planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Jul 22, 2018 10:29 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 7:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
WHoff78 wrote:
mds wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
WHoff78 wrote:
mds wrote:

This is exactly what I mentioned in the PF1 Whatsapp chat group. They can make as many compounds as they want in function of the track (or restrict it to the ones they have now, to get the teams familiar with them), choose 3 compunds that make sense for the track they're going to and label them hard, medium soft.

For the casual viewer, this makes sense.
For the viewer that wants to know more, they can always give more information about which compounds are brought exactly.

I disagree. Think it is great that they have more flexibility to bring appropriate tyres to each race track. Circuits like Russia were a joke and need much softer tyres than many other races. Does it really matter what they call them? The casual viewer won't be too fussed, and those who are interested will still only see 3 compounds on any given weekend.


That's not what Mds is saying. You still have all the compounds you have now, or even many more if you like, but whichever three you take to any race weekend are always called the soft, medium and hard. So the "hard" taken to Monaco will be a lot softer than the "hard" taken to Silverstone.


Yes, exactly this.

Appreciate that, but as I went on to say, would still prefer to see right away exactly what compounds teams are on, and really don't see it causing any concern or confusion for the casual viewer, or why others would want it dumbed down.


But the thing is that people are indeed speaking out, that they find it confusing, ridiculous, and what not. So if we have to find a way to make it easy for casual viewers and still give more detail to those who want to, then the clearest solution for me is what I described :)

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23042
WHoff78 wrote:
mds wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
WHoff78 wrote:
mds wrote:
This is exactly what I mentioned in the PF1 Whatsapp chat group. They can make as many compounds as they want in function of the track (or restrict it to the ones they have now, to get the teams familiar with them), choose 3 compunds that make sense for the track they're going to and label them hard, medium soft.

For the casual viewer, this makes sense.
For the viewer that wants to know more, they can always give more information about which compounds are brought exactly.

I disagree. Think it is great that they have more flexibility to bring appropriate tyres to each race track. Circuits like Russia were a joke and need much softer tyres than many other races. Does it really matter what they call them? The casual viewer won't be too fussed, and those who are interested will still only see 3 compounds on any given weekend.


That's not what Mds is saying. You still have all the compounds you have now, or even many more if you like, but whichever three you take to any race weekend are always called the soft, medium and hard. So the "hard" taken to Monaco will be a lot softer than the "hard" taken to Silverstone.


Yes, exactly this.

Appreciate that, but as I went on to say, would still prefer to see right away exactly what compounds teams are on, and really don't see it causing any concern or confusion for the casual viewer, or why others would want it dumbed down.

I'm just curious what you think it adds to know exactly what compound the teams are on, if there are only three compounds available at any race anyway? How would it affect your viewing if you knew the teams were using Hypersoft, Soft and Hard vs Ultrasoft, Soft and Hard? Not trying to be facetious here, but just trying to understand why you feel it's important to know exactly what compound is available. Surely knowing there's a soft compound for fast sprints, a hard compound for steady endurance and a medium compound as a compromise between the two, is enough?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 9:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1141
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Zoue wrote:
WHoff78 wrote:
mds wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
WHoff78 wrote:
I disagree. Think it is great that they have more flexibility to bring appropriate tyres to each race track. Circuits like Russia were a joke and need much softer tyres than many other races. Does it really matter what they call them? The casual viewer won't be too fussed, and those who are interested will still only see 3 compounds on any given weekend.


That's not what Mds is saying. You still have all the compounds you have now, or even many more if you like, but whichever three you take to any race weekend are always called the soft, medium and hard. So the "hard" taken to Monaco will be a lot softer than the "hard" taken to Silverstone.


Yes, exactly this.

Appreciate that, but as I went on to say, would still prefer to see right away exactly what compounds teams are on, and really don't see it causing any concern or confusion for the casual viewer, or why others would want it dumbed down.

I'm just curious what you think it adds to know exactly what compound the teams are on, if there are only three compounds available at any race anyway? How would it affect your viewing if you knew the teams were using Hypersoft, Soft and Hard vs Ultrasoft, Soft and Hard? Not trying to be facetious here, but just trying to understand why you feel it's important to know exactly what compound is available. Surely knowing there's a soft compound for fast sprints, a hard compound for steady endurance and a medium compound as a compromise between the two, is enough?


I've watched this sport for over 30 yrs and I can tell you it frustrates me no end, as did the option and prime terminology.

Do what they used to do and just call them A,B,C,D & E compounds and leave them at that instead of what we have now where a soft grade tyre that might be called the hard tyre at one race, medium tyre at the next and the soft at the third?

Maybe its old age stubbornness kicking in but to me it's just causing unnecessary confusion.

_________________
Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:47 pm
Posts: 2891
I don't want to quote everything but for me, the issue with calling whatever three compounds are in use 'soft', 'medium' and 'hard' is quite simple:

Race 1
Soft = super soft
Medium = soft
Hard = medium

Race 2
Soft = medium
Medium = hard
Hard = super hard

Race 3
Soft = hyper soft
Medium = ultra soft
Hard = super soft

In one race, the tyre that'll be referred to as the 'hard' would be the medium, then at the next race it's actually the super hard, and then at the third race it becomes the super soft. Meanwhile in race two, the soft is actually the medium, the medium is the hard and the hard is the super hard. Even as someone who knows what is going on, I've enough experience of F1 commentators to know that they'll inevitably struggle to stick to the soft/medium/hard names and instead muddy the waters by referring to the actual compound. In my best David Croft voice, "And here's Max Verstappen coming in first to get rid of his soft tyres... putting on a new set of the hard tyres, which of course are actually Pirelli's soft compound this weekend, but are officially allocated as the hard tyres for this weekend." Then Martin Brundle would probably chime in with how this is almost as bad as the introduction of the Halo...

