planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Oct 20, 2018 8:04 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2017 12:30 pm 
http://www.viasatsport.se/sport/motor/n ... s-kontrakt

But I haven't checked it further as it's often clickbait, forgot to put that in my previous post. Also it's in Swedish but the translation of the headline is ''Expert on Ferrari-hierarkky - it's in Vettels contract''.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2017 12:31 pm 
Covalent wrote:
Warheart01 wrote:
I saw a headline today that read along the lines ''Vettel has it in his contract'', now if that is true no teammate will ever beat him as they aren't allowed to.

If it's true it sais alot how scared Vettel is, especially after being dominated by Ricciardo. He already lost his face losing the pole to Kimi on the most difficult track of the season, a driver who many say doesn't deserv the seat while Vettel is (somehow) rated as one of the quickest in 1-lap.

Now I have to say that I like Vettel but it's weak and embarrassing for a 4x WDC to not dare to go up against a teammate on equal terms, shame on Ferrari too!

Are you again not being serious? Difficult to tell.


That's cute.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2017 12:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2959
Might of been mentioned before but Kimi said he was called in. From skysports "Raikkonen would later confirm after the race he hadn't requested to stop. "I was called in and that's about it," he told reporters."

"Moreover, the Mercedes was running slowly after switching from ultrasofts to supersofts: Bottas' first full lap on the slower of the two Pirelli compounds was a 1:17.783 - almost eight tenths of a second shy of Raikkonen's final lap on ultrasofts."

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2017 12:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
Warheart01 wrote:
http://www.viasatsport.se/sport/motor/nyheter/experten-om-ferrari-hierarkin-star-i-vettels-kontrakt

But I haven't checked it further as it's often clickbait, forgot to put that in my previous post. Also it's in Swedish but the translation of the headline is ''Expert on Ferrari-hierarkky - it's in Vettels contract''.


I'll write an article tonight: "expert on Ferrari hierarchy: it's really not".

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2017 12:44 pm 
You go ahead and do that, whatever floats your boat. :)

As I said, I didn't read it as it might be clickbait.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2017 1:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9898
Location: Travelling around the world
MasterRacer wrote:
The Ferrari team want to win the drivers and constructors championships.
Ferrari fans want the team to win the drivers and constructors championships

Today's result was perfect for a Ferrari.

Do I think Ferrari purposefully helped Seb beat Kimi? Yes I do. But I said before the race they should do it, and I'm glad they did. They cannot afford to have Kimi taking prescious points off Seb.

I don't think Ferrari give a toss about the Constructors and I don't think they ever have as long as I've been watching F1

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2017 1:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:40 pm
Posts: 6628
mds wrote:
Warheart01 wrote:
http://www.viasatsport.se/sport/motor/nyheter/experten-om-ferrari-hierarkin-star-i-vettels-kontrakt

But I haven't checked it further as it's often clickbait, forgot to put that in my previous post. Also it's in Swedish but the translation of the headline is ''Expert on Ferrari-hierarkky - it's in Vettels contract''.


I'll write an article tonight: "expert on Ferrari hierarchy: it's really not".


Though, you actually would be the expert on it, compared to "experten" from that klick-bait headline. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2017 1:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:06 pm
Posts: 863
F1_Ernie wrote:
Might of been mentioned before but Kimi said he was called in. From skysports "Raikkonen would later confirm after the race he hadn't requested to stop. "I was called in and that's about it," he told reporters."

"Moreover, the Mercedes was running slowly after switching from ultrasofts to supersofts: Bottas' first full lap on the slower of the two Pirelli compounds was a 1:17.783 - almost eight tenths of a second shy of Raikkonen's final lap on ultrasofts."

The only reason why I think Ferrari didn't use team orders was because Red Bull did exactly the same. The undercut was just the preferred strategy today and it didn't work.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2017 4:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:20 pm
Posts: 1804
Raikkonen would have won if he was fast enough.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2017 5:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 11:31 am
Posts: 1731
NCW wrote:
But I get your point, Vettel or Ferrari no longer has my support. They don't understand the importance of our support.


