Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 132
  1. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,858
    Like
    62
    Liked 478 Times in 371 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrodaze View Post
    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...

  2. #82
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    3,438
    Like
    14
    Liked 789 Times in 651 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by The Black Knight View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Nitrodaze; 30th September 2019 at 22:11.
    Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
    William Shakespeare

  3. Likes: truefan72 (2nd October 2019)
  4. #83
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,858
    Like
    62
    Liked 478 Times in 371 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrodaze View Post
    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.

  5. #84
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    3,438
    Like
    14
    Liked 789 Times in 651 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by The Black Knight View Post
    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.
    Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
    William Shakespeare

  6. #85
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,858
    Like
    62
    Liked 478 Times in 371 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrodaze View Post
    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.
    Last edited by The Black Knight; 1st October 2019 at 05:52.

  7. #86
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Greenwich, London UK
    Posts
    3,438
    Like
    14
    Liked 789 Times in 651 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by The Black Knight View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Nitrodaze; 1st October 2019 at 13:04.
    Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
    William Shakespeare

  8. #87
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,858
    Like
    62
    Liked 478 Times in 371 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nitrodaze View Post
    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.

  9. #88
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    6,121
    Like
    630
    Liked 666 Times in 464 Posts
    I managed to delete my post yesterday trying to fix a typo.



    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.

  10. Likes: N. Jones (2nd October 2019)
  11. #89
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    8,410
    Like
    483
    Liked 785 Times in 582 Posts
    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 .

  12. Likes: truefan72 (2nd October 2019)
  13. #90
    Senior Member Tazio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    San Diego, Ca
    Posts
    15,361
    Like
    1,116
    Liked 642 Times in 508 Posts
    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.
    May the forza be with you

  14. Likes: truefan72 (2nd October 2019)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •