planetf1.com

And we are in the third race of the season ...

Yes it is just the 3rd race of the season, so what are you suggesting?

Are you two are among those who think Ferrari sabotaged Kimi in Australia this year too by pitting him as the leader first? Judging by responses of people in here whose opinion I trust (i was unable to actually watch the race)this race does not look good for Ferrari, but you can't or shouldn't apply this incident to everything you want it to be.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

They did pit him early in Australia, he was the first car to pit. On lap 18 when Pirelli stated the tyres could go to lap 25-30 and it was a nailed on one 1 stop.

They pitted him on lap 18 of a 58 lap race to do two things;
1) Force Hamilton to cover him, which meant Hamilton and him would need to do 40 laps and a very long 2nd stint and more laps than Pirelli recommended - potentially forcing Hamilton onto a 2 stopper and giving Vettel the lead or just making Hamilton and Kimi vulnerable to Vettel at the end on much newer tyres.
2) Creating a 10 lap period in which if a VSC comes out, Vettel takes the lead.

There was no logic to Kimi pitting so early in Australia, he pitted when 3.5 seconds behind Hamilton. To undercut you needed to be within 1.5 seconds so he had no chance of that. Pitting Kimi that early did not improve his chances of a better result at all. Zero. But it did increase Vettels chances of a better result for the reasons stated above.

It was smart racing by Ferrari, they won the race for there lead driver when he didn’t have the speed to even beat his team mate, let alone Hamilton. To win races when you don’t have the speed is gold dust.

It's also worth remembering that without Schumacher's help in the last races he wouldn't be just 2 points behind, be fair.

That, plus more speed and talent...

Anything that happen to Kimi because Ferrari tactics, he 100% deserve it, even if it's not written in his contract, he is the number 2 and he knows it , yet he is happy to collect the cash instead of doing other things and keep his dignity.

... and Mika Salo giving up what would have been his only grand prix win for Irvine.

Yes, Irvine never would have won the title on merit. My point was more along the lines of, screw your number 2 completely and it came come back to bite you come the end of the year. Imagine if Ferrari lost this WCC by 2 points and Kimi came 6th in Malaysia (instead of 4th) because they did that.

Having said that, France 1999 isn't the best example because it was logical to maximise Schumacher's points and in doing so they didn't lose any points as a team that day - like they would have in Malaysia - if the SC didn't turn that race on its head.

I dont know how you can think that after watching the last race. To me as long as vettel is in contention for a race win kimi will not be allowed to win it. So no, I dont foresee a wdc for kimi any time soon.

Sure they had more ability than their teammates but it's not impossible for a driver with lesser ability to defeat a driver with more ability. A lot of things can happen over the course of a season. By forcing a driver into subservience you create a massive advantage for your designated #1. The most underrated element of winning WDCs is having a #2 driver in the other side of the garage. It maximizes your every strategic move and opportunity. It's the reason why I don't consider Michael Schumacher to be the greatest of all time despite his many records. He always made sure that he didn't have to fight for it against his teammate and that made his life MUCH easier. The first strong teammate that he had who was allowed to compete with him was Nico Rosberg when Michael was an old man and out of retirement (and he lost to Nico three straight years).

Tbh kimi now is kinda like post 1987 piquet, still useful to a big team for his experience and ability but not like he once was ( piquet due to his wonky depth perception and kimi being..well kimi ) he's got his championship, he's driving a Ferrari, he's getting paid alot to do it, kimi is..not going to say happy cos I doubt there are many things that put a smile to his face.. Content to play the team game, he doesn't have that sort of ego ( he has an ego..just not a I must win at all costs and sod my teams opinion type )

I get he likes his drink..but why the hell do all rubbish drivers gulp the champagne instead of spraying it, there was ricciardo spraying away and bottas and kimi looking like a couple of alcoholics

Well, it is part of the game that many of these number two's were signed and/or kept exactly because they lacked the speed and talent to regularly beat the designed number one. That's why Räikkönen is kept year after year (even if he may have been signed once for other reasons.)

I think you're missing the fact that only one of the three people on the podium was actually happy with the step he was on, and he was the one spraying the champagne.

You can't really expect Bottas to celebrate coming second when he thought he was going to win, or Kimi coming third after starting second.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)

Had Kimi managed a better 1st stint (like Vettel in Australia) and had a VSC occurred in a more opportune moment (like it happen for Vettel in Australia), Kimi could have ended up winning the race (just like Vettel in Australia) and this thread polluted with bullcrap would not exist at all.