Yeah, your support adds $10 to their stock price.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2017 8:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
funkymonkey wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I don't think I agree with that. He was 5s ahead of Bottas before the stops so no immediate danger there. And Bottas got put back in more traffic than Kimi did, so he had a pretty decent buffer. If it was to cover off Bottas then it was a panic move with no real science behind it, which pretty much reinforces the idea that his strategy has been inadequate. Kimi lost two seconds behind the back marker on the lap where Vettel pitted. Without that he would have been fast enough with room to spare, no matter what Vettel did. And overtaking at Monaco requires a great deal of cooperation from the back markers, even more than usual, so it's not all down to him.

Vettel put a couple of great laps in on old tyres, it has to be said. But the reason Kimi lost the race was his pit strategy


It wasnt a panic move. Bottas was closing up on 2 Ferraris by taking out more than a second a lap when he pitted. That was worrying because Kimi wasnt going fast enough. At that point Ferrari had to pit their lead driver to ensure that Bottas does not undercut them. They had no way of knowing real pace of Vettel or Daniel. Nobody did.

The fact that those 2 put those incredible laps after the pitstops of kimi, Bottas and Verstappen is all down to their superb driving. Even after initial traffic was cleared which had allowed Bottas to close the gap, Kimi wasnt fast enough ahead.

Kimi got favourable strategy considering the situation at that point in race. And he did manage to come out just ahead them. Vettel gaining that place was all down to Vettel. He grabbed his chance and did what was needed to stay at front. Anything else Ferrari would have done to keep Kimi ahead of Vettel would have been nothing short of deliberately engineering Vettel's downfall in this race. There are no 2 ways about it.

If some people wanted Ferrari to ensure Kimi stays ahead of Vettel in this race, they are hypocrite to accuse Ferrari of double standards, because that is exactly what they want Ferrari to do but in favour of Kimi.

in the five laps before Bottas pitted Kimi was faster than him in every lap bar the very last, and in that one Bottas was 0.444s faster, but equally Kimi was 0.589s slower than his previous lap, so it was clearly an anomaly. At no point before the pit stops was Bottas ever more than a second quicker than Kimi. Not once. In those four laps previously mentioned, Kimi extended his lead over Bottas from 3.142s to 5.430s, which is an average of 0.572s a lap increase. And when Kimi came out of the pits he'd extended that gap to 6.082s. So I don't know where you're getting this "taking out more than a second a lap" from but it wasn't the Monaco race.

It was a panic move because Bottas was never a threat. He pitted into traffic, so was never going to close the gap, and the sensible thing would have been to keep both Ferraris out until they could find a clear window to pit into.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2017 8:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
mds wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Excuse me? How have I danced around the subject, exactly? Don't expect that from you I must say. Poor. I've answered everything directly. No need for that


I didn't mean that in a rude or malevolent way, might have used the wrong wording. Point is that I haven't seen you respond to the backmarkers argument which has been brought forward a few times here and in the race thread and I haven't seen you respond to it - that's all.

Quote:
But the point is they pitted Kimi into traffic, which was not optimum for his race. Pitting him then was not in his best interests. So the argument above pretty much underlines that it was for Vettel's benefit, not Kimi's.


So then what... They wait and leave him out, they pit Vettel first, Vettel's backmarker now pits and he gets the jump on Kimi... and Ferrari is probably burnt again for allowing Vettel to undercut Raikkonen?

Note that I made an error in previous reply, I mentioned Sainz but that should have been the other backmarker and not Sainz who was never ahead of Kimi.

Quote:
Kimi was fast enough, as demonstrated by the last he put in when not hampered by back markers. But the back markers severely compromised his race. That's what cost him, not his speed


Do you really believe Kimi had the kind of speed that Vettel displayed from the moment Raikkonen wasn't in front of him anymore? The purples on the US? The pre-SC period on the SS?

That last bit: I believe Vettel was ultimately quicker, as i already mentioned in a previous post. He always appears to have greater race pace. But the point is Kimi didn't need to be consistently quicker, just quick enough to stay ahead in the pit window. And, with the exception of the laps where the backmarkers held him up, he was. He put in a couple of laps in the 1:15s between backmarkers, which is quick in anybody's book. I repeat, there was no need to pit Kimi at that time and the sensible thing to do from his race perspective would have been to leave him out until he found a more favourable pit window. As explained in another post, Bottas was never a threat anyway, so there was no real pressure there


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2017 8:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:49 pm
Posts: 45
After spending the whole day reading all news about Monaco GP and Ferrari, I've come to the following personal conclusions:

* Kimi has always had a clause in his contracts, that he would be an equal driver.