I'd prefer they just slim the range down. Seven different compounds is too many, and at a race where hyper/ultra/super softs are in use, is the casual F1 viewer going to be able to tell which of those is actually the softest?

_________________
Cheering for: Leclerc, Hulkenberg, Vandoorne
Pick 10 | 1st x1, 2nd x3, 3rd x7
2018: 10th | 2017: 6th | 2016: 8th | 2015: 2nd | 2014: 15th | 2013: 17th | 2012: 11th


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4739
Jezza13 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
WHoff78 wrote:
mds wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

That's not what Mds is saying. You still have all the compounds you have now, or even many more if you like, but whichever three you take to any race weekend are always called the soft, medium and hard. So the "hard" taken to Monaco will be a lot softer than the "hard" taken to Silverstone.


Yes, exactly this.

Appreciate that, but as I went on to say, would still prefer to see right away exactly what compounds teams are on, and really don't see it causing any concern or confusion for the casual viewer, or why others would want it dumbed down.

I'm just curious what you think it adds to know exactly what compound the teams are on, if there are only three compounds available at any race anyway? How would it affect your viewing if you knew the teams were using Hypersoft, Soft and Hard vs Ultrasoft, Soft and Hard? Not trying to be facetious here, but just trying to understand why you feel it's important to know exactly what compound is available. Surely knowing there's a soft compound for fast sprints, a hard compound for steady endurance and a medium compound as a compromise between the two, is enough?


I've watched this sport for over 30 yrs and I can tell you it frustrates me no end, as did the option and prime terminology.

Do what they used to do and just call them A,B,C,D & E compounds and leave them at that instead of what we have now where a soft grade tyre that might be called the hard tyre at one race, medium tyre at the next and the soft at the third?

Maybe its old age stubbornness kicking in but to me it's just causing unnecessary confusion.

Agree with the alphabetic designation. Simple solutions are always the best.

The problem with having 5 or 6 compounds in the range yet only calling them by what they are relative to the event they are used at only makes relative to that race. When you go to do analysis later in the season, or argue online two years later, everyone needs to try to remember if the "hard" tire was the medium or soft (alternatively B or C from the above suggestion) compound that week.

I find it remarkable that people who can keep all kinds of minutiae from every race they've ever watched, or at least believe they can, claim that trying to keep 5 or 6 compound names straight is too hard and confusing.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 1965
Jenson's Understeer wrote:
I don't want to quote everything but for me, the issue with calling whatever three compounds are in use 'soft', 'medium' and 'hard' is quite simple:

Race 1
Soft = super soft
Medium = soft
Hard = medium

Race 2
Soft = medium
Medium = hard
Hard = super hard

Race 3
Soft = hyper soft
Medium = ultra soft
Hard = super soft

In one race, the tyre that'll be referred to as the 'hard' would be the medium, then at the next race it's actually the super hard, and then at the third race it becomes the super soft. Meanwhile in race two, the soft is actually the medium, the medium is the hard and the hard is the super hard. Even as someone who knows what is going on, I've enough experience of F1 commentators to know that they'll inevitably struggle to stick to the soft/medium/hard names and instead muddy the waters by referring to the actual compound. In my best David Croft voice, "And here's Max Verstappen coming in first to get rid of his soft tyres... putting on a new set of the hard tyres, which of course are actually Pirelli's soft compound this weekend, but are officially allocated as the hard tyres for this weekend." Then Martin Brundle would probably chime in with how this is almost as bad as the introduction of the Halo...

I'd prefer they just slim the range down. Seven different compounds is too many, and at a race where hyper/ultra/super softs are in use, is the casual F1 viewer going to be able to tell which of those is actually the softest?


That's all fixed by giving the seven compounds and alphabetical designation. A = Hyper Soft etc.

They almost did this simplification when they were using the Prime/Option designations.

Given this year's hard is a step softer (or was it harder?) than last year, comparing year on year is pointless anyway.

_________________
Top Three Team Champions 2017 (With Jezza13)
Group Pick 'Em 2016 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23042
Jenson's Understeer wrote:
I don't want to quote everything but for me, the issue with calling whatever three compounds are in use 'soft', 'medium' and 'hard' is quite simple:

Race 1
Soft = super soft
Medium = soft
Hard = medium

Race 2
Soft = medium
Medium = hard
Hard = super hard

Race 3
Soft = hyper soft
Medium = ultra soft
Hard = super soft

In one race, the tyre that'll be referred to as the 'hard' would be the medium, then at the next race it's actually the super hard, and then at the third race it becomes the super soft. Meanwhile in race two, the soft is actually the medium, the medium is the hard and the hard is the super hard. Even as someone who knows what is going on, I've enough experience of F1 commentators to know that they'll inevitably struggle to stick to the soft/medium/hard names and instead muddy the waters by referring to the actual compound. In my best David Croft voice, "And here's Max Verstappen coming in first to get rid of his soft tyres... putting on a new set of the hard tyres, which of course are actually Pirelli's soft compound this weekend, but are officially allocated as the hard tyres for this weekend." Then Martin Brundle would probably chime in with how this is almost as bad as the introduction of the Halo...

