2019 Russian GP - Sochi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

I have no regard for drivers who would not win on merit but prefer to use other drivers to prop themselves up. This is why in my eyes, Hamilton is the greatest world champion in recent times. He would fight anyone on equal footing with no demand for favoritism for being a multiple world champion.

Of course at some point the team must do what it takes to ensure they win both titles once it has become mathematically clear who is most likely to win the driver's championship. We are not at that position with Ferrari which is why this crappy agreement shinanigan annoys me so much.

Vettel would leave Sochi feeling the Ferrari team are unlikely to give him a fair chance to race in the future. We saw how they messed Raikonen about. In a sense, Vettel is getting a taste what that felt like for Kimi, while he enjoy the No 1 status. Which beggars the question, is Vettel leaving Ferrari, if so where is he heading. There may be something in the gossip that he may be returning to Redbull. Bottas's seat is vcacant in 2021, that may also be a possibility.

Binotto and his pitwall crew have really f*cked this one up good.

---

In this case I take it you have no regard for Vettel either then for making an agreement with LeClerc to prop himself up to first and then successfully using him to do so after LeClerc kept to the agreement? If you’re going to apply this as the criteria by which you judge drivers then surely you must realise Vettel used LeClerc to prop himself up first. And surely you must therefore have even less of a regard for the driver that didn’t keep his word thereafter...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Black Knight

In this case I take it you have no regard for Vettel either then for making an agreement with LeClerc to prop himself up to first and then successfully using him to do so after LeClerc kept to the agreement? If you’re going to apply this as the criteria by which you judge drivers then surely you must realise Vettel used LeClerc to prop himself up first. And surely you must therefore have even less of a regard for the driver that didn’t keep his word thereafter...

---

Come on TBK, that is a bizzare way to look at the situation. The slipstream is there for anyone behind Leclerc and even Vettel. Being behind and using the slipstream is not the same as trying to negotiate out of a disadvantaged situation, which Leclerc found himself by taking pole.

With how powerful the slipstream was at Sochi, Leclerc was in a very disadvantaged position in pole. Everyone behind had someone in front to provide a slipstream, Leclerc did not, hence he tried to negotiate to neutralize his disadvantage, that is what l mean by propping up. Vettel was not about to give up his advantage of the slipstream which would make him a fool and he would only look bad as the whiner wins another race at his expense.

I take your point that one should honor a gentleman's agreement made on a handshake. But such an agreement must have mutual benefit. This particular agreement only benefits Leclerc who may have won another race only if Vettel failed to take full advantage of the slipstream. My point is there should not have been any agreement of this kind in the first place. It defeats racing on merit, if Leclerc is that good, he should feel good enough to take the win after a loss of position at the start. He has done so in the past. He should have done it again.

But Vettel's race pace was faster than that of Leclerc, which was why Ferrari looked bad as it became too obvious that they were hanging Vettel out to dry just to get Leclerc in front of Vettel. The whole thing was ugly to say the least. We don't want to be watching this sort of crap, it ruins the entertainment for everyone watching. We want a race where everyone earned their positions fairly.

It makes one wonder if Vettel stopped due to an actual problem or if he was switched off remotely. Because, l think Vettels race pace was fast enough for him to chase down Leclerc and overtake him. I think without the DNF, Vettel was good for the win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

Come on TBK, that is a bizzare way to look at the situation. The slipstream is there for anyone behind Leclerc and even Vettel. Being behind and using the slipstream is not the same as trying to negotiate out of a disadvantaged situation, which Leclerc found himself by taking pole.

With how powerful the slipstream was at Sochi, Leclerc was in a very disadvantaged position in pole. Everyone behind had someone in front to provide a slipstream, Leclerc did not, hence he tried to negotiate to neutralize his disadvantage, that is what l mean by propping up. Vettel was not about to give up his advantage of the slipstream which would make him a fool and he would only look bad as the whiner wins another race at his expense.

I take your point that one should honor a gentleman's agreement made on a handshake. But such an agreement must have mutual benefit. This particular agreement only benefits Leclerc who may have won another race only if Vettel failed to take full advantage of the slipstream. My point is there should not have been any agreement of this kind in the first place. It defeats racing on merit, if Leclerc is that good, he should feel good enough to take the win after a loss of position at the start. He has done so in the past. He should have done it again.

But Vettel's race pace was faster than that of Leclerc, which was why Ferrari looked bad as it became too obvious that they were hanging Vettel out to dry just to get Leclerc in front of Vettel. The whole thing was ugly to say the least. We don't want to be watching this sort of crap, it ruins the entertainment for everyone watching. We want a race where everyone earned their positions fairly.

It makes one wonder if Vettel stopped due to an actual problem or if he was switched off remotely. Because, l think Vettels race pace was fast enough for him to chase down Leclerc and overtake him. I think without the DNF, Vettel was good for the win.

---

No, it’s not a bizarre way of looking at it, it’s the only way of looking at it correctly. You’re still not seeing the entire picture. You state that LeClerc tried to negotiate to neutralise his disadvantage, but you ignore that Vettel negotiated to gain an advantage. Both drivers benefited and saw the benefit to be gained from this agreement which is why they made it in the first place. Do you think either would have made it otherwise? LeClerc (Pre agreement) was under no obligation to provide Vettel the slipstream to get by Lewis. He could have simply hugged the corner of turn one for the optimal line and there’s a good chance he could have stayed ahead. We’ve seen drivers get pole in Russia and be in the lead out of turn two more than once, so assuming LeClerc was just a sitting duck because he got pole is incorrect. The agreement most definitely had mutual benefit, Vettel got his benefit and then he decided to not uphold his part. He was the one in the wrong here, not LeClerc.