* Rumours on the paddock told that Vettel had signed his contract with a clause, that he would be driver #1

It makes sense that Ferrari makes a huge deal about not favouring Vettel, since it would be a violation against Kimi's contract. Kimi has been a loyal team member and he has obeyed the team's orders, time will tell what Kimi does in the future...

* Hamilton said that Kimi is driver #2, but Mercedes claims that Ferrari doesn't use any team orders.

* The rumours are also that Mercedes wants to hire Vettel next season, hence they side with Vettel in hopes of getting him to Mercedes.

* As for the pitstop again, Kimi was called in and he wondered why. Either Ferrari Engineers are so stupid that they can't count how Kimi will be sent back behind the traffic, or they knew very well what would happen.

Either way, Ferrari's brand took a huge blow - again. And they also ruined the sport.

Things are clear to me now and it's amusing to see how Ferrari and Vettel feel the need to constantly justify their actions and claim there was no team orders.

Once again I feel extremely proud to be a Kimi-fan 8)

Ferrari-fans shouldn't worry about what Kimi-fans vent out about Ferrari in this thread. They have reason to slap us if we would storm into the Ferrari-thread, but that will not happen.

Go Kimi!!!

_________________
NeverCryWolf aka Wolfie


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2017 8:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
Zoue wrote:
As explained in another post, Bottas was never a threat anyway, so there was no real pressure there


If Raikkonen had stayed out and had just as much difficulties with the traffic he was about to encounter and if Sainz would have pitted sooner, then Ferrari were in real danger of not having enough time to pit the both of them (whether on successive laps or by stacking in the is) and keeping the 1-2.

Ferrari could not have known which backmarker would pit when. If Kimi's backmarkers would have pitted at that point while Vettel's stayed out, that would probably have easily been race won. Without the 1-2 having been under threat.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2017 8:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:49 pm
Posts: 45
This is very telling:

https://i.redd.it/afznvyfp56ry.jpg

_________________
NeverCryWolf aka Wolfie


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2017 8:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
NCW wrote:
* As for the pitstop again, Kimi was called in and he wondered why. Either Ferrari Engineers are so stupid that they can't count how Kimi will be sent back behind the traffic, or they knew very well what would happen


Yes, that if they didn't pit him he would also be in traffic within the space of one lap...

Quote:
Ferrari-fans shouldn't worry about what Kimi-fans vent out about Ferrari in this thread. They have reason to slap us if we would storm into the Ferrari-thread, but that will not happen.


Hey I asked you if I should leave :/

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2017 8:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:49 pm
Posts: 45
mds wrote:
NCW wrote:
* As for the pitstop again, Kimi was called in and he wondered why. Either Ferrari Engineers are so stupid that they can't count how Kimi will be sent back behind the traffic, or they knew very well what would happen


Yes, that if they didn't pit him he would also be in traffic within the space of one lap...

Quote:
Ferrari-fans shouldn't worry about what Kimi-fans vent out about Ferrari in this thread. They have reason to slap us if we would storm into the Ferrari-thread, but that will not happen.


Hey I asked you if I should leave :/


Oh no mds, the comment wasn't directed against you, sorry if you felt that way - and please please please don't leave this thread xx

_________________
NeverCryWolf aka Wolfie


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2017 10:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 14, 2015 8:58 am
Posts: 394
Location: Australia
Prema wrote:
UnlikeUday wrote:
With due respect to Kimi, Ferrari surely feels that only Vettel can lead the fight with Hamilton for the title & not Raikkonen. Ferrari obviously will favour the stronger driver.


