planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Oct 23, 2018 4:49 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
lamo wrote:
Its funny, you wrote all that and didn't once mention the considerable difference between Vettel and Kimi's respective races.

Kimi was stuck behind Max Verstappen being held up. Its amazing the amount of forumers comparing the pace of cars being held up to cars in clean air, the third established and knowledgeable forumer I've seen do this in as many weeks.

Going long and waiting for VSC was never going to work in China
1) The tyre differential was huge between old and new
2) Vettel did that in Australia because the 4th place man was miles behind him and he was in no danger of losing 3rd place. Vettels was 25 seconds ahead of K-mag on lap 22. Kimi had Hamilton 1 second behind him in China and Ricciardo about 4 behind.


It's crazy really, it's like Max wasn't there :? Kimi should have been pitted at the SC but we all know why, roles reversed Vettel would have been, he said he would have pitted if he had the chance himself.


Kimi,s tyres were 4 laps old. I can see why they didn't pit him.

They had nothing to lose by pitting him and everything to gain. Of course that's assuming they wanted to maximize his race result (which they clearly did not).


What reason would they have for NOT wanting to maximize his race result? Earn less ACC points, look bad and deliberately cost Kimi points for the WDC? How does that benefit him or them?

Rather than thinking Ferrari are proactively trying to disadvantage Kimi, I'm starting to consider whether it might be that they are simply forgetting about him, except where it pertains to Vettel. As in, every strategy they devise for him has Vettel in mind, and when an opportunity to improve Kimi's own race comes up - such as at China where the SC allowed him the opportunity of a free pit stop for fresh Softs - they don't consider it because all their calculations are based on him helping Vettel, so it falls off the radar.

Just a thought. I'm not a great one for conspiracy theories but the last few races have me a bit confused with the strategies - for want of a better word - they are giving Kimi and they invariably don't look like they are in his best interests, and thats's putting it mildly. The only thing that makes sense to me at this point is that the only calculations they make for him are purely from a perspective of a support driver.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:55 pm 
Ferrari put Kimi on a strategy in Bahrain that would win him the race. He was going to be chasing down cars with 15 lap fresher tyres, 2 compounds softer. The only way he wasn't going to win that race was if Vettel pitted the very next lap after him and did the same.

Its why I was so bemused at how they used him in China because it seemed like they gave him a big shot at winning in Bahrain (assuming Vettel wasn't stopping the very next lap - I guess we will never know since the mechanic blocked the pit box for 3-4 laps)


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5499
Blake wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
lamo wrote:
Its funny, you wrote all that and didn't once mention the considerable difference between Vettel and Kimi's respective races.

Kimi was stuck behind Max Verstappen being held up. Its amazing the amount of forumers comparing the pace of cars being held up to cars in clean air, the third established and knowledgeable forumer I've seen do this in as many weeks.

Going long and waiting for VSC was never going to work in China
1) The tyre differential was huge between old and new
2) Vettel did that in Australia because the 4th place man was miles behind him and he was in no danger of losing 3rd place. Vettels was 25 seconds ahead of K-mag on lap 22. Kimi had Hamilton 1 second behind him in China and Ricciardo about 4 behind.


It's crazy really, it's like Max wasn't there :? Kimi should have been pitted at the SC but we all know why, roles reversed Vettel would have been, he said he would have pitted if he had the chance himself.


Kimi,s tyres were 4 laps old. I can see why they didn't pit him.

They had nothing to lose by pitting him and everything to gain. Of course that's assuming they wanted to maximize his race result (which they clearly did not).


What reason would they have for NOT wanting to maximize his race result? Earn less ACC points, look bad and deliberately cost Kimi points for the WDC? How does that benefit him or them?

It doesn't benefit Kimi at all but Ferrari treats the WDC like most teams treat the WCC. Kimi is a chess piece that they can use to help win the championship for Vettel. That is their primary purpose for him. That's why they left him out there long enough to be undercut by several drivers and that's why they didn't take the opportunity provided by the safety car to fit him with new tires. If jamming up Bottas helped Vettel to get a good run on him, mission accomplished. If Kimi pit for faster, fresher tires and Vettel didn't, that could just lead to a scenario in which Kimi ends up taking points off of Vettel. Once Kimi was out of Vettel's way, they stopped paying attention to him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 7:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:29 am
Posts: 1979
The only way Kimi will get a decent race strategy is if he is ahead of Vettel on merit on the race track with other cars in between them i.e. it's got to be looking like he might actually win a race. Unfortunately in all their seasons together this has rarely happened which is why he has become the new Massa. Kimi actually got better service when he was teamed with Alonso but then again the latter was in open warfare with his team by then so the team had their reasons for not enforcing the lapdog rule.