I'd prefer they just slim the range down. Seven different compounds is too many, and at a race where hyper/ultra/super softs are in use, is the casual F1 viewer going to be able to tell which of those is actually the softest?

I don't really get why it's an issue to have different compounds with the same name at different races. It's not like they'll ever cross over. And, as you say, it's a lot more confusing trying to distinguish between hyper/ultra/super variants. Does it really matter what designation a tyre is, as long as it's easily identifiable as (e.g.) the softest compound that week? So what if Monaco's Soft is a softer compound to Spa's Soft - who'll actually be able to tell the difference?

Valid point on the commentators, though. They will undoubtedly try to explain the different compounds. But overall I still think that's less confusing than the daft designations we have now


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
Zoue wrote:
I'm just curious what you think it adds to know exactly what compound the teams are on, if there are only three compounds available at any race anyway?


I'll answer this one: it adds to my understanding of the technical side that's going on. E.g. if a team works a certain compound better than another, I want to know about that.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
Jenson's Understeer wrote:
Seven different compounds is too many, and at a race where hyper/ultra/super softs are in use, is the casual F1 viewer going to be able to tell which of those is actually the softest?


I prefer them to have as many compounds as necessary to work well on the selection of tracks we have.

And the answer to the question is no, which is why I think they should label them the same S/M/H at every weekend and give compound information on the side for those who want to dive into the technical side.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 3256
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Ferrari dominating would be even worse than Mercedes dominating - since we would not even get a fight between teammates ....

I think Ferrari dominating would be the second worst thing that could happen this year.

Either way we aren't getting a fight between teammates based in what we've seen of Bottas/Kimi so far but at least with Ferrari it would be a change in who is dominating, a miniscule improvement sure, but still one IMO. Also I can't quite separate myself from the romantic element in Ferrari winning a title after not doing so for a decade and coming so close on so many occasions.


Would Ferrari allow Kimi to challenge Seb if they were a class above the field? I doubt that. With Merc at least you can say we’ve seen it in the past and there is no reason to believe we wouldn’t see it again.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:37 pm 
Online

Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:46 pm
Posts: 355
re tyres

i say **** the casual viewer. if you cant be arsed to work out what the tyres are that weekend and which is softer then you probably arent really bothered with f1 anyway, and so it wont matter. although you will probably annoy real f1 fans with your inane questions like someone who only watches eastenders on christmas day.

Also you would get the commentators saying "hes got the soft tyres on which this weekend are the ultrasofts" which is only gonna flummox the casual viewer an equal amount.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7141
kleefton wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Ferrari dominating would be even worse than Mercedes dominating - since we would not even get a fight between teammates ....

I think Ferrari dominating would be the second worst thing that could happen this year.

Either way we aren't getting a fight between teammates based in what we've seen of Bottas/Kimi so far but at least with Ferrari it would be a change in who is dominating, a miniscule improvement sure, but still one IMO. Also I can't quite separate myself from the romantic element in Ferrari winning a title after not doing so for a decade and coming so close on so many occasions.


Would Ferrari allow Kimi to challenge Seb if they were a class above the field? I doubt that. With Merc at least you can say we’ve seen it in the past and there is no reason to believe we wouldn’t see it again.

I think it's irrelevant since neither Kimi nor Bottas are close enough to Hamilton/Vettel to give the teams that issue.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23042
kleefton wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Ferrari dominating would be even worse than Mercedes dominating - since we would not even get a fight between teammates ....

I think Ferrari dominating would be the second worst thing that could happen this year.

Either way we aren't getting a fight between teammates based in what we've seen of Bottas/Kimi so far but at least with Ferrari it would be a change in who is dominating, a miniscule improvement sure, but still one IMO. Also I can't quite separate myself from the romantic element in Ferrari winning a title after not doing so for a decade and coming so close on so many occasions.


Would Ferrari allow Kimi to challenge Seb if they were a class above the field? I doubt that. With Merc at least you can say we’ve seen it in the past and there is no reason to believe we wouldn’t see it again.

Why not? Aside from the fact that we've never actually seen Kimi challenging Vettel beyond qualifying anyway, what possible evidence is there that Ferrari would engineer the races if they had as big an advantage as Mercedes had while Nico and Lewis were team mates?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23042
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Ferrari dominating would be even worse than Mercedes dominating - since we would not even get a fight between teammates ....

I think Ferrari dominating would be the second worst thing that could happen this year.

Either way we aren't getting a fight between teammates based in what we've seen of Bottas/Kimi so far but at least with Ferrari it would be a change in who is dominating, a miniscule improvement sure, but still one IMO. Also I can't quite separate myself from the romantic element in Ferrari winning a title after not doing so for a decade and coming so close on so many occasions.


Would Ferrari allow Kimi to challenge Seb if they were a class above the field? I doubt that. With Merc at least you can say we’ve seen it in the past and there is no reason to believe we wouldn’t see it again.

I think it's irrelevant since neither Kimi nor Bottas are close enough to Hamilton/Vettel to give the teams that issue.

:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 1:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23042
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
re tyres

i say **** the casual viewer. if you cant be arsed to work out what the tyres are that weekend and which is softer then you probably arent really bothered with f1 anyway, and so it wont matter. although you will probably annoy real f1 fans with your inane questions like someone who only watches eastenders on christmas day.

Also you would get the commentators saying "hes got the soft tyres on which this weekend are the ultrasofts" which is only gonna flummox the casual viewer an equal amount.