I dare to believe that Kimi fans surely feel that same too.
Or they wouldn't have been so upset about this one race, it almost feels like as if it was a golden opportunity for Kimi to score his last win in the career, in Monaco. And then it was snatched away... by a big brother who has had already so many "lolly-hops" anyway...
Prema, I cant speak for everybody here but the point I am trying to make is that traditionally any team will try their best to give the car with track position the best chance of winning, as such, any variation from this rule can be considered favouritism. The perfect example of this for the last three years was the way Mercedes handled their drivers, where they ensured that the lead car was unlikely to be leaped in the pits by giving them an ideal, well thought out strategy for that circuit. Logic dictates that there are many things Ferrari could have done to ensure that Kimi kept the lead after the pit stops, such as but not limited to, pitting them on consecutive laps or leaving Kimi out longer than Vettel.

I will also reiterate that I'm not saying Ferrari have done the wrong thing given the big picture or that Vettel wasn't likely the quicker driver. Essentially my point is that if you forget about the championship situation, and Kimi's performances in general for the last four years, he did deserve to win this race by having track position with pace in qualifying and the first stint to that point through getting a well thought out strategy. It bugs me that people cant at least give him credit for that.

_________________
Raikkonen Bottas Ricciardo

Thanks for the memories Nico


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2017 10:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:46 pm
Posts: 376
NCW wrote:



thats stupid. i dont think a dragon would land on the track. it would perch up on top of a building so the race could carry on and there'd be no need to change vettels strategy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2017 9:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:04 am
Posts: 1857
Zoue wrote:
funkymonkey wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I don't think I agree with that. He was 5s ahead of Bottas before the stops so no immediate danger there. And Bottas got put back in more traffic than Kimi did, so he had a pretty decent buffer. If it was to cover off Bottas then it was a panic move with no real science behind it, which pretty much reinforces the idea that his strategy has been inadequate. Kimi lost two seconds behind the back marker on the lap where Vettel pitted. Without that he would have been fast enough with room to spare, no matter what Vettel did. And overtaking at Monaco requires a great deal of cooperation from the back markers, even more than usual, so it's not all down to him.

Vettel put a couple of great laps in on old tyres, it has to be said. But the reason Kimi lost the race was his pit strategy


It wasnt a panic move. Bottas was closing up on 2 Ferraris by taking out more than a second a lap when he pitted. That was worrying because Kimi wasnt going fast enough. At that point Ferrari had to pit their lead driver to ensure that Bottas does not undercut them. They had no way of knowing real pace of Vettel or Daniel. Nobody did.

The fact that those 2 put those incredible laps after the pitstops of kimi, Bottas and Verstappen is all down to their superb driving. Even after initial traffic was cleared which had allowed Bottas to close the gap, Kimi wasnt fast enough ahead.

Kimi got favourable strategy considering the situation at that point in race. And he did manage to come out just ahead them. Vettel gaining that place was all down to Vettel. He grabbed his chance and did what was needed to stay at front. Anything else Ferrari would have done to keep Kimi ahead of Vettel would have been nothing short of deliberately engineering Vettel's downfall in this race. There are no 2 ways about it.

If some people wanted Ferrari to ensure Kimi stays ahead of Vettel in this race, they are hypocrite to accuse Ferrari of double standards, because that is exactly what they want Ferrari to do but in favour of Kimi.

in the five laps before Bottas pitted Kimi was faster than him in every lap bar the very last, and in that one Bottas was 0.444s faster, but equally Kimi was 0.589s slower than his previous lap, so it was clearly an anomaly. At no point before the pit stops was Bottas ever more than a second quicker than Kimi. Not once. In those four laps previously mentioned, Kimi extended his lead over Bottas from 3.142s to 5.430s, which is an average of 0.572s a lap increase. And when Kimi came out of the pits he'd extended that gap to 6.082s. So I don't know where you're getting this "taking out more than a second a lap" from but it wasn't the Monaco race.

It was a panic move because Bottas was never a threat. He pitted into traffic, so was never going to close the gap, and the sensible thing would have been to keep both Ferraris out until they could find a clear window to pit into.

Image

This is when he was taking more than second a lap out of ferrari's lead. Even Vettel had closed the gap to just 1.5 seconds at that point. basically everyone had closed the gap at front on kimi.
The gap went up again when the people behind had to clear traffic. This clearly meant there was a threat of undercut always.