As I say, I hate these agreements as much as anyone but, once they are made, both parties must uphold their end of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Black Knight

No, it’s not a bizarre way of looking at it, it’s the only way of looking at it correctly. You’re still not seeing the entire picture. You state that LeClerc tried to negotiate to neutralise his disadvantage, but you ignore that Vettel negotiated to gain an advantage. Both drivers benefited and saw the benefit to be gained from this agreement which is why they made it in the first place. Do you think either would have made it otherwise? LeClerc (Pre agreement) was under no obligation to provide Vettel the slipstream to get by Lewis. He could have simply hugged the corner of turn one for the optimal line and there’s a good chance he could have stayed ahead. We’ve seen drivers get pole in Russia and be in the lead out of turn two more than once, so assuming LeClerc was just a sitting duck because he got pole is incorrect. The agreement most definitely had mutual benefit, Vettel got his benefit and then he decided to not uphold his part. He was the one in the wrong here, not LeClerc.

As I say, I hate these agreements as much as anyone but, once they are made, both parties must uphold their end of it.

---

Sorry mate, it is bizarre. How could you say Vettel negotiated to gain advantage when the alternative was to give Hamilton in the Mercedes the slipstream and the advantage to seize the lead and win the race comfortably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

Sorry mate, it is bizarre. How could you say Vettel negotiated to gain advantage when the alternative was to give Hamilton in the Mercedes the slipstream and the advantage to seize the lead and win the race comfortably.

---

That’s not the alternative though. The alternative was to race as normal and there’s no guarantee Hamilton would have gotten by LeClerc at all especially given the straight line speed advantage Ferrari have over Mercedes. To state that Mercedes would have simply waltzed by Ferrari to turn one is a big assumption and a completely flawed one. Toto (I think it was) said on Saturday that even with a tow and DRS they are only 1km/h ahead of the Ferrari in clean air on the straights. That’s not enough and you can be sure Ferrari would be turned up to 110% at the start of the race.

The logic here is completely sound, you’re simply choosing not to see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Black Knight

That’s not the alternative though. The alternative was to race as normal and there’s no guarantee Hamilton would have gotten by LeClerc at all especially given the straight line speed advantage Ferrari have over Mercedes. To state that Mercedes would have simply waltzed by Ferrari to turn one is a big assumption and a completely flawed one. Toto (I think it was) said on Saturday that even with a tow and DRS they are only 1km/h ahead of the Ferrari in clean air on the straights. That’s not enough and you can be sure Ferrari would be turned up to 110% at the start of the race.

The logic here is completely sound, you’re simply choosing not to see it.

---

Wolff was talking about the slipstream once they got going. The slipstream off the start is a different matter. And it was strong enough to bring Hamilton alongside Leclerc if he was able to harness the slipstream. If there was no agreement and Leclerc were to try to prevent anyone getting into his slipstream, he may have created a situation where both Vettel and Hamilton have a 50/50 chance of using the slipstream. One thing is certain, Hamilton may have maintained 2nd place and Leclerc would not have a rear gunner to protect him during the rest of the race.

Due to their respective grid position at the start, the slipstream would have been immediately available to Vettel anyway regardless of what Leclerc did or don't do. So the agreement was only good to prevent Vettel from leapfrogging Leclerc into the lead but to stay ahead of Hamilton and play the rear gunner for Leclerc to help him win the race. You can try to spin it which ever way you want, this here is the fact.

The real option available to Ferrari was to allow the race to shape out in a situation where they had both cars in 1st and 2nd positions regardless of the who was where. They are not in a title fight, so what should have really mattered to the Ferarri pitwall was constructors points and not which driver whines the loudest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

Wolff was talking about the slipstream once they got going. The slipstream off the start is a different matter. And it was strong enough to bring Hamilton alongside Leclerc if he was able to harness the slipstream.

---

The Ferrari has better initial pick up as well.

If I were LeClerc on pole I'd have chosen to initially provided Seb a tow at the start, then once he's alongside Hamilton move over to hug the corner of turn one staying on the inside for turn two. This would mean Seb and Hamilton are alongside each other, Hamilton is blocked, letting Vettel and Hamilton battle it out for the first corner. So really the only loser of any scenario that didn't involve LeClerc doing whatever he wanted was Charles and that played out on Sunday. He had every chance to keep his lead into turn one and far lesser chance of keeping his lead by helping his teammate. Helping Seb he was always going to be the loser.

I managed to delete my post yesterday trying to fix a typo. :laugh:



Having now read several online sources with Ferrari quotes, as well as having watched the start several times, I think Seb backed out on the agreement that did benefit him.

In hindsight, it wasn't really a bad idea from Ferrari. If the third car gets the tow and the second car doesn't then the chances that they arrive at turn two 1-2 rather than 1-3 increase. And though in this case Seb got a better start than Lewis anyway, I think the plan as it was made was sound. The tow is what got Sainz to the second corner alongside Lewis, and I don't think any of us thinks that the Mclaren has the power that Merc does.