I wouldn't class myself as a casual viewer by any stretch of the imagination. But equally, I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a hypersoft and an ultrasoft. I just know they're both very soft!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 2:17 pm 
Online

Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:46 pm
Posts: 355
Zoue wrote:
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
re tyres

i say **** the casual viewer. if you cant be arsed to work out what the tyres are that weekend and which is softer then you probably arent really bothered with f1 anyway, and so it wont matter. although you will probably annoy real f1 fans with your inane questions like someone who only watches eastenders on christmas day.

Also you would get the commentators saying "hes got the soft tyres on which this weekend are the ultrasofts" which is only gonna flummox the casual viewer an equal amount.

I wouldn't class myself as a casual viewer by any stretch of the imagination. But equally, I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a hypersoft and an ultrasoft. I just know they're both very soft!


would that change if it was soft and medium? youd still be hard pressed to tell the difference.

i prefer to be able to say watch a snippet of a race in isolation and know exactly what tyres are being run, rather then if it was soft/medium/hard and thinking what the soft actually is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 2:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 3256
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Ferrari dominating would be even worse than Mercedes dominating - since we would not even get a fight between teammates ....

I think Ferrari dominating would be the second worst thing that could happen this year.

Either way we aren't getting a fight between teammates based in what we've seen of Bottas/Kimi so far but at least with Ferrari it would be a change in who is dominating, a miniscule improvement sure, but still one IMO. Also I can't quite separate myself from the romantic element in Ferrari winning a title after not doing so for a decade and coming so close on so many occasions.




Would Ferrari allow Kimi to challenge Seb if they were a class above the field? I doubt that. With Merc at least you can say we’ve seen it in the past and there is no reason to believe we wouldn’t see it again.

I think it's irrelevant since neither Kimi nor Bottas are close enough to Hamilton/Vettel to give the teams that issue.


I disagree. Mostly because I don’t believe we have seen the best of Bottas and if Kimi ends up with more points than Vettel because of reliability early in the season I think Ferrari would still back Vettel. What happened with Lewis and Rosberg in 2016 would never happen at Ferrari. Again, all assuming the cars are utterly dominant.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 2:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 3256
Zoue wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Ferrari dominating would be even worse than Mercedes dominating - since we would not even get a fight between teammates ....

I think Ferrari dominating would be the second worst thing that could happen this year.

Either way we aren't getting a fight between teammates based in what we've seen of Bottas/Kimi so far but at least with Ferrari it would be a change in who is dominating, a miniscule improvement sure, but still one IMO. Also I can't quite separate myself from the romantic element in Ferrari winning a title after not doing so for a decade and coming so close on so many occasions.


Would Ferrari allow Kimi to challenge Seb if they were a class above the field? I doubt that. With Merc at least you can say we’ve seen it in the past and there is no reason to believe we wouldn’t see it again.

Why not? Aside from the fact that we've never actually seen Kimi challenging Vettel beyond qualifying anyway, what possible evidence is there that Ferrari would engineer the races if they had as big an advantage as Mercedes had while Nico and Lewis were team mates?


That’s just not how Ferrari has operated in the past. Kimi had chances to win a couple races last year. Each time he was denied by his team. Was Barichello allowed to beat Schumacher?What more evidence do you need?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 2:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 3256
Zoue wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Ferrari dominating would be even worse than Mercedes dominating - since we would not even get a fight between teammates ....

I think Ferrari dominating would be the second worst thing that could happen this year.

Either way we aren't getting a fight between teammates based in what we've seen of Bottas/Kimi so far but at least with Ferrari it would be a change in who is dominating, a miniscule improvement sure, but still one IMO. Also I can't quite separate myself from the romantic element in Ferrari winning a title after not doing so for a decade and coming so close on so many occasions.


Would Ferrari allow Kimi to challenge Seb if they were a class above the field? I doubt that. With Merc at least you can say we’ve seen it in the past and there is no reason to believe we wouldn’t see it again.

Why not? Aside from the fact that we've never actually seen Kimi challenging Vettel beyond qualifying anyway, what possible evidence is there that Ferrari would engineer the races if they had as big an advantage as Mercedes had while Nico and Lewis were team mates?


That’s just not how Ferrari has operated in the past. Kimi had chances to win a couple races last year. Each time he was denied by his team. Was Barichello allowed to beat Schumacher?What more evidence do you need?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 3:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 5:34 am
Posts: 379
kleefton wrote:
Zoue wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Ferrari dominating would be even worse than Mercedes dominating - since we would not even get a fight between teammates ....

I think Ferrari dominating would be the second worst thing that could happen this year.

Either way we aren't getting a fight between teammates based in what we've seen of Bottas/Kimi so far but at least with Ferrari it would be a change in who is dominating, a miniscule improvement sure, but still one IMO. Also I can't quite separate myself from the romantic element in Ferrari winning a title after not doing so for a decade and coming so close on so many occasions.


Would Ferrari allow Kimi to challenge Seb if they were a class above the field? I doubt that. With Merc at least you can say we’ve seen it in the past and there is no reason to believe we wouldn’t see it again.

Why not? Aside from the fact that we've never actually seen Kimi challenging Vettel beyond qualifying anyway, what possible evidence is there that Ferrari would engineer the races if they had as big an advantage as Mercedes had while Nico and Lewis were team mates?


That’s just not how Ferrari has operated in the past. Kimi had chances to win a couple races last year. Each time he was denied by his team. Was Barichello allowed to beat Schumacher?What more evidence do you need?


Rubens wasn't good enough to beat Schumi and Kimi isn't quick enough to beat Seb.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 3:47 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1891
kleefton wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Ferrari dominating would be even worse than Mercedes dominating - since we would not even get a fight between teammates ....