_________________
Kimi: "Come on, get the McLaren out of the way!”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2275
How was, what Ferrari did to Kimi in China, any different to what Mercedes did to Bottas in Spain 2017?

The reason to why there is a lot more outrage now is because:

1. Raikkonen has way more fans than Bottas
2. Hamilton fans are OK with team orders as long as it benefits their own driver. If it benefits their rival, then there is a huge outrage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2986
KingVoid wrote:
How was, what Ferrari did to Kimi in China, any different to what Mercedes did to Bottas in Spain 2017?

The reason to why there is a lot more outrage now is because:

1. Raikkonen has way more fans than Bottas
2. Hamilton fans are OK with team orders as long as it benefits their own driver. If it benefits their rival, then there is a huge outrage.


Doesn't always have to be about Hamilton and his fans. Exactly same circumstances and not that it matters but was Kimi kept out longer? Now I could be wrong but Bottas was only going to finish 3rd, no higher and no threat from behind. Kimi was racing other cars and lost 2 places. Was the delta between tyres at least 1.5 seconds which is alot of time over 8 or 9 laps depending on the car that pitted.

Like I said i could be wrong but one was racing no one why the other was racing 4 cars for 3rd place.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2275
If Kimi pitted on the lap right after Seb, he would have came out in 6th. Lewis and Dan had already jumped him by that point.

It made sense for Ferrari to keep Kimi out longer for two reasons:

1. To hold up Bottas
2. To give him fresher mediums than his opponents and a chance to attack at the end

The only reason there is an outrage now, but there wasn’t an outrage after Spain 2017, is because of the drivers involved.

Both Hamilton fans and Raikkonen fans think that the world is against them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2986
KingVoid wrote:
If Kimi pitted on the lap right after Seb, he would have came out in 6th. Lewis and Dan had already jumped him by that point.

It made sense for Ferrari to keep Kimi out longer for two reasons:

1. To hold up Bottas
2. To give him fresher mediums than his opponents and a chance to attack at the end

The only reason there is an outrage now, but there wasn’t an outrage after Spain 2017, is because of the drivers involved.

Both Hamilton fans and Raikkonen fans think that the world is against them.


Just a question, was there not anyway for Ferrari to react with Max, Hamilton and Ricciardo before Vettel did his pitstop? I don't think the thought come into Ferrari's head regarding him attacking later, if it did they would have pit Kimi for softs under the SC.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2275
Ferrari were slow to react with both cars, that is why Vettel got jumped by Bottas

If Ferrari had just pitted Kimi the lap after Seb, he would have fell back to 6th without a significant tyre advantage. It’s much better to keep him out for another 8 laps and actually give him fresher tyres.

Kimi’s tyres were only 3 laps old when the SC came out, so you can understand why Ferrari preferred track position over slightly fresher tyres.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 11:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6385
Location: Nebraska, USA
KingVoid does bring up an interesting counterpoint to the Ferrari deliberately messed up Kimi's drive thoughts.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2275
Blake wrote:
KingVoid does bring up an interesting counterpoint to the Ferrari deliberately messed up Kimi's drive thoughts.

Hopefully you have to update your signature by the end of this year :]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 1:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6385
Location: Nebraska, USA
KingVoid wrote:
Blake wrote:
KingVoid does bring up an interesting counterpoint to the Ferrari deliberately messed up Kimi's drive thoughts.

Hopefully you have to update your signature by the end of this year :]


Indeed... it has been so long, I may have to ask for instructions on how to do it!!!

;)

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 5:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2275
When Alesi and Berger were evenly matched, Ferrari gave them equal opportunities.
When Raikkonen and Massa were evenly matched, Ferrari gave them equal opportunities until one driver was realistically out of WDC contention.

Schumacher destroyed Barrichello in 2000. Alonso destroyed Massa in 2010. Vettel destroyed Raikkonen in 2015.

When one driver wins the teammate battle so convincingly and dominantly in his first season, it's completely rational and normal for the team to get behind that driver. At the end of the day, you want to maximize your chances at winning the championship.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 5:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14200
KingVoid wrote:
When Alesi and Berger were evenly matched, Ferrari gave them equal opportunities.
When Raikkonen and Massa were evenly matched, Ferrari gave them equal opportunities until one driver was realistically out of WDC contention.

Schumacher destroyed Barrichello in 2000. Alonso destroyed Massa in 2010. Vettel destroyed Raikkonen in 2015.

When one driver wins the teammate battle so convincingly and dominantly in his first season, it's completely rational and normal for the team to get behind that driver. At the end of the day, you want to maximize your chances at winning the championship.