But the actions of Leclerc are what makes up my mind. Not a single driver on the grid would have let another car pass them without any defense attempt, but Leclerc did. Rather than move inside on turn one, he stayed towards the middle of the track. And he made no attempt at all to ever move right and cover the inside line going into turn two either. Instead, he let Seb move inside after getting the tow. At that point Seb had the ability to easily cover the racing line, just at Lewis easily covered it from Sainz.

I think Seb did gain obvious advantage through the actions of Leclerc. Though he cleared Lewis fairly quickly anyway, Leclerc just held his position to the lesser desired line to give it all a chance to play out. If Leclerc had moved right at any point from the start it would have made life harder for Seb. At a bare minimum he would have had to try to make the turn two move on the outside, and that would have required more advantage than he had at that point.


Some sources are stating Seb ignored 5 team calls to swap position. He simply quit responding after the couple radio transmissions they broadcast.

Helmut Marko made some comments that would lead us to think Vettel is more or less done at Ferrari after this event. And this is the guy that put him in a competitive seat.



I really don't like these arrangements. But in hindsight, Ferrari as a team made a decision to roll the dice and gain track position. And really had Lewis started on the same tires and got a better start, it was an idea that might have earned them that 1-2 going into turn 2. At worst case Lewis still got the tow, but Leclerc could have made attempts to defend in that case. So there was really nothing to lose vs not making an agreement, but there was a possible gain.

As for Seb... the fact that he is playing dumb and claiming he didn't understand the agreement doesn't fly with me. It seems that he thought the agreement was simply that Leclerc would make it easy for him to get ahead by never moving or defending. And we all know that isn't what happens when people are racing.

From Chuck's point of view , he was a sitting duck , so he arranged an agreement for the tow .
From Ferrari's point of view , it was a way to secure the one-two , but the drivers should know this is a priority anyway , so the logic of meddling was flimsy to begin with .

But from Seb's point of view , as Chuck was sad , and Ferrari had reacted , he couldn't not agree to the arrangement .

However , he could try to find a way out of it .
If he was to get far enough ahead out of the starting sequence , perhaps it wouldn't make sense to drop him back . If he could make him chase hard , Chuck would lose pace , being behind in the dirty air . If Seb could then argue about the logic of the swap for a lap or two more , then maybe that logic would over-ride the agreement .
He was making his argument that the agreement didn't make sense to implement .

That this "fix" attempt resulted in an abortion fiasco is proof enough to me that such arrangements are really bad for all concerned parties! I'm not a big fan of Seb. He obviously violated a pre-arranged (poorly advised) deal. Where is the place for such nonsense in F1 in this situation? I put the blame squarely at the feet of Ferrari strategists (and anyone else associated with the team that was in on the decision making) Strategy in this scenario should start after the first corner, not before it! JMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tazio

That this "fix" attempt resulted in an abortion fiasco is proof enough to me that such arrangements are really bad for all concerned parties! I'm not a big fan of Seb. He obviously violated a pre-arranged (poorly advised) deal. Where is the place for such nonsense in F1 in this situation? I put the blame squarely at the feet of Ferrari strategists (and anyone else associated with the team that was in on the decision making) Strategy in this scenario should start after the first corner, not before it! JMHO.

---

I totally agree!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

From Chuck's point of view , he was a sitting duck , so he arranged an agreement for the tow .
From Ferrari's point of view , it was a way to secure the one-two , but the drivers should know this is a priority anyway , so the logic of meddling was flimsy to begin with .

But from Seb's point of view , as Chuck was sad , and Ferrari had reacted , he couldn't not agree to the arrangement .

However , he could try to find a way out of it .
If he was to get far enough ahead out of the starting sequence , perhaps it wouldn't make sense to drop him back . If he could make him chase hard , Chuck would lose pace , being behind in the dirty air . If Seb could then argue about the logic of the swap for a lap or two more , then maybe that logic would over-ride the agreement .
He was making his argument that the agreement didn't make sense to implement .

---

You are right, the situation quickly became awkward and hanging Vettel out to dry looked bad and Leclerc whining constantly on the radio was pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

I managed to delete my post yesterday trying to fix a typo. :laugh:



Having now read several online sources with Ferrari quotes, as well as having watched the start several times, I think Seb backed out on the agreement that did benefit him.

In hindsight, it wasn't really a bad idea from Ferrari. If the third car gets the tow and the second car doesn't then the chances that they arrive at turn two 1-2 rather than 1-3 increase. And though in this case Seb got a better start than Lewis anyway, I think the plan as it was made was sound. The tow is what got Sainz to the second corner alongside Lewis, and I don't think any of us thinks that the Mclaren has the power that Merc does.

But the actions of Leclerc are what makes up my mind. Not a single driver on the grid would have let another car pass them without any defense attempt, but Leclerc did. Rather than move inside on turn one, he stayed towards the middle of the track. And he made no attempt at all to ever move right and cover the inside line going into turn two either. Instead, he let Seb move inside after getting the tow. At that point Seb had the ability to easily cover the racing line, just at Lewis easily covered it from Sainz.

