2017 Formula 1 Gulf Air Bahrain Grand Prix™

[Bobby Doorknobs]

No thread until now? Guys...

Bottas pole, though. Something to talk about, I reckon. Great to see.

[Paul Hayes]

Pleasantly surprised to see Bottas take pole!

[Spectoremg]

Palmer, WTF!

[good_Ralf]

Really happy for Bottas, although I don't expect him to beat Hamilton tomorrow. Still, it should be a decent race.

[mario]

Pleasantly surprised to see Bottas take pole!

I have to admit that was a real surprise - it shows how little it was expected when I think that pretty much everyone in the predictions thread put either Hamilton or Vettel instead of Bottas, who had shown OK but not stunning pace in the practise sessions.

Mind you, I do wonder if perhaps Bottas has orientated his car slightly more towards outright qualifying performance. Some commentators remarked that it looked as if Hamilton, Vettel and Raikkonen had a slight understeer bias to the handling of their cars over a single lap, but looked better over a race stint as rear tyre wear shifted the handling balance of their cars to a more neutral position: by contrast, Bottas looked better over a single lap but seemed to be weaker in race trim than Hamilton and the Ferrari's.

What might be of more concern to Ferrari is the gap in outright performance in qualifying trim when they introduced a number of noticeable updates to the front wing and floor assembly this weekend. However, there is talk that Ferrari were also forced to stiffen the floor of the car after allegations that track side cameras found evidence of excessive flexing of the floor under load - it would be interesting if that is the case.

It's also been a little troublesome for them in the practise sessions - they hope that Kimi's engine can be salvaged after his problems in practise, but it had forced him into changing the engine and turbocharger unit ahead of the race. If the temperatures during the race are as cool as anticipated, that might help ease some of the heat management issues Ferrari did seem to have in the earlier sessions.

[watka]

Don't know how much of it is true, but the BBC seem to suggest that Mercedes advantage is down to their qualifying engine mode which let's them turn up the wick more than Ferrari. Given that Bahrain is a pretty straight-heavy circuit, I can see how that adds up.

Looking down the timesheets, I did see that Wehrlein absolutely thumped Ericsson on his first race back. Sets Giovinazzi's performance back a bit in perspective, don't you think?

[mario]

Don't know how much of it is true, but the BBC seem to suggest that Mercedes advantage is down to their qualifying engine mode which let's them turn up the wick more than Ferrari. Given that Bahrain is a pretty straight-heavy circuit, I can see how that adds up.

Looking down the timesheets, I did see that Wehrlein absolutely thumped Ericsson on his first race back. Sets Giovinazzi's performance back a bit in perspective, don't you think?

There may be an element of that, but I think that it is a little oversimplistic to reduce it to just the engine alone being the main performance difference. After all, there have been some suggestions that Ferrari has essentially closed the power gap, or might even have surpassed Mercedes in terms of peak power - the talk over the winter was that Ferrari was putting a lot of effort into getting as much power as possible out of the engines, whereas Mercedes were biased more towards addressing some of the reliability issues that crept in last year.

As some have suggested, Bottas in particular seems to have set his car up with more of a focus on single lap performance, whereas Ferrari seem to have more of a bias towards the race (leaving them with a slight understeer bias over a single lap). We certainly heard Kimi repeatedly complaining about the car understeering much more than he wanted, and we also heard him complain about a strange imbalance in temperature in the tyres - we know that the track temperature was falling during the session, and it may be that Ferrari struggled to bring their tyres into the right operating window over a single lap.

Secondly, the motorsport website has claimed that Ferrari were forced to stiffen the floor of their car after complaints of excessive deflection in China, which may have trimmed back some of Ferrari's maximum performance.

It is also possible that, rather than Mercedes maxing out the performance of their cars, Ferrari might not have been pushing their engines quite as hard as Mercedes. Both Vettel and Raikkonen had major issues during the practise sessions, especially with the turbocharger unit failure for Kimi, so it is also possible that Ferrari might have been slightly wary of pushing their power units too hard after the earlier failures.

As for Wehrlein and Ericsson, I do agree that Wehrlein's relative performance in this race has put Giovinazzi in less of a favourable light, though it has to be said that this is probably an easier circuit for him to have made his return.

