'luck' was used in the article. It was never used as an explanation for why Lewis won. The point being made was how Spa 2010 differed from China 2007 and how, whereas he was 'unlucky' to be beached in a Shanghai gravel trap approximately two yards short of tarmac, Lewis was 'lucky' to miss the barriers by millimetres on Sunday. Upon watching the race again, I'm not even sure he did miss the barriers. That's where the luck entered the equation - or, as Hamilton himself said, "The Lord definitely had his hand over me".
Basically, fate can be a capricious sod.
Pete Gill