I think Ferrari dominating would be the second worst thing that could happen this year.

Either way we aren't getting a fight between teammates based in what we've seen of Bottas/Kimi so far but at least with Ferrari it would be a change in who is dominating, a miniscule improvement sure, but still one IMO. Also I can't quite separate myself from the romantic element in Ferrari winning a title after not doing so for a decade and coming so close on so many occasions.




Would Ferrari allow Kimi to challenge Seb if they were a class above the field? I doubt that. With Merc at least you can say we’ve seen it in the past and there is no reason to believe we wouldn’t see it again.

I think it's irrelevant since neither Kimi nor Bottas are close enough to Hamilton/Vettel to give the teams that issue.


I disagree. Mostly because I don’t believe we have seen the best of Bottas and if Kimi ends up with more points than Vettel because of reliability early in the season I think Ferrari would still back Vettel. What happened with Lewis and Rosberg in 2016 would never happen at Ferrari. Again, all assuming the cars are utterly dominant.


:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 3:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:54 am
Posts: 580
Zoue wrote:
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
re tyres

i say **** the casual viewer. if you cant be arsed to work out what the tyres are that weekend and which is softer then you probably arent really bothered with f1 anyway, and so it wont matter. although you will probably annoy real f1 fans with your inane questions like someone who only watches eastenders on christmas day.

Also you would get the commentators saying "hes got the soft tyres on which this weekend are the ultrasofts" which is only gonna flummox the casual viewer an equal amount.

I wouldn't class myself as a casual viewer by any stretch of the imagination. But equally, I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a hypersoft and an ultrasoft. I just know they're both very soft!


I agree with Caserole

Having to figure out that this weekend soft in reality is a Hypersoft or that the medium is actually a soft and yet the hard is the hard but not the medium, can jumble things up.

Simpler to call everithing for what it is. And is also makes it easy to analize. Can you imagine a thread were somebody said "X driver was faster than Y that weekeend" and then somebody saying "Yes but he was on soft, and that weekend the soft was the hard not the soft".......it will never end


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 6108
Location: Mumbai, India
Guys check the below link where any of the 10 team cars can be compared with the other from the front & the side. Attached a screenshot of the great comparison tool:

Image
Source - www.imgur.com

https://www.racefans.net/2018/03/16/interactive-compare-all-10-f1-cars-on-the-2018-grid-side-by-side/

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23042
PRFAN wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
re tyres

i say **** the casual viewer. if you cant be arsed to work out what the tyres are that weekend and which is softer then you probably arent really bothered with f1 anyway, and so it wont matter. although you will probably annoy real f1 fans with your inane questions like someone who only watches eastenders on christmas day.

Also you would get the commentators saying "hes got the soft tyres on which this weekend are the ultrasofts" which is only gonna flummox the casual viewer an equal amount.

I wouldn't class myself as a casual viewer by any stretch of the imagination. But equally, I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a hypersoft and an ultrasoft. I just know they're both very soft!


I agree with Caserole

Having to figure out that this weekend soft in reality is a Hypersoft or that the medium is actually a soft and yet the hard is the hard but not the medium, can jumble things up.

Simpler to call everithing for what it is. And is also makes it easy to analize. Can you imagine a thread were somebody said "X driver was faster than Y that weekeend" and then somebody saying "Yes but he was on soft, and that weekend the soft was the hard not the soft".......it will never end

I just don't see it. All that's relevant is whether the tyre is the softer or harder compound, not how hard/soft that compound actually is. I mean, who actually compares tyres from one weekend to the next, let alone who is better on them? All that matters is that they are consistent across a weekend.

And the point surely is that tyres won't be called hypersoft, or ultrasoft, etc. So I don't see what kind of figuring out will need to be done. It'll just be which tyre is the softer (or harder). There won't be a label to dispute


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:37 am
Posts: 207
kleefton wrote:
That’s just not how Ferrari has operated in the past. Kimi had chances to win a couple races last year. Each time he was denied by his team. Was Barichello allowed to beat Schumacher?What more evidence do you need?


Kimi vs. Massa.

Ferrari allows competition when the drivers are close to each other in performance over the season (not just in an odd race here and there).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7141
kleefton wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Ferrari dominating would be even worse than Mercedes dominating - since we would not even get a fight between teammates ....

I think Ferrari dominating would be the second worst thing that could happen this year.

Either way we aren't getting a fight between teammates based in what we've seen of Bottas/Kimi so far but at least with Ferrari it would be a change in who is dominating, a miniscule improvement sure, but still one IMO. Also I can't quite separate myself from the romantic element in Ferrari winning a title after not doing so for a decade and coming so close on so many occasions.




Would Ferrari allow Kimi to challenge Seb if they were a class above the field? I doubt that. With Merc at least you can say we’ve seen it in the past and there is no reason to believe we wouldn’t see it again.

I think it's irrelevant since neither Kimi nor Bottas are close enough to Hamilton/Vettel to give the teams that issue.


I disagree. Mostly because I don’t believe we have seen the best of Bottas and if Kimi ends up with more points than Vettel because of reliability early in the season I think Ferrari would still back Vettel. What happened with Lewis and Rosberg in 2016 would never happen at Ferrari. Again, all assuming the cars are utterly dominant.

Personally I think it's a false narrative. I saw Kimi hold Vettel up massively in China for instance last year without being told to move aside and I saw Bottas be ordered aside at least twice from memory.