[CoopsII]

I think I enjoyed this race the most so far this season. Maybe it's because it's the first live one I've watched, maybe not. I've not read any press yet or seen any interviews as it the telly had to go off as soon as the chequered flag waved due to Easter family stuff (I'm 44! Why can't I watch what I want!?!?!?) but are the top drivers still enjoying the Love-In?

[DemocalypseNow]

I'm 44!

I knew you were a closet LewLew fanboy all along!


I think some of the signs are positive, and it was a shame certain events transpired to rob us of a closer fight for victory. Verstappen being removed from the mix because of his brake failure, Bottas unable to manage the tyre deg on his Mercedes well enough to capitalise on his qualifying slot.

I guess the real question I'm pondering is this; Does it make any difference when a two horse race is contested by competitors from different stables? The most fondly remembered contests for me are the ones with three (or more) major players - even if two are from the same team - rather than the head-to-head duels. But then maybe I'm just a bit strange.

[Aislabie]

I guess the real question I'm pondering is this; Does it make any difference when a two horse race is contested by competitors from different stables?

I would say that yes it does because it means there are two Championships on the line, rather than just the one.

[DemocalypseNow]

I guess the real question I'm pondering is this; Does it make any difference when a two horse race is contested by competitors from different stables?

I would say that yes it does because it means there are two Championships on the line, rather than just the one.

But is there? The second Ferrari is clearly behind the lead Ferrari and two Mercedes. If Raikkonen is constantly at risk of dropping points to the Red Bulls, then in reality the constructors' is a one-horse race, and only the WDC has any real competition to speak of.

[Aislabie]

I guess the real question I'm pondering is this; Does it make any difference when a two horse race is contested by competitors from different stables?

I would say that yes it does because it means there are two Championships on the line, rather than just the one.

But is there? The second Ferrari is clearly behind the lead Ferrari and two Mercedes. If Raikkonen is constantly at risk of dropping points to the Red Bulls, then in reality the constructors' is a one-horse race, and only the WDC has any real competition to speak of.

Granted, Raikkonen isn't driving brilliantly, but he's no David Walker. And currently Ferrari are three points ahead, so it's not a one-horse race yet by any means.

[DanielPT]

I guess the real question I'm pondering is this; Does it make any difference when a two horse race is contested by competitors from different stables? The most fondly remembered contests for me are the ones with three (or more) major players - even if two are from the same team - rather than the head-to-head duels. But then maybe I'm just a bit strange.

Not strange. It probably reflects on how you prefer to watch F1, which is with several drivers going at it. It is also a rarer occasion when teams and drivers are balanced in such a way that it allows for 3 or more drivers to fight for the championship. Which I think is different from what casual fans focus on and that is the simplest and easiest way of following: a head-to-head duel between rivals, a focus on the human side of the sport.

If you look at it, of the most discussed things in sport you find Hunt vs Lauda and Prost vs Senna, two of the greatest rivalries in F1. The casuals always liked to follow particular drivers and it shows when it comes to remember F1. After that driver retires, that rivalry will define that driver and even that era - as in the Schumacher era, people like to talk about those Hakkinen rivalry days as the highlight and the definition of that era and not, for instance, the 2003 title fight which, while didn't went to the final race, is still a 3-way battle and a great one at that. At least in my books.

I think this only breaks when we talk about hard fans who remember the sport for other personal details they prefer to see on it. Then again casuals see the hardcore fans as strange!

Take the much maligned rivalry between Hamilton and Rosberg, as another instance. Entirely fabricated for casuals at first, going even a bit silly at times, came full cycle with Rosberg's title and immediate retirement. I already miss it! It has all the factors to go into the history books: Spawns several seasons, has its human side story in that two friends became rivals, was really close in two of its three seasons and defined the F1 championship. I think it only lacks a really lasting controversy (and no, Hamilton mechanical DNFs are just bad luck unless proven otherwise). It might even define this era depending on how Vettel vs Hamilton goes.

[Ataxia]

Guys, I'm so sorry to keep on but I'm currently on cloud nine right now. For anyone with an Autosport+ membership, I've written a thing.

I need a sit down.