I agree. Nothing wrong or unusual about it. I think people just find it noteworthy in this case as it has previously been denied.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 6:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
Blake wrote:
KingVoid does bring up an interesting counterpoint to the Ferrari deliberately messed up Kimi's drive thoughts.

It goes against just about every professional opinion, though. You know I have an aversion to conspiracy theories, but in this instance I think it's pretty much impossible to come to any conclusion other than that Kimi's strategy was 100% focused on supporting Vettel from the off


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 10:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2986
Zoue wrote:
Blake wrote:
KingVoid does bring up an interesting counterpoint to the Ferrari deliberately messed up Kimi's drive thoughts.

It goes against just about every professional opinion, though. You know I have an aversion to conspiracy theories, but in this instance I think it's pretty much impossible to come to any conclusion other than that Kimi's strategy was 100% focused on supporting Vettel from the off


Yeah I agree, I have not seen anything to say Ferrari ran Kimi's strategy so he had the chance to attack on 8 lap newer medium tyres at the end. After the pitstops Kimi was 12.7 behind Ricciardo on the same tyres, Kimi couldn't overtake Bottas near the end of the race on the same compound and was only close due to the SC.

It's not even a conspiracy theory at the end of day, it's racing and that's how it goes. It really wouldn't surprise me if Mercedes didnt pit Hamilton so they could keep both drivers on the same strategy, i cant believe both teams would just ignore that golden opportunity.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 11:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7363
Location: Belgium
KingVoid wrote:
When Alesi and Berger were evenly matched, Ferrari gave them equal opportunities.
When Raikkonen and Massa were evenly matched, Ferrari gave them equal opportunities until one driver was realistically out of WDC contention.

Schumacher destroyed Barrichello in 2000. Alonso destroyed Massa in 2010. Vettel destroyed Raikkonen in 2015.

When one driver wins the teammate battle so convincingly and dominantly in his first season, it's completely rational and normal for the team to get behind that driver. At the end of the day, you want to maximize your chances at winning the championship.
When Alesi and Berger were Ferrari-drivers, the state of their car was the scuderia's prime problem, not equal oppotunities. No preference for either driver would have mattered much.
You have forgotten that Ferrari announced equal treatment for their drivers for the 2007 season, even before it was known that Massa and Räikkönen would be team-mates. So being evenly matched or not had nothing to do with it.
Arriving in Team Schumacher (est. 1996) Barrichello already knew the risks he was facing, and simply pointing to their first season together as proof of equal opportunities is an oversimplification. (And yes, I remember what Barrichello said after leaving them.)

Where Räikkönen this season is concerned, I am left with the question whether equal opportunities means the same as equal treatment. Pitstop planning leaves some doubt.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6385
Location: Nebraska, USA
Fiki wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
When Alesi and Berger were evenly matched, Ferrari gave them equal opportunities.
When Raikkonen and Massa were evenly matched, Ferrari gave them equal opportunities until one driver was realistically out of WDC contention.

Schumacher destroyed Barrichello in 2000. Alonso destroyed Massa in 2010. Vettel destroyed Raikkonen in 2015.

When one driver wins the teammate battle so convincingly and dominantly in his first season, it's completely rational and normal for the team to get behind that driver. At the end of the day, you want to maximize your chances at winning the championship.
When Alesi and Berger were Ferrari-drivers, the state of their car was the scuderia's prime problem, not equal oppotunities. No preference for either driver would have mattered much.
You have forgotten that Ferrari announced equal treatment for their drivers for the 2007 season, even before it was known that Massa and Räikkönen would be team-mates. So being evenly matched or not had nothing to do with it.
Arriving in Team Schumacher (est. 1996) Barrichello already knew the risks he was facing, and simply pointing to their first season together as proof of equal opportunities is an oversimplification. (And yes, I remember what Barrichello said after leaving them.)

Where Räikkönen this season is concerned, I am left with the question whether equal opportunities means the same as equal treatment. Pitstop planning leaves some doubt.


"pitstop planning leaves some doubt"
As in giving the first pit stop to the driver who is ahead of his teammate? Had they pitted Vettel first one Melbourne we would have been seeing cries of "Kimi Lapdog" in here instantly, since they didn't and Vettel "lucked out" with a win, then we still saw cries of Seb favoritism by Ferrari.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14200
Blake wrote:
Fiki wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
When Alesi and Berger were evenly matched, Ferrari gave them equal opportunities.
When Raikkonen and Massa were evenly matched, Ferrari gave them equal opportunities until one driver was realistically out of WDC contention.