I see as much evidence to suggest Mercedes favour Hamilton as I do that Ferrari favour Vettel. Of course they are both the focus of the team, they are the better drivers by a country mile, but if Kimi/Bottas suddenly started outperforming their teammates that wouldn't take long to change, for either team.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 5:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 3256
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Personally I think it's a false narrative. I saw Kimi hold Vettel up massively in China for instance last year without being told to move aside and I saw Bottas be ordered aside at least twice from memory.

I see as much evidence to suggest Mercedes favour Hamilton as I do that Ferrari favour Vettel. Of course they are both the focus of the team, they are the better drivers by a country mile, but if Kimi/Bottas suddenly started outperforming their teammates that wouldn't take long to change, for either team.


You are entitled to your opinion. But there is a reason Kimi is still at Ferrari and there is a reason Bottas is always under enormous pressure to perform. Frankly anyone that doesn't see the difference between these two teams just leaves me baffled.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 6:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:37 am
Posts: 207
kleefton wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Personally I think it's a false narrative. I saw Kimi hold Vettel up massively in China for instance last year without being told to move aside and I saw Bottas be ordered aside at least twice from memory.

I see as much evidence to suggest Mercedes favour Hamilton as I do that Ferrari favour Vettel. Of course they are both the focus of the team, they are the better drivers by a country mile, but if Kimi/Bottas suddenly started outperforming their teammates that wouldn't take long to change, for either team.


You are entitled to your opinion. But there is a reason Kimi is still at Ferrari and there is a reason Bottas is always under enormous pressure to perform. Frankly anyone that doesn't see the difference between these two teams just leaves me baffled.


Bottas replaced the WDC, and is driving the best car on the grid - why would he not be under enormous pressure to perform? What BF11 said is absolutely true - Bottas was ordered to move over for Hamilton at least a couple of times, and even forced to play rear gunner in Spain (he himself even described it as holding Vettel up for as long as he could). And yet, the constant narrative pushed out by Sky (and some people here) is that Ferrari is a one-man team, while Mercedes doesn't favour Lewis at all.

Hogwash. The driver that both teams favour is the one who is faster more often than not - in this case it happens to be Vettel and Hamilton. Throw in an equally capable driver (and even more helpful - a dominant car), and both teams will be happy to let it play out on track (as long as they don't tangle too often on track).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 7:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:54 am
Posts: 580
Zoue wrote:
PRFAN wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
re tyres

i say **** the casual viewer. if you cant be arsed to work out what the tyres are that weekend and which is softer then you probably arent really bothered with f1 anyway, and so it wont matter. although you will probably annoy real f1 fans with your inane questions like someone who only watches eastenders on christmas day.

Also you would get the commentators saying "hes got the soft tyres on which this weekend are the ultrasofts" which is only gonna flummox the casual viewer an equal amount.

I wouldn't class myself as a casual viewer by any stretch of the imagination. But equally, I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a hypersoft and an ultrasoft. I just know they're both very soft!


I agree with Caserole

Having to figure out that this weekend soft in reality is a Hypersoft or that the medium is actually a soft and yet the hard is the hard but not the medium, can jumble things up.

Simpler to call everithing for what it is. And is also makes it easy to analize. Can you imagine a thread were somebody said "X driver was faster than Y that weekeend" and then somebody saying "Yes but he was on soft, and that weekend the soft was the hard not the soft".......it will never end

I just don't see it. All that's relevant is whether the tyre is the softer or harder compound, not how hard/soft that compound actually is. I mean, who actually compares tyres from one weekend to the next, let alone who is better on them? All that matters is that they are consistent across a weekend.

And the point surely is that tyres won't be called hypersoft, or ultrasoft, etc. So I don't see what kind of figuring out will need to be done. It'll just be which tyre is the softer (or harder). There won't be a label to dispute


I think teams do compare and the tire selections are based on that data, some cars are harder on tires than others, drivers are harder on tires than others, if you now start moving compounds around just to call them x,y and z, it will be madness, teams will not be able to make selections and formulate strategies, it will be all by chance. Unless Pirelli tells them, "hey next race the soft will be softer", why no call the softer tire hypersoft then!

I dont see where the current system is too complicated.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 7:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 583
Zoue wrote:
PRFAN wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
re tyres

i say **** the casual viewer. if you cant be arsed to work out what the tyres are that weekend and which is softer then you probably arent really bothered with f1 anyway, and so it wont matter. although you will probably annoy real f1 fans with your inane questions like someone who only watches eastenders on christmas day.

Also you would get the commentators saying "hes got the soft tyres on which this weekend are the ultrasofts" which is only gonna flummox the casual viewer an equal amount.

I wouldn't class myself as a casual viewer by any stretch of the imagination. But equally, I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a hypersoft and an ultrasoft. I just know they're both very soft!


I agree with Caserole

Having to figure out that this weekend soft in reality is a Hypersoft or that the medium is actually a soft and yet the hard is the hard but not the medium, can jumble things up.

Simpler to call everithing for what it is. And is also makes it easy to analize. Can you imagine a thread were somebody said "X driver was faster than Y that weekeend" and then somebody saying "Yes but he was on soft, and that weekend the soft was the hard not the soft".......it will never end

I just don't see it. All that's relevant is whether the tyre is the softer or harder compound, not how hard/soft that compound actually is. I mean, who actually compares tyres from one weekend to the next, let alone who is better on them? All that matters is that they are consistent across a weekend.