Reading some of the comments in this thread (and the race-day thread too), someone new to F1 and/or this forum will be lead into thinking that Scuderia Ferrari exist for the sole purpose to make Vettel look good over his team mate (and Haas too has a hand in it apparently)... the worrying (but not surprising anymore, I recall the Red Bull years) thing is that some fans that know F1 quite well, seem to genuinely believe that.

Its not the 1st time, and I doubt it will be the last time that Ferrari strategies in hindsight were not optimal (for both of their drivers).

I believe that had the roles between Vettel and Kimi in the last race been reversed, its very likely that Ferrari would have done exactly the same thing in order to have a better chance to overtake Bottas which would have secured them the win (assuming no VSC or SC occurred after).

The victory is always worth more than the few points it may cost to the driver running virtually 3rd and I hope Ferrari plays the same card again if a similar situation arises, be it for the detriment/benefit of my fav driver Vettel or Kimi... its simply the wiser thing to do.
Just like what Mercedes did in Spain last season or what Ferrari did in Austria 2016 which can be interpreted as if Vettel was being sacrificed in 30 laps old tires until they exploded, just so he could obstruct Rosberg & Hamilton for the benefit of Kimi running 4th at the time.

You can't honestly believe Ferrari had anything in mind by keeping Raikkonen out so long that he was caught by cars that had already pit except to use him as a sacrifice for Vettel's benefit.

I could understand the move if at least Raikkonen was able to hold up Bottas for more than two corners and given Vettel a shot at the win. As it was the team gave up on one driver for no benefit at all.

_________________

as soon as i realised how far bottas was behind him and how fast he was closing i knew its what ferrari were planning and he would pit as soon as bottas went passed. I actually thought hed been out so long he might as well do a few more and stick some ultras on. he had nothing to lose at that point.

i do find it odd that both ferrari and mercedes didnt change to softs under sc because there is no way on earth track position is better then a significant tyre advantage, especially if you only drop a place or 2. its page 1 of the safety car strategy. think they need to reprogram their computers. as much as i dont want to believe that they didnt pit kimi because they knew he would probably end up infront of golden balls, it would not suprise me at all given their history.

That last bit is with hindsight, though - they weren't to know that Bottas would pass him so quickly.

I don't really get the strategy, tbh. It's not as though Bottas was pulling away from Vettel, so why would they need Kimi to hold him up at all? Doesn't make sense to me and all it was ever going to achieve was to throw away their 2nd driver's race.

They'd have been able to see how much faster everybody else was after pitting, though. They'd have realised it was too late once Bottas jumped Vettel in the pits, but leaving Raikkonen out after that didn't seem to me like it could ever pay off. Pit, lose the place and accept you made a mistake rather than keep the guy out there and hope somehow it goes right.

Perhaps they were gunning for a VSC at that point.

_________________

I am sorry but your understanding of how those races unfolded is really poor.

1)Kimi did manage his stint very well in China actually. The three laps before Vettel pitted he posted two 39.5's and 39.4's. The 8 laps Kimi did after that whilst staying out were in the 39.1's 39.2's, 39.3's. He was not slow at all. He was posting great times, it was just the new medium was worth 2 seconds per lap over his old soft so everybody reeled him in.

2) Vettel was able to win Australia because when Hamilton and Kimi came out on there new tyres the didn't push hard because the tyres had to do 40 laps and the new medium wasn't worth as much vs the old tyre. Hamilton and Raikkonen also needed to save tyres for if Vettel came at them at the end on fresh rubber. Hamilton just pushed enough get the gap to safe enough for a VSC. Problem is, Mercedes miscalculated that.

Furthermore. Before Kimi pitted in Australia he posted a 28.4, 27.9 and 28.2... when Vettel contined on after him his times were in the 28.5's and into the 29's at the end of the stint. So in China, when Kimi continued on he was quicker than Vettel just before he pitted. In Australia, Vettel when he continued was slower than the times Kimi was setting before pitting.

To be fair, although I didn't like the tactic, it very nearly worked. Kimi orchestrated the hold up and Vettel let through to absolute perfection in that Vettel closed to the back of Bottas out of turn 3 having his front wing on his gearbox.

It also allowed Vettel DRS for 4 consecutive laps on a track where it appeared near impossible to even break into DRS between cars with similar pace. If Bottas had caught Kimi at a different part of the track, it could have easily lead to Vettel getting an overtaking opportunity on him. If the outside of turn 7 (what Max went off on when trying to get Lewis) didn't have so many marbles, Vettel would have had a go at him the way it unfolded.

If overtaking was a little bit easier then Vettel would have got him. For example, in Baku, you just need to be able to get into DRS and its a guaranteed overtake into turn 1 such is the strength of the tow and DRS through the 20 second full throttle section. If Ferrari pulled this move in Baku, Vettel would have got the lead.