I think Seb did gain obvious advantage through the actions of Leclerc. Though he cleared Lewis fairly quickly anyway, Leclerc just held his position to the lesser desired line to give it all a chance to play out. If Leclerc had moved right at any point from the start it would have made life harder for Seb. At a bare minimum he would have had to try to make the turn two move on the outside, and that would have required more advantage than he had at that point.

---

If you have Sky, please watch Davidson's analysis of the start. Leclerc gets of the line and tried to close down Hamilton, Vettel behind used the racing line grip and some of the tow to get alongside Hamilton who had a bad start anyway. As Leclerc approached the corner with Hamilton and Vettel side by side at this point, but with Vettel half a cars length ahead, Leclerc had two choices; go tight round the corner closing any doors open, but that would hand the slipstream to Hamilton who was on the inside of Vettel. Or take a wider line round the bend and hope that Vettel get just enough tow to get ahead of Hamilton.

As it turned out, Leclerc position in the corner was all he could do whether there was an agreement or not. He either tow his team mate who would slingshot into the lead or tow Hamilton who would hound him for the rest of the race and possibly steal the race with tyre strategy.

From Ferrari's perspective, all they ought to care about is getting a one-two coming out of that corner whichever way it shakes out. If they did, then one Ferrari car is guaranteed to win the race, with the other potentially 2nd.

The Ferrari pitwall lost the plot. They stopped thinking in the best interest of the team and wasted so much energy on the irrelevant issue of driver positions. I suppose this is why they are not ready to be world champions again.

If you watch the start again, you will see that Leclerc got off the line thinking of number one; himself only. He was not concerned about giving the tow to Vettel but was more concern about closing down Hamilton. By so doing, Vettel only had the advantage of the grippy racing line, a powerfull Ferrari engine and a partial tow to fight Hamilton who also had bad start. Hence, Vettel did not need the tow to pass Hamilton anyway.

At the corner, it was everyman for himself, Leclerc thinking he had done enough to put Vettel in Hamilton's hair to allow himself to get out of the corner in the lead with at least a cars length while those two squabbled. As they came out of the corner, Vettel had used the superior power of the Ferrari engine to nose ahead of Hamilton and took the slipstream of Leclerc. Please note that at this point, both Ferrari cars are outside the zone of the agreement.

From this point on, it was racing as usual. Vettel with a better race pace than Leclerc was always going to slipstream into the lead at the straight after the corner. The agreement was not to finish 2nd at this race. It was to get Vettel ahead of Hamilton from the start. The agreement was stupendous for a start and l think it was reasonable to expect Vettel to fight Leclerc after the first corner. It was all racing, but unfortunately with meddling Ferrari pitwall.

Before this crap, there was half a chance in the constructors championship for Ferrari, if they can manage a consistent one-two for every race to the end of the season. It would have been up to Mercedes to equally maintain a flawless operation to ensure they can maintain some sort of advantage by the time we reach Abu Dhabi. And Ferrari had a real chance, especially with Redbull getting in the hair of Mercedes regularly and bleeding points from them at some races.

This fiasco at Sochi is very costly to Ferrari. Not because of anything that Vettel has done. But because the Ferrari pitwall lost sight of their responsibility [the long game] to the team. That said, the MGUK failure would not have helped matters whichever way things had turned out anyway.

Best comment was from Alan mcNish who said that all the while Ferrari were trying to get Vettel to yield to LeClerc he could hear Webber's voice saying "multi 21 Seb"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

Wolff was talking about the slipstream once they got going. The slipstream off the start is a different matter. And it was strong enough to bring Hamilton alongside Leclerc if he was able to harness the slipstream. If there was no agreement and Leclerc were to try to prevent anyone getting into his slipstream, he may have created a situation where both Vettel and Hamilton have a 50/50 chance of using the slipstream. One thing is certain, Hamilton may have maintained 2nd place and Leclerc would not have a rear gunner to protect him during the rest of the race.

Due to their respective grid position at the start, the slipstream would have been immediately available to Vettel anyway regardless of what Leclerc did or don't do. So the agreement was only good to prevent Vettel from leapfrogging Leclerc into the lead but to stay ahead of Hamilton and play the rear gunner for Leclerc to help him win the race. You can try to spin it which ever way you want, this here is the fact.

The real option available to Ferrari was to allow the race to shape out in a situation where they had both cars in 1st and 2nd positions regardless of the who was where. They are not in a title fight, so what should have really mattered to the Ferarri pitwall was constructors points and not which driver whines the loudest.

---

No this is what you’re failing to get. The agreement was that LeClerc would be left by if Vettel towed past him, that’s why Ferrari pitted him early.

By the way, if you have some highfalutin idea that pole position in Russia means you’re de facto second after turn 2, watch what Bottas did last year. The initial slipstream he gave to Vettel and then cut over to Hamilton. Last years start is what this years probably would have equated to had LeClerc not provided Seb the tow. Bottas showed how to do it while keeping the lead last year and he did it exceptionally well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tazio

That this "fix" attempt resulted in an abortion fiasco is proof enough to me that such arrangements are really bad for all concerned parties! I'm not a big fan of Seb. He obviously violated a pre-arranged (poorly advised) deal. Where is the place for such nonsense in F1 in this situation? I put the blame squarely at the feet of Ferrari strategists (and anyone else associated with the team that was in on the decision making) Strategy in this scenario should start after the first corner, not before it! JMHO.

