planetf1.com

What are you talking about? Keeping his title hopes alive? He was just 3 points behind Hamilton! The championship was right in the balance, and in a race like that where Merecedes were struggling and Ferrari were doing great, he had to ensure he did NOT DNF.

As for Mexico, the race is longer than just 2 corners. Why not play the long game, instead of throwing it all away at turns 1 and 2?

In Singapore, there was every reason to be agressive. He was already behind in the WDC, and it was widely said to be the last race where Ferrari would have a leg up on Mercedes. He needed every single point he could get, and that's why he simply had to cover off Verstappen.

I very much disagree with the bigging up of the supposed risk a covering off manoeuvre brings. As I said, it is standard in racing, it was logical and acceptable.

In Mexico: eh, I repeat what I said above. Realistically the title was already lost, he went for broke. High-risk manoeuvre but given all was lost it was perfectly logical to be agressive at that point. I'd also like to point out that this particular action didn't even hurt him with regards to the WDC.



In Malaysia Hamilton was in a far better position than Vettel in Singapore or Mexico. Vettel started from the back, the remaining tracks would favor Mercedes, he was already more than a race win ahead in the standings. So of course Hamilton could play the numbers game at that point.

As for the start in Hungary:not comparable to Singapore. He did veer towards Verstappen two times, but there was nobody on the other side.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!

Because the coming tracks weren't great ones for Mercedes, with one or two exceptions, as the results showed. He took no more risk than Hamilton did the week before. Vettel was hit: he didn't hit anyone.

As for playing the long game in Mexico, surely you're having a laugh? Track position is king and he had nothing to gain by being meek

38 points lost in Singapore. 13 points lost in Baku. 6 points lost in Canada. That's a total of 57 points.

Hamilton won the championship by 46 points (54 points if you give him the win in Abu Dhabi).

So we demand Vettel to be perfect, but Hamilton can screw up in Monaco, Russia and Brazil.

Yep, makes sense.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!

Baku he threw away the points. In Canada Max clipped him, so he didn't throw anything away. And in Singapore, as it's becoming a little tedious to have to keep pointing out, Vettel was hit from behind after carrying out a move which was the mirror image of one Hamilton did in the previous race and one which is pretty standard in racing. Only hindsight might make it a mistake. Not sure how you work out that lost him 38 points but I'm sure you'll come up with some creative accounting

So 13 points for Baku only from Vettel's own mistakes

Not perfect, but if he wanted to win the championship and take advantage of those bad weekends that Hamilton had, then he certainly couldn't afford to get involved in the incidents that i mentioned.

It seems like Vettel has reflected and learnt from it so good on him.

Canada - did you expect Max to just carry on straight? He had to turn in at some point. Vettel had plenty of room to his left. Vettel's fault without question.

Singapore - He drove diagonally across the track which triggered an incident that caused him and 3 other cars to retire. He lost 25 points from losing the race win. Hamilton gained 13 points from the retirements that Vettel caused. Therefore in the championship race he lost a net 38 points.

No. Sorry, but just no. Verstappen sweeps in from the outside as if no-one was even there on the inside. It's only blind bias that gets you to apportion blame fully to Vettel.

And of course one wouldn't expact Max to carry on straight. What about the more logical "steer in a little bit further so as not to take the line of someone on the inside of the corner"?



Why are you so stubborn to not get the point? Yeah, he did that. The point is, again, that it was a logical, normal, accepted, regular, standard move in racing. As such, not related to cracking under pressure, or anything like that. Even if you are hell-bent on appointing blame, then still I don't see why this should be pressure-related. It was not a move that is classified as being too high-risk.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!

Yeah and then the talk would have been "had Hamilton not underperformed in X and Y and Z, then he would have been champion".
The point is, you keep it fair between drivers. You can't suddenly say that driver A should've been perfect and so it's his fault he hasn't taken the title, when the other driver wasn't perfect either (granted, a bit better, but not perfect) and thus correcting for driver errors still nets you the same WDC winner.

The bigger point is, this is a thread where we are discussing Sebs events of this past year and the supposed reason for them being pressure. Let's stick to that agenda instead of pushing your own.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!

The most ridiculous thing about this is: davidheath461, the man who attributes all blame for Singapore to Vettel and calls it a too risky pressure-induced incident (even though a standard manoeuvre and even though he didn't actually push Verstappen off-track), has in the past vehemently refuted the idea that Alonso, who ACTUALLY pushed Raikkonen out of the track, was to blame for his DNF in Japan '12.