Peterson, nakajima, Dumfries, Irvine, barrichello, (jos) Verstappen, patrese, Massa, salo and many more names have in the past went to teams and have either became a number 2 driver or actually signed on knowing full well they'd be number 2 and have not always been treated the best, johnny Dumfries was only given one chassis for the season and was treated so poorly it was rumored it was one reason jps pulled out ( can't remember where I read that though ) barrichello in his first ever race for ferrari was given a really bizarre strategy where he gained the lead and was pitted with a few laps to go and do we forget austria 2002? Don't act all outraged as if this is a new thing, how much of the outrage is because either its kimi, a firm fan fav..or cos his team mate is the current dasterdly red baron himself herr vettel who in some peoples eyes probably punches kittens for fun

Not quite sure where this outrage is at the new thing Ferrari are doing that you are referencing? From what I can see people are annoyed at how obviously one driver's race was compromised, without any equally obvious benefit to the other's. It's largely irrelevant whether it's Vettel or Kimi involved.

Literally no-one is claiming it's a new thing. But just because similar things may have happened before doesn't mean people can't take issue with it when something else happens which shows poor sportsmanship.

I think you need to re-check Barrichello's first Ferrari race.

And not all drivers have a No1 or No2 status assigned on birth... They do earn it in the team, whoever is faster than the other. Some teams do it more openly than others, but I have never seen a contract that says "No2" on it. They'd be stupid to sign it in the first place.

I never said it was new either more like wondering why people seem as outraged over it

And in the past some drivers have signed contracts saying they are undisputed number 1 in teams (which must mean..by power of deduction... The other driver is signed on as number 2 )

And I do remember barrichellos first ferrari race and its bloody odd, both terraria are dominant, the mclarens are out and for some reason schimi let's barrichello past for the lead then barrichello pits, to this day it just made little sense to me, I remember, due to Ruben's saying in an interview something like he can't wait to benefit from one of ross brawns tactical masterstrokes, a cartoon where brawn tells barrichello is being told michael will finish ahead but he will finish stronger

The fact remains some teams and especially ferrari, although most other teams do it due to inability..usually financially.. To field two top notch cars ( something ferrari could easily do..so its not that ), seem to prefer to have one lead driver and a backup/rear gunner/patsy in the other car, its the way they like it, though ferrari have usually took it to extremes in the past

It's just some of the outrage does seem like as if they have never seen ferrari do something like this before

Rubens was originally in a one-stop strategy like everyone else. They had to change it to a two-stop to overtake Frentzen, who had overtaken Rubens in the first place, so they short fuelled him in his first stop. Frentzen retired so it turned out to be unnecessary. Schumacher let Barrichello pass him as he was lighter and faster, however Rubens had to stop again, as he had to get enough fuel to get him to the end. Nothing dodgy about the strategy, it was done to cover Frentzen, but as Frentzen retired it looked pointless. Also, he came in 15 laps or so from the end, in a 58 lap race, so not the last few laps of the race.

In Australia Vettel in 3rd was 4 seconds off the 2nd placed car (Kimi) when the pit windows arrived and thats probably just 1 - 1.5 seconds more than what Vettel would have wanted considering the negative effect if you run a whole stint very close to car in front, whilst in China Kimi had lost 8.7 seconds to Bottas running ahead of him when the pit windows arrived and that gap is probably 5.5 - 6 seconds more than the necessary safe distance of avoiding the negative effect from the car in front.

Whether you take 4 and 8.7 seconds or the 1.5 and 6 seconds... there`s a considerable difference on how Vettel(in Australia) and Kimi (in China) managed their 1st stints.

Any car that takes the 1st 10 - 15 laps much easier (by loosing a lot more grounds to the cars in front nu-necessarily) will usually be able to finish the stint "strongly" cause it usually has the tires in better shape for the final part of that stint... so whichever way you look at it, Kimi's 1st stint until the point that the pit windows opened, could or should have been better.

And if he managed the stint better, a VSC within few laps after Bottas/Vettel had stopped, MAY have catapulted Kimi in front... its not really rocket-science.

Actually, the fact that he dropped so much time to the guys in front for the 1st 15 laps, at a time where the following laps sort of proved that he could have kept pace with Bottas/Vettel, tells me that Kimi probably knew all along that he was going for a longer stint.

Even if this wasnt Kimi decision (although He may have had a say in it because the possible race strategies templates are discussed and set prior to the race with the input of the driver too, covering any possible drop/gains of position on the start of the race), it was Kimi's lack of pace for the opening 15 laps which forced Ferrari into trying something different, a longer stint for Kimi.