---

I agree but anyone blaming LeClerc for wanting his Vettel to stick to the pre-race agreement is off their rocker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Black Knight

I agree but anyone blaming LeClerc for wanting his Vettel to stick to the pre-race agreement is off their rocker.

---

I blame Ferrari, not "The Kid" I'd be pissed off too if I was him!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

If you have Sky, please watch Davidson's analysis of the start. Leclerc gets of the line and tried to close down Hamilton, Vettel behind used the racing line grip and some of the tow to get alongside Hamilton who had a bad start anyway. As Leclerc approached the corner with Hamilton and Vettel side by side at this point, but with Vettel half a cars length ahead, Leclerc had two choices; go tight round the corner closing any doors open, but that would hand the slipstream to Hamilton who was on the inside of Vettel. Or take a wider line round the bend and hope that Vettel get just enough tow to get ahead of Hamilton.

As it turned out, Leclerc position in the corner was all he could do whether there was an agreement or not. He either tow his team mate who would slingshot into the lead or tow Hamilton who would hound him for the rest of the race and possibly steal the race with tyre strategy.

From Ferrari's perspective, all they ought to care about is getting a one-two coming out of that corner whichever way it shakes out. If they did, then one Ferrari car is guaranteed to win the race, with the other potentially 2nd.

The Ferrari pitwall lost the plot. They stopped thinking in the best interest of the team and wasted so much energy on the irrelevant issue of driver positions. I suppose this is why they are not ready to be world champions again.

---

I've watched the start several times from several angles, including the overhead shots. Lewis moved far more left, Leclerc barely budged right. As for trying to close down Hamilton, not even close. At any point after the cars started moving, Leclerc had several car widths to the right. He could have shot across the nose of the Merc as soon as they moved.

It's my opinion that his position in the corner was only to ensure that Seb stayed in the tow, and he maintained that position with no attempts to cover the inside line at any point. Had me moved to the right through turn one, Lewis might have gained a tow, but Seb was alongside and so the chances of making an outside move were down the tubes. Had me moved inside it would have had a similar impact to when Seb moved inside and Sainz lost the tow. Sainz was fully ahead of Lewis, but when Seb moved he lost the tow and he lost advantage to Lewis almost immediately. Lewis finished him off by outbraking him into turn two, but Lewis got a good view of the back of the Mclaren before it happened.



And my point remains the same. Leclerc didn't move to cover, when anyone racing for themselves would have. It's really that simple in my opinion. Though I don't like such agreements, I don't think Ferrari screwed it up. I think Seb did.

As for race pace, all of the front runners had enough to keep the cars behind them behind them. I don't think it's any shock to see that the leading car can't be caught up easily, as it's often the case these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Boyd

Best comment was from Alan mcNish who said that all the while Ferrari were trying to get Vettel to yield to LeClerc he could hear Webber's voice saying "multi 21 Seb"

---

In all fairness, I was thinking it before it was stated on air. The worst thing for Seb is that he acknowledged the swap and just "postponed" it until he ignored it. He would have looked better if he just played dumb the first time they mentioned it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

In all fairness, I was thinking it before it was stated on air. The worst thing for Seb is that he acknowledged the swap and just "postponed" it until he ignored it. He would have looked better if he just played dumb the first time they mentioned it.

---

I think we would see the situation differently and that is ok. And l am not trying to defend Sebastien's conduct. We all know after "multi 21" that Seb would not comply with any agreement that he does not benefit from.

My particular qualms with the whole thing was that there should not have been an agreement, especially since they are not in the fight for the drivers championship but have a slim chance with the constructors title. Ferrari should have let their drivers race but ensure that they occupy the 1st and 2nd position after the start.

Leclerc just pissed me off with his whining. I have not heard that much whining since Alonso and the Honda engine.

Chuck is a smart kid .
He should have thought about the inherent disadvantage in it before he went out and took pole .
And , maybe should have thought about "multi 21" before making the agreement .

He's just learning .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Black Knight

I agree but anyone blaming LeClerc for wanting his Vettel to stick to the pre-race agreement is off their rocker.

---

I do blame Leclerc for exacerbating the situation.
Of the 2 drivers, clearly he was the slower one.
he got a poorer start (no matter what ferrari officially say to cover their ass)
and he absolutely could not keep up with Vettel's pace, to the point where Hamilton was able to stay in striking distance with mediums compared to leclerc's softs
Hamilton to his credit came out and explained how difficult it was to stay with the Ferrari ahead of him, essentially doing qualifying laps to do so
Meanwhile Leclerc just decided to whine constantly over the radio, even when he knew that he had a poorer start and less race pace than Vettel.
That should null and void any gentleman's agreement foolishly made prior to the start.
If they were racing nose to tail for the first 5 laps and then he backed up to save his tires, then came right back at vettel a few laps later, then i would see his point.
but he didn't and then tried to engineer his way to the front.
Just because you got pole on a saturday is no guarantee that it finishes that way on a sunday.
It also isn't your right to be on the lead after the red lights go out.
This isn't the first race at sochi and everyone knows the track. It is what it is.
But only Ferrari manage to mess things up royally. Both the team and leclerc come off looking bad.
This has been their pattern all season long. Trying to control the race from the pits.
Early in the year, it was them favoring vettel to Leclerc's detriment and now they have turned it around completely.
How about just letting them race from the start and the only instruction be to not take each other out. If a situation comes up during the race that makes sense then do so. But certainly not stupid agreements prearranged in a bizarre way to mitigate the nature of the track to one driver's benefit. Getting pole is no inherent right to win the race. All it says is that you were fastes on saturday and have a slight advantage starting the race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

Chuck is a smart kid .
He should have thought about the inherent disadvantage in it before he went out and took pole .
And , maybe should have thought about "multi 21" before making the agreement .