Had they pitted Vettel first, he could have undercut kimi and possibly even Daniel could have overcut kimi. Had they pitted Kimi later and Vettel even later, then they could have lost both places to Daniel.They did the right thing by pitting Kimi first. It at least meant he was clear of the 2 threats at that point. Kimi wasnt going fast enough for them to put both win and 2nd place in danger.
Image

Image

Its all down to Kimi and his pace. As soon as Max pitted, Daniel picked up pace with gap less than 6 seconds and falling behind vettel.

Had they not done that, daniel would have done what he did to Bottas and jumped at least 1 Ferrari if not both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2017 9:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
funkymonkey wrote:
Zoue wrote:
funkymonkey wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I don't think I agree with that. He was 5s ahead of Bottas before the stops so no immediate danger there. And Bottas got put back in more traffic than Kimi did, so he had a pretty decent buffer. If it was to cover off Bottas then it was a panic move with no real science behind it, which pretty much reinforces the idea that his strategy has been inadequate. Kimi lost two seconds behind the back marker on the lap where Vettel pitted. Without that he would have been fast enough with room to spare, no matter what Vettel did. And overtaking at Monaco requires a great deal of cooperation from the back markers, even more than usual, so it's not all down to him.

Vettel put a couple of great laps in on old tyres, it has to be said. But the reason Kimi lost the race was his pit strategy


It wasnt a panic move. Bottas was closing up on 2 Ferraris by taking out more than a second a lap when he pitted. That was worrying because Kimi wasnt going fast enough. At that point Ferrari had to pit their lead driver to ensure that Bottas does not undercut them. They had no way of knowing real pace of Vettel or Daniel. Nobody did.

The fact that those 2 put those incredible laps after the pitstops of kimi, Bottas and Verstappen is all down to their superb driving. Even after initial traffic was cleared which had allowed Bottas to close the gap, Kimi wasnt fast enough ahead.

Kimi got favourable strategy considering the situation at that point in race. And he did manage to come out just ahead them. Vettel gaining that place was all down to Vettel. He grabbed his chance and did what was needed to stay at front. Anything else Ferrari would have done to keep Kimi ahead of Vettel would have been nothing short of deliberately engineering Vettel's downfall in this race. There are no 2 ways about it.

If some people wanted Ferrari to ensure Kimi stays ahead of Vettel in this race, they are hypocrite to accuse Ferrari of double standards, because that is exactly what they want Ferrari to do but in favour of Kimi.

in the five laps before Bottas pitted Kimi was faster than him in every lap bar the very last, and in that one Bottas was 0.444s faster, but equally Kimi was 0.589s slower than his previous lap, so it was clearly an anomaly. At no point before the pit stops was Bottas ever more than a second quicker than Kimi. Not once. In those four laps previously mentioned, Kimi extended his lead over Bottas from 3.142s to 5.430s, which is an average of 0.572s a lap increase. And when Kimi came out of the pits he'd extended that gap to 6.082s. So I don't know where you're getting this "taking out more than a second a lap" from but it wasn't the Monaco race.

It was a panic move because Bottas was never a threat. He pitted into traffic, so was never going to close the gap, and the sensible thing would have been to keep both Ferraris out until they could find a clear window to pit into.

Image

This is when he was taking more than second a lap out of ferrari's lead. Even Vettel had closed the gap to just 1.5 seconds at that point. basically everyone had closed the gap at front on kimi.
The gap went up again when the people behind had to clear traffic. This clearly meant there was a threat of undercut always.

Had they pitted Vettel first, he could have undercut kimi and possibly even Daniel could have overcut kimi. Had they pitted Kimi later and Vettel even later, then they could have lost both places to Daniel.They did the right thing by pitting Kimi first. It at least meant he was clear of the 2 threats at that point. Kimi wasnt going fast enough for them to put both win and 2nd place in danger.
Image

Image

Its all down to Kimi and his pace. As soon as Max pitted, Daniel picked up pace with gap less than 6 seconds and falling behind vettel.

Had they not done that, daniel would have done what he did to Bottas and jumped at least 1 Ferrari if not both.

I don't see on there how Bottas closed it up by more than a second per lap. Because he didn't.

Here are the lap times and gaps throughout the race. The closest Bottas got to a second was a single lap where he closed by 0.915s, but that was it. He never closed by a second a lap in the first stint, let alone more than that.