Can't make this fairy cakes up.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!

I agree that pressure doesn't directly have anything to do with it. However, I do think it fits with an established pattern of Vettel making questionably specially-aware decisions on the first lap, a trait he didn't really have until last year. I think it's plausible that he's more aggressive on the first lap because he feels the pressure of the championship, although I don't think Singapore is a particularly good example of that.

My own opinion on the incident is that all three drivers involved made a risky first-lap decision, and it blew up for all of them. Vettel squeezed the other drivers, something that has led to him DNFing on the first lap multiple times in the past; Verstappen went for a gap that was always going to close, which is never a good idea, and Kimi didn't leave himself any room to get out if one of the others almost inevitably moved across on him.

And yes, Alonso was at fault in Japan.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017

Are we talking about the driver who took 4 back to back WDC in a lot less dominant car than the Merc of 2014 - 2017?

Good point : ) It's christmans time for wishes..

Singapore is listed by many pundits as being a Vettel mistake, just because you say it wasn't doesn't mean that you are right.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)

Same pundits who say Hamilton covering Vettel with the exact maneuver at Austin is perfectly acceptable, I see.

And by many others is listed as not.

It is boiling down to preference I guess. As a manoeuvre it was perfectly normal for a start. We've seen this move many times, where it normally didn't result into an accident. I'm struggling to remember any such move that did result into an accident.

It was doing it in the wet that surprised me. Also having a meh start made it worse as he wasn't clear of Max so he was never going to cover him off but rather it looked like a desperate attempt to spook him with a chop to scare him off.

And that was the big mistake for me. If it was dry,fine. If he was still clear of Max,fine. But it was neither of them so not the best move in my book to be honest and I think Ferrari's own issues in Mal and Jpn got him off the hook to some degree.


On Suzuka 2012 as it was brought up, I always thought Alonso got spooked by Button a bit and it was more of a racing incident but much like this one he was initially aggressive in going over to squeeze Kimi and he hadn't cleared him either so it didn't look great from his perspective but he had left Kimi room until Button came left before T1 at around 18-19s mark here and Alonso moves fractionally left as a result and hits Kimi pushing him off. Only centimetres in it and the punishment didn't fit the crime for me but this is the problem with aggressive defensive moves as they always look bad when it goes wrong and his initial aggressive move across is what's remembered.



(Might need to watch it a few times or slow it down to catch Buttons move across)

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Even if he wouldn't have gotten fully ahead, the move meant that Max would have a much sharper approach angle to the corner and would force him to brake sooner than he normally would. It did make sense.




Best view of the incident, imo, is from Massa's onboard:

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!

I just keep coming back to the weather and I don't think it did make sense to risk it in the wet and I've yet to see Max being forced into anything yet never mind braking early and all the talk beforehand was about how Max could risk getting his elbows out.

I don't think in those circumstances it was the right idea at all if he hasn't cleared Max because Max is entitled to room in T1 if he's got some part alongside so he doesn't need to brake early if he's up for putting up a fight which he clearly said he would and he'd be fancying it even more in those conditions.





Good viewpoint and it's still the initial move across that looks the aggressive move rather than the actual contact between Kimi and Alonso after Button moves across. You can see Alonso even starts going right before JB moves left and Alonso opens the steering and boom game over.

Not that I'm blaming JB of doing something wrong to be perfectly clear, I just thought it spooked Alonso enough to open his steering and the nature of the track going right and Alonso pinching Kimi too much initially bit him on the backside. He risked leaving no room for the unknown in the initial squeeze and this time it bit back hard. I think you'll see moves like that all the time at the start and to result in a DNF rather than even a trip to the pits was too harsh for me but it is what it is.

Much like in Singapore its the aggressive move across when there was no need to do it that set the tone and stands out so I understand the viewpoint of putting the blame on Alonso but I thought it was pretty tame after the initial aggressive squeeze.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Exactly this. Preference or perhaps "agenda" might be more accurate might be more accurate.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

But Vettel also had to get his elbows out, given the circumstances. Also, sure Max would have gotten his elbows out, but he would still have to brake earlier than normal in order to even make the turn. I don't think getting your elbows out means "I'm going to plow straight into you because I'm not braking to make the turn".



But that's not true. A tighter entry means you brake earlier than a wider entry. Else you're not making the corner. It's as simple as that.
Another factor is Vettel moving off the ideal line means his own braking gets easier and he has a better chance to stay ahead - braking on the ideal line = braking on more (wet) rubber = harder. That's also why both Verstappen and Raikkonen could get a better start - more traction due to less wet rubber on track.