He's just learning .

---

Agree Baggie! the "multi 21" part is worth remembering! As for making agreements; it must be awfully hard to go against "The Dons" :pimp:at Ferrari! Seb will soon be sleeping with the fishes!:arrowed: (metaphorically speaking of course) :arrows:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truefan72

I do blame Leclerc for exacerbating the situation.
Of the 2 drivers, clearly he was the slower one.
he got a poorer start (no matter what ferrari officially say to cover their ass)
and he absolutely could not keep up with Vettel's pace, to the point where Hamilton was able to stay in striking distance with mediums compared to leclerc's softs
Hamilton to his credit came out and explained how difficult it was to stay with the Ferrari ahead of him, essentially doing qualifying laps to do so
Meanwhile Leclerc just decided to whine constantly over the radio, even when he knew that he had a poorer start and less race pace than Vettel.
That should null and void any gentleman's agreement foolishly made prior to the start.
If they were racing nose to tail for the first 5 laps and then he backed up to save his tires, then came right back at vettel a few laps later, then i would see his point.
but he didn't and then tried to engineer his way to the front.
Just because you got pole on a saturday is no guarantee that it finishes that way on a sunday.
It also isn't your right to be on the lead after the red lights go out.
This isn't the first race at sochi and everyone knows the track. It is what it is.
But only Ferrari manage to mess things up royally. Both the team and leclerc come off looking bad.
This has been their pattern all season long. Trying to control the race from the pits.
Early in the year, it was them favoring vettel to Leclerc's detriment and now they have turned it around completely.
How about just letting them race from the start and the only instruction be to not take each other out. If a situation comes up during the race that makes sense then do so. But certainly not stupid agreements prearranged in a bizarre way to mitigate the nature of the track to one driver's benefit. Getting pole is no inherent right to win the race. All it says is that you were fastes on saturday and have a slight advantage starting the race.

---

Tell them buddy, tell them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tazio

Agree Baggie! the "multi 21" part is worth remembering! As for making agreements; it must be awfully hard to go against "The Dons" :pimp:at Ferrari! Seb will soon be sleeping with the fishes!:arrowed: (metaphorically speaking of course) :arrows:

---

Yep, l think l would be looking around if l were Seb. His Ferrari days are numbered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truefan72

I do blame Leclerc for exacerbating the situation.
Of the 2 drivers, clearly he was the slower one.
he got a poorer start (no matter what ferrari officially say to cover their ass)
and he absolutely could not keep up with Vettel's pace, to the point where Hamilton was able to stay in striking distance with mediums compared to leclerc's softs
Hamilton to his credit came out and explained how difficult it was to stay with the Ferrari ahead of him, essentially doing qualifying laps to do so
Meanwhile Leclerc just decided to whine constantly over the radio, even when he knew that he had a poorer start and less race pace than Vettel.
That should null and void any gentleman's agreement foolishly made prior to the start.
If they were racing nose to tail for the first 5 laps and then he backed up to save his tires, then came right back at vettel a few laps later, then i would see his point.
but he didn't and then tried to engineer his way to the front.
Just because you got pole on a saturday is no guarantee that it finishes that way on a sunday.
It also isn't your right to be on the lead after the red lights go out.
This isn't the first race at sochi and everyone knows the track. It is what it is.
But only Ferrari manage to mess things up royally. Both the team and leclerc come off looking bad.
This has been their pattern all season long. Trying to control the race from the pits.
Early in the year, it was them favoring vettel to Leclerc's detriment and now they have turned it around completely.
How about just letting them race from the start and the only instruction be to not take each other out. If a situation comes up during the race that makes sense then do so. But certainly not stupid agreements prearranged in a bizarre way to mitigate the nature of the track to one driver's benefit. Getting pole is no inherent right to win the race. All it says is that you were fastes on saturday and have a slight advantage starting the race.

---

I think we all agree that these arrangements are foolish and should not be made but the part in bold is where you guys are going wrong. The agreement is the agreement regardless of whether Vettel was faster or not. Him being faster has nothing to do with the agreement and is entirely irrelevant. If he was faster like that I’m sure he could have passed LeClerc after he kept to the arrangement that was made pre race. Otherwise tough shit, he cannot just renege on the agreement just because it doesn’t suit him anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Black Knight

I think we all agree that these arrangements are foolish and should not be made but the part in bold is where you guys are going wrong. The agreement is the agreement regardless of whether Vettel was faster or not. Him being faster has nothing to do with the agreement and is entirely irrelevant. If he was faster like that I’m sure he could have passed LeClerc after he kept to the arrangement that was made pre race. Otherwise tough shit, he cannot just renege on the agreement just because it doesn’t suit him anymore.