And the point surely is that tyres won't be called hypersoft, or ultrasoft, etc. So I don't see what kind of figuring out will need to be done. It'll just be which tyre is the softer (or harder). There won't be a label to dispute

I think a few above have given a pretty fair case of the benefits of calling the tyres what they are and why it really wouldn’t simplify things by giving them an additional classification.

Just one more example, the confusion when the commentators have decided that Mercedes really struggle on the soft (hypersoft) tyres, only to go to the next race and absolutely destroy the entire field on the soft (medium) tyres. Anyway, it is ok to disagree on this. I can certainly understand the concerns around confusing hypersoft and ultrasoft, but at the end of the day I just see more issues with the tyres having two different classifications. Anyway, I’ll leave it there as this is starting to get off topic now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:31 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5419
Location: Michigan, USA
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Personally I think it's a false narrative. I saw Kimi hold Vettel up massively in China for instance last year without being told to move aside and I saw Bottas be ordered aside at least twice from memory.

Completely agree. Both teams back the faster driver, and why the heck not? Why should they shoot themselves in the foot just for the sake of treating two unequal driver equally?

As for Kimi's wins, last year he had the chance to win two. Monaco is a bit of a cloudy issue - if Ferrari knew that the overcut was faster, then yes, they gave away his win. But it usually isn't, and they probably expected that Kimi had gotten at least an equal strategy. Hungary is different: by then, Kimi was well out of the WDC battle while Seb was still right in the thick of it. Having Kimi protect Seb there was the right team call. When only one driver is fighting for the championship, you do not have equal drivers.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 11:44 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1891
I do not believe they pit Räikkönen into traffic accidentally in Monaco ....

:lol:

And Budapest told its story - Räikkönen protecting Vettel's position, Hamilton letting Bottas past back.

8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:13 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5419
Location: Michigan, USA
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
I do not believe they pit Räikkönen into traffic accidentally in Monaco ....

:lol:

And Budapest told its story - Räikkönen protecting Vettel's position, Hamilton letting Bottas past back.

8)

Do you think Red Bull intentionally gave up a place to Bottas? They did exactly the same thing with Max that Ferrari did with Raikkonen, after all.

As for Hungary, Hamilton let Bottas back past, indeed - because he had been let through on the agreement that he could attack the Ferraris. He failed to get past them, and if he hadn't let Bottas back through he'd have broken the agreement. And that wasn't a team order anyway, since they never ordered Lewis to let Valtteri back through - he did that himself.

And it's also dodging my point, because Bottas wasn't out of the WDC fight. After the Hungarian GP Kimi was 86 points behind Seb, whereas Valtteri was only 19 points behind Lewis. Those aren't the same situations at all.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2018 12:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1389
Exediron wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
I do not believe they pit Räikkönen into traffic accidentally in Monaco ....

:lol:

And Budapest told its story - Räikkönen protecting Vettel's position, Hamilton letting Bottas past back.

8)

Do you think Red Bull intentionally gave up a place to Bottas? They did exactly the same thing with Max that Ferrari did with Raikkonen, after all.

As for Hungary, Hamilton let Bottas back past, indeed - because he had been let through on the agreement that he could attack the Ferraris. He failed to get past them, and if he hadn't let Bottas back through he'd have broken the agreement. And that wasn't a team order anyway, since they never ordered Lewis to let Valtteri back through - he did that himself.

And it's also dodging my point, because Bottas wasn't out of the WDC fight. After the Hungarian GP Kimi was 86 points behind Seb, whereas Valtteri was only 19 points behind Lewis. Those aren't the same situations at all.


Why get in the way of someone who wants to bash Ferrari and Vettel, as facts dont matter here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 7:11 pm
Posts: 633
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Personally I think it's a false narrative. I saw Kimi hold Vettel up massively in China for instance last year without being told to move aside and I saw Bottas be ordered aside at least twice from memory.

I see as much evidence to suggest Mercedes favour Hamilton as I do that Ferrari favour Vettel. Of course they are both the focus of the team, they are the better drivers by a country mile, but if Kimi/Bottas suddenly started outperforming their teammates that wouldn't take long to change, for either team.


Kimi did indeed hold Seb up for a few laps in China. The problem was that Kimi was tucked up behind Ricciardo at the time.
If he'd been holding him up in clear air Ferrari would have swapped them pretty sharpish.
Each time Bottas was asked to let Lewis by he was losing time to the guy in front.
I think the situations were different.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2018 9:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7998
Ref the tyres, ( I know it was a few posts back, but I been away :D )

Why can they not just have Prime, soft and hard?

The compound can change from week to week, but the relationship does not.

Ultrsuperdupervery soft is softer than slightlyharderbutnotvery hard and anything in between can be called prime
(sorry about the long word but prime is the best description)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:34 am 
Online

Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:46 pm
Posts: 355
PRFAN wrote:
Zoue wrote:
PRFAN wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
re tyres

i say **** the casual viewer. if you cant be arsed to work out what the tyres are that weekend and which is softer then you probably arent really bothered with f1 anyway, and so it wont matter. although you will probably annoy real f1 fans with your inane questions like someone who only watches eastenders on christmas day.

Also you would get the commentators saying "hes got the soft tyres on which this weekend are the ultrasofts" which is only gonna flummox the casual viewer an equal amount.

I wouldn't class myself as a casual viewer by any stretch of the imagination. But equally, I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a hypersoft and an ultrasoft. I just know they're both very soft!


I agree with Caserole

Having to figure out that this weekend soft in reality is a Hypersoft or that the medium is actually a soft and yet the hard is the hard but not the medium, can jumble things up.