Lastly, this wasn't actually a hard squeeze which made it all the more an acceptable risk. He didn't peg Verstappen against the wall. He left more than a car's width of space, and this is also what sets it apart from, among others, Japan '12. But of course there were actually two cars there and that did it.



There's never a "need" to do any kind of manoeuvre, the point is that in Singapore it wasn't unusual, it wasn't a high-risk manoeuvre as he left ample space, but "no high risk" doesn't mean nothing can happen and in this case it did. But Vettel didn't do anything "wrong", while Alonso did (even if understandable), and that's why I pointed out davidheath's highly inconsistent behaviour when talking about both of these events.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!

Disagree with the original 'Vettel cracked under pressure' statement.

One mistake from him in Baku that, ironically, resulted in him gaining points over Hamilton. Singapore may be argued as a mistake in hindsight but, as stated here already, such a cover-off at the start is common. Mexico I put down to a racing incident - he got the car a bit lary coming out of turn three and was unfortunate to catch Hamilton (even more unfortunate for Hamilton as it turned out).

I won't press further - we have three pages on this already. Just congrats to Hamilton on his fourth title and congrats to Vettel on putting up a decent fight.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads

Well, no it didn't. As the headrest issue didn't stem from the contact, he lost 13 points to Hamilton in Baku.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!

Ah - I assumed that it was that which triggered the debris-on-the-circuit-we-need-to-red-flag-the-race and, therefore, indirectly led to the headrest issue.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads

No, the debris that triggered the red flag was that of the contact between the FI's. I don't think the contact between Vettel and Hamilton left any debris.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!

Ricciardo couldn’t even keep up with Hamilton around Singapore, so I’m not sure how you expected Raikkonen to beat him.

It’s a huge assumption to make that Vettel would have even won in Singapore. Without his blocking move at the start, he would have exited the first corner in 3rd place. Ferrari was also awful in the rain just a few weeks earlier on Monza.

Ricciardo had a problem with the car from the start, Singapore is a street circuit so hard to overtake and Ferrari got the setup wrong in Monza rather than the car being awful in the rain.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

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

He didn't. Lewis is his title rival not Max and Mercedes were struggling in Singapore. I think getting the elbows out meant he wasn't going to get scared off from competing like he showed again in Mexico.





Because he has a part of his car alongside Seb and Seb has now compromised his own entry by moving left it still only means Max has to outbrake Seb. Much like Hungary its too tempting even against his own team mate except this time its for a potential win,a driver he doesn't get on with and I think Max made his intention clear.




The squeeze from Seb was still very much going on so we can't say how much room he was going to leave. It's this continued movement left which creates the contact between Max and Kimi so I really can't see how we can clear Singapore but condemn Suzuka either. And in the wet it is a high risk move and I think the majority felt it was too risky after the event on the forums I frequent and the journos who's opinion I read.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Not entirely true. Ricciardo’s gearbox problem developed as the race went on, and in Ricciardo’s own words, he didn’t feel comfortable enough in the car to keep up with Hamilton.

Ferrari, in the last decade, has rarely been any good in the rain.

It is incredible how 90% of you are delusional, you want to put Vettel as a person, driver, a total fail, against your mighty Lewis.

I have to disappoint you. Behind Seb / Lewis fail or success stand thousands of men. You would like to point out certain errors of driver, and there you go, everything is clean for you.

Bottom line, this sport don`t function like this. You need a winning team to win the title.

Also people who really consider Ferrari car same fast as Merc this year, should open their eyes, or watch more races for sure.
Merc were struggling with tires in first part of the season, when they sorted it out, they were out of reach in 2nd part of the season. No matter what Vettel could have done, Ferrari werent winning team.

Biased people seek for certain moments, Baku for example, but Lewis driving in Monaco they for sure don`t even remember.

I think Vettel was so long in the hunt, due to Bottas poor driving.

Stop #$%^&% hypocrisy, please don`t spam it in F1 forum, this sport is too awesome for that.
You bashed the team in 2009,2010,2011 etc etc, even Button once owned Lewis.
in 2017 it is all Lewis, and sucky Vettel and his errors wait forgot to add Ferrari was same fast or faster.

2018 will be similar to 2017, or Merc even stronger, impossible to lose such advantage in this world, need regulations change, engine in particular. Simply astonishing is RedBull team, buying Renault engine, and winning some races, for me they are undisputed no1 atm in terms of making f1 cars.