---

Totally agree with you TBK .
Seb was trying to nullify the agreement by going fast enough to make it impractical .
It would be the only way for him to go if he felt he was being mistreated , being essentially forced into this agreement , and I think it was likely the case here .

I don't like that he didn't comply , but I don't like the thought that he'd be forced into such a dumb agreement , when the priority should just have been to be 1-2 out the turn 1 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Black Knight

I think we all agree that these arrangements are foolish and should not be made but the part in bold is where you guys are going wrong. The agreement is the agreement regardless of whether Vettel was faster or not. Him being faster has nothing to do with the agreement and is entirely irrelevant. If he was faster like that I’m sure he could have passed LeClerc after he kept to the arrangement that was made pre race. Otherwise tough shit, he cannot just renege on the agreement just because it doesn’t suit him anymore.

---

The problem with your argument is you assumed that Vettel agreed to the arrangement. You don't even know if he was pressured into the agreement. But you happily argue that he must comply to the agreement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

I don't like that he didn't comply , but I don't like the thought that he'd be forced into such a dumb agreement , when the priority should just have been to be 1-2 out the turn 1 .

---

You finally get it. Vettel is not in the race to finish 2nd, he is in it to win. Any agreement with a result to the contrary will not register with him. And l am very much in agreement with him. I did not like the Multi 21 arrangement either.

It seems to me that the undercut that help Vettel so much in Singapore was going to help LeClerc is Russia. By that logic what happened at the start was to allow Ferrari a 1-2, keep Hamilton behind and use that order to dictate a strategy where they could win 1-2.
Do we all not agree that had Vettel's car not given up the pit stops would have allowed LeClerc to end up in 1st with Vettel in 2nd, finishing the GP with a Ferrari 1-2?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

The problem with your argument is you assumed that Vettel agreed to the arrangement. You don't even know if he was pressured into the agreement. But you happily argue that he must comply to the agreement.



You finally get it. Vettel is not in the race to finish 2nd, he is in it to win. Any agreement with a result to the contrary will not register with him. And l am very much in agreement with him. I did not like the Multi 21 arrangement either.

---

That’s just hearsay. We haven’t heard anything from team or driver that indicates he was forced into this agreement. If it turns out in future that he was, then that would, of course, change my opinion. Unless that turns out to be the case it’s just make believe, pie in the sky, wishful fairy land thinking on anyones part.

Considering Seb had no issue threatening RBR with a letter from his lawyers post Malaysia 2013 Multi 21 saga, I find it hard to believe Ferrari would be able to force him to agree to anything he doesn’t want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Black Knight

That’s just hearsay. We haven’t heard anything from team or driver that indicates he was forced into this agreement. If it turns out in future that he was, then that would, of course, change my opinion. Unless that turns out to be the case it’s just make believe, pie in the sky, wishful fairy land thinking on anyones part.

Considering Seb had no issue threatening RBR with a letter from his lawyers post Malaysia 2013 Multi 21 saga, I find it hard to believe Ferrari would be able to force him to agree to anything he doesn’t want.

---

Wow, guilty until proven innocent!
But you still assume that he agreed to the agreement.
The team can make it awkward for Vettel to say no and he may decide not respond with an answer which may have been taken by the team as affirmation of an agreement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N. Jones

It seems to me that the undercut that help Vettel so much in Singapore was going to help LeClerc is Russia. By that logic what happened at the start was to allow Ferrari a 1-2, keep Hamilton behind and use that order to dictate a strategy where they could win 1-2.
Do we all not agree that had Vettel's car not given up the pit stops would have allowed LeClerc to end up in 1st with Vettel in 2nd, finishing the GP with a Ferrari 1-2?

---

That was very much agreed and understood. The argument here is that we did not like Ferrari messing with the race outcome by some dodgy agreement for Vettel not to race Leclerc fair and square after the start.

The counter argument is criticizing Vettel for not honoring the agreement to not race Leclerc and finish 2nd behind Leclerc in a Ferrari one-two formation. I say bullshit! Let the drivers race, that is what several thousands of fans pay dear money to see. Not an arranged outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

Wow, guilty until proven innocent!
But you still assume that he agreed to the agreement.
Teams can make it awkward for Vettel to say no and he may decide not respond with an answer which may have been taken by the team as affirmation of an agreement.

---

Vettel stated clearly after the race that there was an agreement. Now you’re going so far as to suppose what way Vettel may have responded in a meeting. Smh. If that’s all you’re left with your argument is lost, buddy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Black Knight

Vettel stated clearly after the race that there was an agreement. Now you’re going so far as to suppose what way Vettel may have responded in a meeting. Smh. If that’s all you’re left with your argument is lost, buddy!

---

Vettel also said that the agreement did not stand because the circumstance of the race had changed and he felt they were open to race each other. You are being selective of what you choose to acknowlege as the facts.

You are clearly not going to give in to anything contrary to your point of view. So shall we say we agree to differ on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

Vettel also said that the agreement did not stand because the circumstance of the race had changed and he felt they were open to race each other. You are being selective of what you choose to acknowlege as the facts.

You are clearly not going to give in to anything contrary to your point of view. So shall we say we agree to differ on this.