Schumacher destroyed Barrichello in 2000. Alonso destroyed Massa in 2010. Vettel destroyed Raikkonen in 2015.

When one driver wins the teammate battle so convincingly and dominantly in his first season, it's completely rational and normal for the team to get behind that driver. At the end of the day, you want to maximize your chances at winning the championship.
When Alesi and Berger were Ferrari-drivers, the state of their car was the scuderia's prime problem, not equal oppotunities. No preference for either driver would have mattered much.
You have forgotten that Ferrari announced equal treatment for their drivers for the 2007 season, even before it was known that Massa and Räikkönen would be team-mates. So being evenly matched or not had nothing to do with it.
Arriving in Team Schumacher (est. 1996) Barrichello already knew the risks he was facing, and simply pointing to their first season together as proof of equal opportunities is an oversimplification. (And yes, I remember what Barrichello said after leaving them.)

Where Räikkönen this season is concerned, I am left with the question whether equal opportunities means the same as equal treatment. Pitstop planning leaves some doubt.


"pitstop planning leaves some doubt"
As in giving the first pit stop to the driver who is ahead of his teammate? Had they pitted Vettel first one Melbourne we would have been seeing cries of "Kimi Lapdog" in here instantly, since they didn't and Vettel "lucked out" with a win, then we still saw cries of Seb favoritism by Ferrari.


Thing is Kimi needed pitting to cover off those behind before Vettel did. by the time Vettel pitted it was to late for Kimi. It reminded me of some of the years with Massa and Alonso. It looked at times that they wouldn't even think about what Massa was going to do until Alonso's strategy had been sorted. It looked a bit like that to me in China. I'm not sure if Ferrari originally intended to use Kimi as pawn or that was just the way it turned out. What is clear from China though is that there is a two tiered system as far as the Ferrari drivers are concerned.

That's not a criticism by the way. Not at all. They are perfectly entitled to do what they think is best.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 4:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2986
mikeyg123 wrote:
Blake wrote:
Fiki wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
When Alesi and Berger were evenly matched, Ferrari gave them equal opportunities.
When Raikkonen and Massa were evenly matched, Ferrari gave them equal opportunities until one driver was realistically out of WDC contention.

Schumacher destroyed Barrichello in 2000. Alonso destroyed Massa in 2010. Vettel destroyed Raikkonen in 2015.

When one driver wins the teammate battle so convincingly and dominantly in his first season, it's completely rational and normal for the team to get behind that driver. At the end of the day, you want to maximize your chances at winning the championship.
When Alesi and Berger were Ferrari-drivers, the state of their car was the scuderia's prime problem, not equal oppotunities. No preference for either driver would have mattered much.
You have forgotten that Ferrari announced equal treatment for their drivers for the 2007 season, even before it was known that Massa and Räikkönen would be team-mates. So being evenly matched or not had nothing to do with it.
Arriving in Team Schumacher (est. 1996) Barrichello already knew the risks he was facing, and simply pointing to their first season together as proof of equal opportunities is an oversimplification. (And yes, I remember what Barrichello said after leaving them.)

Where Räikkönen this season is concerned, I am left with the question whether equal opportunities means the same as equal treatment. Pitstop planning leaves some doubt.


"pitstop planning leaves some doubt"
As in giving the first pit stop to the driver who is ahead of his teammate? Had they pitted Vettel first one Melbourne we would have been seeing cries of "Kimi Lapdog" in here instantly, since they didn't and Vettel "lucked out" with a win, then we still saw cries of Seb favoritism by Ferrari.


Thing is Kimi needed pitting to cover off those behind before Vettel did. by the time Vettel pitted it was to late for Kimi. It reminded me of some of the years with Massa and Alonso. It looked at times that they wouldn't even think about what Massa was going to do until Alonso's strategy had been sorted. It looked a bit like that to me in China. I'm not sure if Ferrari originally intended to use Kimi as pawn or that was just the way it turned out. What is clear from China though is that there is a two tiered system as far as the Ferrari drivers are concerned.

That's not a criticism by the way. Not at all. They are perfectly entitled to do what they think is best.


Both RB drivers pitted on lap 17, Hamilton lap 18 to cover both Red bulls and Vettel lap 20. It was obvious to pit Kimi on lap 18 to cover Hamilton and Ricciardo. Hamilton was ahead of Ricciardo after the stops so the same would have happened to Kimi, he would have kept 4th.

Once Ferrari mucked up it was clear what Kimi was doing, I'm not bothered as it's racing but when to pit Kimi was obvious for his best strategy specially as the teams thought track position was key.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016


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: No registered users 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