We've done this before... Given the outlook for the final races of the season, he needed every single point he could get. Not winning in Singapore meant 7 points lost that would highly likely come back and bite him. So yes he did.



Vettel did not compromised his own entry that much - as I said, he isn't on the slippery "ideal line" any more which isn't necessarily a bad thing, in the wet often a good thing.




Because in Suzuka Alonso actually pushed Raikkonen out of the track, while Vettel didn't. The fact that "it was still going on" doesn't mean that it would have came to the point. Facts are in Suzuka something illegal happened (again, understandable, and only slightly, but still), and in Singapore not.



Only in hindsight it was high risk. The wet doesn't change that. We've seen it in all kinds of conditions and nobody ever says "wow, that was a high risk manoeuvre".

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!

What outlook? As far as I remember it was still very much debatable who would be stronger in the run in. Ferrari had just arguably been the quicker car in race trim in Spa which was supposed to be the big Mercedes stronghold. They messed Monza up by set up. They went on to be competitive everywhere but AD. There was more than a few people backing them to be the best car in the run in because of expected warm track conditions and how Ferrari had done in Spa, I think Pat Symonds backed them to be the better car more often than not.

Lewis was driving a worse car that weekend and was stuck in 5th on a track you can't really pass on, there was simply no need to be that aggressive to hold onto 1st never mind a need to be that aggressive because of the context of the championship battle with Lewis.

It's the opposite of the Suzuka situation Alonso faced in the dry, in a car in 6th(?), no track suiting them coming up, his rival in the best car and sitting on pole.

That's when you need to get aggressive and make things happen at the start I feel. But even I thought it was too aggressive (The initial squeeze on Kimi) so I've got to think the same here.




Yes but Max is right beside him wherever Seb goes so still only needs to outbrake him unless Seb was planning on taking T1 with no regard if a driver had his nose alongside.






No it just means we can't speak of Seb's move as if we saw it play out so saying it wasn't a hard squeeze and he left room isn't correct as he'd clearly not finished moving left when Max touched Kimi.

Imagine if there was a car on the inside of Kimi in Suzuka that Alonso was oblivious too and still tried to run Kimi to tracks edge and the contact happened earlier. Alonso would still get the lions share of the blame from most because of the initial aggressive squeeze I think and that seemed to reflect the feeling after Singapore.






The wet changes it for me, most things around defending and attacking in the wet carry increased risk and squeezing a competitor at race start certainly does for me.

I can't speak for everyone though but when I saw starts like Germany and Singapore 2010 I was thinking what the beep are they playing at because of that very risk and I thought it again when I saw Seb try it here. It looked like a more aggressive version of Germany 2003 with Ralf,Rubens and Kimi but this time in the wet.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

I think if Vettel was in the Merc and Ham in the Ferrari, it would have been Vettel who remained calm and cool all year. As close as it was in the drivers standings early in the year, those two definitely knew who had the better car.

I should say I don't think Singapore had anything to do with cracking under pressure to be clear, I thought it was just needlessly risky.

I don't buy the cracking under pressure in general. These guys are under enormous pressure from very early in their careers and deal with it. It's very rare you'll get error free seasons and I think we see more mistakes from taking your eye of the ball than cracking under pressure from these top drivers.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

What about Buemi in Formula E?

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017

Not a follower yet I'm afraid,what did I miss?

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

This is all from memory, but basically he started the year winning every race, but then he was forced to miss a weekend to do WEC and came to the final double-header with only a slight lead over di Grassi. In the first race he crashed heavily in practice, then had a terrible race where he kept tangling with other drivers and blaming them for everything.

After that race he needed to win the final to have a chance at the title, but he stuffed up qualifying with his worst starting position of the year, crashed into more people in the race, and then after the race he raged up and down the pit lane, confronting every driver he felt had wronged him throughout the weekend.

In the end, he took 0 points from the weekend after looking on top for the whole season up until then.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017

This being were Hamilton conceded room and gave the corner to Vettel, yes that would be exactly the same.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)

While Vettel gave no room? There was more than a car's width at the time of the incident

I can't have a look now as I'm at work, but I think that there have been such manoeuvres in the past in the wet. And it wasn't a chop, it was a controlled and steady move. Check some of Senna's or Schumacher's starts to understand what a chop is.

I also don't understand your logic here; if it is a chop, you don't agree with it in the wet, but you agree with a chop on the dry?