Simpler to call everithing for what it is. And is also makes it easy to analize. Can you imagine a thread were somebody said "X driver was faster than Y that weekeend" and then somebody saying "Yes but he was on soft, and that weekend the soft was the hard not the soft".......it will never end

I just don't see it. All that's relevant is whether the tyre is the softer or harder compound, not how hard/soft that compound actually is. I mean, who actually compares tyres from one weekend to the next, let alone who is better on them? All that matters is that they are consistent across a weekend.

And the point surely is that tyres won't be called hypersoft, or ultrasoft, etc. So I don't see what kind of figuring out will need to be done. It'll just be which tyre is the softer (or harder). There won't be a label to dispute


I think teams do compare and the tire selections are based on that data, some cars are harder on tires than others, drivers are harder on tires than others, if you now start moving compounds around just to call them x,y and z, it will be madness, teams will not be able to make selections and formulate strategies, it will be all by chance. Unless Pirelli tells them, "hey next race the soft will be softer", why no call the softer tire hypersoft then!

I dont see where the current system is too complicated.


agree. personally i wouldnt have brought in the hypersoft though. i would have just made that the ultra and made each tyre a step softer and ditched the nonsense extra hard. Am i right in thinking that apart from the medium all the tyres are new (softer) compounds this year so its not like pirelli just wanted continuity with tyres from last year, with the addition of the hyper.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2018 11:51 am 
Online

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1891
Exediron wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
I do not believe they pit Räikkönen into traffic accidentally in Monaco ....

:lol:

And Budapest told its story - Räikkönen protecting Vettel's position, Hamilton letting Bottas past back.

8)

Do you think Red Bull intentionally gave up a place to Bottas? They did exactly the same thing with Max that Ferrari did with Raikkonen, after all.

As for Hungary, Hamilton let Bottas back past, indeed - because he had been let through on the agreement that he could attack the Ferraris. He failed to get past them, and if he hadn't let Bottas back through he'd have broken the agreement. And that wasn't a team order anyway, since they never ordered Lewis to let Valtteri back through - he did that himself.

And it's also dodging my point, because Bottas wasn't out of the WDC fight. After the Hungarian GP Kimi was 86 points behind Seb, whereas Valtteri was only 19 points behind Lewis. Those aren't the same situations at all.


Just that Verstappen was not leading in clean air - if you emphasize different situations, here you have it.

And you are right, at Ferrari, the whole Budapest arrangement would have been different, not only the giving-back. The result, however, would have seen Hamilton finishing ahead of Bottas when it was Ferrari. ;-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2018 1:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 3256
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
I do not believe they pit Räikkönen into traffic accidentally in Monaco ....

:lol:

And Budapest told its story - Räikkönen protecting Vettel's position, Hamilton letting Bottas past back.

8)

Do you think Red Bull intentionally gave up a place to Bottas? They did exactly the same thing with Max that Ferrari did with Raikkonen, after all.

As for Hungary, Hamilton let Bottas back past, indeed - because he had been let through on the agreement that he could attack the Ferraris. He failed to get past them, and if he hadn't let Bottas back through he'd have broken the agreement. And that wasn't a team order anyway, since they never ordered Lewis to let Valtteri back through - he did that himself.

And it's also dodging my point, because Bottas wasn't out of the WDC fight. After the Hungarian GP Kimi was 86 points behind Seb, whereas Valtteri was only 19 points behind Lewis. Those aren't the same situations at all.


Just that Verstappen was not leading in clean air - if you emphasize different situations, here you have it.

And you are right, at Ferrari, the whole Budapest arrangement would have been different, not only the giving-back. The result, however, would have seen Hamilton finishing ahead of Bottas when it was Ferrari. ;-)


:thumbup:

Glad to see some people actually get it around here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2018 3:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7141
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
I do not believe they pit Räikkönen into traffic accidentally in Monaco ....

:lol:

And Budapest told its story - Räikkönen protecting Vettel's position, Hamilton letting Bottas past back.

8)

Do you think Red Bull intentionally gave up a place to Bottas? They did exactly the same thing with Max that Ferrari did with Raikkonen, after all.

As for Hungary, Hamilton let Bottas back past, indeed - because he had been let through on the agreement that he could attack the Ferraris. He failed to get past them, and if he hadn't let Bottas back through he'd have broken the agreement. And that wasn't a team order anyway, since they never ordered Lewis to let Valtteri back through - he did that himself.

And it's also dodging my point, because Bottas wasn't out of the WDC fight. After the Hungarian GP Kimi was 86 points behind Seb, whereas Valtteri was only 19 points behind Lewis. Those aren't the same situations at all.


Just that Verstappen was not leading in clean air - if you emphasize different situations, here you have it.

And you are right, at Ferrari, the whole Budapest arrangement would have been different, not only the giving-back. The result, however, would have seen Hamilton finishing ahead of Bottas when it was Ferrari. ;-)

I still very much hold the position that Mercedes wanted that too. They were just afraid of the backlash.

The whole Mercedes demeanour around that was very fishy, refusing Hamilton's request to give the place back after his laps were up as he couldn't do anything to get past those in front, telling him to keep going, and the obvious disappointment Wolff had afterwards even going as far as to say they had given up 3 points.

IMO Hamilton deserves more credit for that day than he gets. There wouldn't have been any ramifications within the team if he had stayed in front as that's what they really wanted him to do.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Caserole of Nonsense, F1_Ernie, Google Adsense [Bot], JerCotter7, Paolo_Lasardi, ReservoirDog and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group