---

And Vettel stating that is where he was going back on the agreement. Again, what he felt had or had not changed didn’t matter because the agreement must be kept regardless of how he felt. This is what you’re again not getting. It is irrelevant how he felt or how he saw it once he agreed to the arrangement that was in place he should have kept it. I’m acknowledging all the facts, you’re the one making stuff up, which is pretty much what all your point of view is made of, make believe suppositions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nitrodaze

That was very much agreed and understood. The argument here is that we did not like Ferrari messing with the race outcome by some dodgy agreement for Vettel not to race Leclerc fair and square after the start.

The counter argument is criticizing Vettel for not honoring the agreement to not race Leclerc and finish 2nd behind Leclerc in a Ferrari one-two formation. I say bullshit! Let the drivers race, that is what several thousands of fans pay dear money to see. Not an arranged outcome.

---

Ha! I knew Vettel wasn't going to give up the lead and I thought that the undercut was how Ferrari was going to swap positions if Vettel wouldn't let Charles by.
Yes, I love watching teammates race but the teams want the maximum points so they try to engineer final positions or try to keep the driver who is leading or chasing the drivers title with the biggest lead, hence 'let Michael pass you' and 'Fernando is faster than you' radio messages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Black Knight

I think we all agree that these arrangements are foolish and should not be made but the part in bold is where you guys are going wrong. The agreement is the agreement regardless of whether Vettel was faster or not. Him being faster has nothing to do with the agreement and is entirely irrelevant. If he was faster like that I’m sure he could have passed LeClerc after he kept to the arrangement that was made pre race. Otherwise tough shit, he cannot just renege on the agreement just because it doesn’t suit him anymore.

---

I respectfully (and gentlemanly lol) disagree TBK
There are circumstance that would void such an agreements
1. a poor start (which he had)
2. poor driving ( if he made error/s that affected his pace)
3. poor pace (when the leading car is pulling away from you as vettel did)
4. some kinda of mechanical issue
5. being hounded from behind (by Hamilton) which would make such a switch detrimental to the ability to win the race
And this point is the most important one of all.

Hamilton was keeping pace with Leclerc on mediums. Making the switch would mean that Vettel would have to slow down by about 4-5 seconds just to let leclerc bye and then compromise his race with the possibility of Hamilton passing him, or him getting stuck behind leclerc. And what would have happened if Vettel on the very next lap challenge and tried to pass leclerc? Given leclerc's defending of recent, it might have been all tears and shambles. Would Ferrari then tell a clearly faster Vettel to hold station and block hamilton? Would vettel accept that predicament? Not to mention the ensuing pit strategy. Who would you pit first? A slower Leclerc and then allow Vettel to overcut him while he gets stuck behind traffic and allow Hamilton to run longer on the mediums? All these questions and scenarios are real possibilities before the "retirement" of vettel's car...which only manged to compromise leclerc even more, aided by their botched pit strategy which should have had them in immediately instead of a lap later.

Oh well. We shall never know, But I expect more fireworks at suzuka where I now believe that Ferrari are more than likely to take pole again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N. Jones

It seems to me that the undercut that help Vettel so much in Singapore was going to help LeClerc is Russia. By that logic what happened at the start was to allow Ferrari a 1-2, keep Hamilton behind and use that order to dictate a strategy where they could win 1-2.
Do we all not agree that had Vettel's car not given up the pit stops would have allowed LeClerc to end up in 1st with Vettel in 2nd, finishing the GP with a Ferrari 1-2?

---

absolutely

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truefan72

I respectfully (and gentlemanly lol) disagree TBK
There are circumstance that would void such an agreements
1. a poor start (which he had)
2. poor driving ( if he made error/s that affected his pace)
3. poor pace (when the leading car is pulling away from you as vettel did)
4. some kinda of mechanical issue
5. being hounded from behind (by Hamilton) which would make such a switch detrimental to the ability to win the race
And this point is the most important one of all.

Hamilton was keeping pace with Leclerc on mediums. Making the switch would mean that Vettel would have to slow down by about 4-5 seconds just to let leclerc bye and then compromise his race with the possibility of Hamilton passing him, or him getting stuck behind leclerc. And what would have happened if Vettel on the very next lap challenge and tried to pass leclerc? Given leclerc's defending of recent, it might have been all tears and shambles. Would Ferrari then tell a clearly faster Vettel to hold station and block hamilton? Would vettel accept that predicament? Not to mention the ensuing pit strategy. Who would you pit first? A slower Leclerc and then allow Vettel to overcut him while he gets stuck behind traffic and allow Hamilton to run longer on the mediums? All these questions and scenarios are real possibilities before the "retirement" of vettel's car...which only manged to compromise leclerc even more, aided by their botched pit strategy which should have had them in immediately instead of a lap later.

Oh well. We shall never know, But I expect more fireworks at suzuka where I now believe that Ferrari are more than likely to take pole again.

---

Hamilton wasn’t really keeping pace with LeClerc on the mediums. They dropped him fairly quick and the gap was around the 3 second mark on lap 8 while Vettel was only 1.3 seconds ahead of LeClerc at this point. This is the point Sebastien should have yielded and he has no excuse for not doing so. The subsequent gap Vettel made to LeClerc later on in the stint is more attributable to overheating tires due to following in the dirty air than any extra pace by Sebastien. At the start of the race he was clearly no quicker than LeClerc and should have yielded.