Of course Ferrari tried to exploit it for the benefit of securing the win too, but the instigator was Kimi himself, his own race pace. If you think Mercedes or other teams wound not exploit the same possibilities, you`re deluded.

Yes, ultimately Ferrari tried to exploit it for the benefit of securing the win and any other team would have done the same, but I believe it was Kimi's own fault on dropping 8.7 seconds behind 2nd placed Bottas which forced Ferrari in first place to try something different for Kimi, a longer 1st stint.

Its funny, you wrote all that and didn't once mention the considerable difference between Vettel and Kimi's respective races.

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

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

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

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

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

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

I missed the whole race weekend and only watched short clips, read race report and checked the lap times/gaps on race finished (which is why there`s no post of mine in qually or race thread), but nowhere I came across the fact that Verstappen was in the way in between Kimi(I thought he was running 3rd throughout the 1st stint) and Bottas.

In this case, I apologies for the confusion, I stand corrected and I admit that there was no chance of Ferrari hoping for a repeat of Australia V2 with Kimi's strategy in China and you are right, Kimi's 1st stint in this case is indeed a very good one. Just try to understand things from my angle, and the wrong impression I had that Kimi was running 3rd at the time.

This bit "whilst in China Kimi had lost 8.7 seconds to Bottas running ahead of him when the pit windows arrived and that gap is probably 5.5 - 6 seconds more than the necessary safe distance of avoiding the negative effect from the car in front." would have made it pretty obvious that I always thought Kimi was running 3rd behind Bottas.

Free pitstop for brand new softs, another mistake by Ferrari.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

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

Thank you for admitting you got it wrong, that is not easy to do. Even through an internet forum.

I never assumed you didn't watch the race, I took that as a given.

Kimi ended up in 4th because for once he actually made a good start (he is the only driver to not make a position on the off the line since the start of 2017 - amazingly? So they said in the commentary) and was about to get level with Vettel but Vettel choped him and Kimi had to back out of it and take turn one at a really tight angle. This put him on the back foot through turn 2 and the run up to turn 3 by which point Bottas and Verstappen had passed him. Max was slow in the first stint because he was nursing SS tyres, Ferrari's/Mercedes were on the much better soft. As soon as Max pitted, Kimi started lapping 0.3-0.4 a lap quicker and actually quicker than Bottas and Vettel ahead of him.

Kimi is doing some impressive things this year. I for one have bashed him for many many years, I didn't think he deserved to have the seat for 2018. However, I think people need to judge it as it plays out and this year Kimi has been pretty much Vettels equal. The only time he wasn't was the first stint in Bahrain, but he only dropped 0.2 per lap to Vettel then.

It could be that Vettel is struggling, that is actually the most likely explanation if I am honest and it would be no surprise to me if Vettel was back to out qualifying him and out racing him by 0.3-0.4 again in the very next race. But we can only judge Kimi by his gap to his team mate - like all of the drivers - so if Kimi is close to Vettel then lets respect that. Kimi is a 38 year old guy and clearly number 2 now, Vettel is a 4 time world champion, in his prime, the number 1 driver and a driver discussed as one of the best in the last 20 years. If Kimi is in and around the same tenth as Vettel I think he deserves some praise.

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

Not a free stop. He would've lost 2 places.

That is incorrect.

He was running 6th. Verstappen pitted and came out ahead of him still. Ricciardo pitted and came out right beside him and Kimi was elevated to 5th.

If Kimi had pitted, he would have stayed in 6. He gained 1 place by not pitting, but had a Red Bull behind him a compound softer and 4 laps fresher.

The car in 7th pitted as well, but Kimi had 25 seconds to Hulk anyway and time loss to pit under VSC was 14 seconds approx.

Ah, ok. I mis-remembered.

Agree with all the above.
Again, my apologies for the confusion I created.
I thought I had a clear picture of how the race unfolded just by reading race reports, but I was wrong, because all my reasoning ignored a very important and KEY detail that I had missed (Verstappen slotting in between Kimi and Bottas).

I actually saw the replay of the start on the TV news later that evening but it was probably cut short before the end of the strait 1st turn (or I didnt pay enough attention to the end) in order to realize that Verstappen got ahead of Kimi.

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

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

Well heres a rather crazy thought, maybe Kimi personaly actually wants to help Vettel, I mean aren't they actually good friends offtrack? Also Kimi doesn't seem to have a..typical drivers mindset, I mean Kimi strikes me that if he doesn't wanna do something nothing anyone can say will change it

I guess what I am trying to say is should we stop looking for vipers in every corner, stop thinking the teams actively screwing him and think maybe he is actively playing a team game..just a thought