And as already mentioned, in the laps preceding the pit stops Kimis was pulling away from Bottas at a significant rate. There was no need to pit him at the time as he wasn't under threat


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2017 10:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:27 am
Posts: 436
Come on guys, Kimi might have been so upset after the race, but maybe not anymore now. I think it's only a miscalculation by Ferrari, they might have thought the brand new SS would be faster than the old US, and they were afraid of undercut. So they responded by pitting their lead driver, a usual practice in other races. But actually it was different here.

And remember this is not the first time such miscalculation happened, remember Australia where Mercedez miscalculated Hamilton's timing, and Spain where Ferrari miscalculated Vettel's timing, both just recently in 2017. Miscalculations happened and will keep happening. Whether Ferrari hoped that Vettel would beat Kimi for P1, although it is very logical in this current situation, is another story. But I do believe it's all because of Ferrari's (and also RBR's and Mercedez') miscalculations to pit their lead drivers early That's why I think Kimi (and Max too) aren't upset anymore now.

Also remember Spain 2016 when Dan and Seb were fighting for P1 while Max and Kimi for P3 at a distance. Both teams (RBR and Ferrari) pitted their lead drivers, only to find out that the tires could've last until the end of the race. So they didn't pit Max and Kimi, the positions were swapped, the lead drivers finished behind. That's a miscalculation, so what? Teams always try the optimum strategy, but it doesn't necessarily work the way they want.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2017 10:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:49 pm
Posts: 45
People here say that "Vettel was the fastest driver. Period".

Hmm, wonder how fast Vettel would had been if the strategies were swapped... not a winner, that's for sure. Sad that Vettel is so insecure that he needs two cars to prove his 'superiority' :uhoh:

What I dislike the most, is how Ferrari and Vettel thinks the F1-audience is filled with fools.

Oi, and what is amusing is how Vettel is assuring and assuring how Kimi and he are still good friends, Kimi hasn't said a word :-P

Kimi-fans are protesting - and for a good reason:

Quote:
Kimi is demanded justice after Monaco GP

30.05.2017 09:57

Kimi Räikkönen's fangroups have activated after Monaco GP.

IceArmy China, a whole number of Chinese Kimi-fans, published a long message on Twitter where they demanded justice for Kimi after the events in Monaco GP.

– We can't believe that Ferrari treats their latest World Champion like this. Monaco GP was only the 6th race this season. It's way too early for Ferrari to start choosing between driver #1 and #2.

Messages reveal a genuine disbelief and disappointment in the way Ferrari treated Räikkönen.

– It's difficult to believe how this can even be possible! Ferrari sacrificed Kimi's race and Kimi's will to win.

- Kimi Räikkönen is not Rubens Barichello or Felipe Massa. He is a World Champion, not a driver #2. Second position means nothing to him.

– We want a an answer from Ferrari, where they admit to making a mistake when it comes to the timing of Kimi's pitstop.

Hashtag #Justiceforkimi has spreaded like wildfire in the social media, where people show their sympathy to Kimi and demand justice for the events in Monaco GP.

IceArmy China's tweet:

https://twitter.com/IceArmy_CHN/status/869137618201530374

http://www.suomif1.com/2017/05/kimi-rai ... ahtumista/

_________________
NeverCryWolf aka Wolfie


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2017 10:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:04 am
Posts: 1857
Zoue wrote:
funkymonkey wrote:
Zoue wrote:
funkymonkey wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I don't think I agree with that. He was 5s ahead of Bottas before the stops so no immediate danger there. And Bottas got put back in more traffic than Kimi did, so he had a pretty decent buffer. If it was to cover off Bottas then it was a panic move with no real science behind it, which pretty much reinforces the idea that his strategy has been inadequate. Kimi lost two seconds behind the back marker on the lap where Vettel pitted. Without that he would have been fast enough with room to spare, no matter what Vettel did. And overtaking at Monaco requires a great deal of cooperation from the back markers, even more than usual, so it's not all down to him.

Vettel put a couple of great laps in on old tyres, it has to be said. But the reason Kimi lost the race was his pit strategy


It wasnt a panic move. Bottas was closing up on 2 Ferraris by taking out more than a second a lap when he pitted. That was worrying because Kimi wasnt going fast enough. At that point Ferrari had to pit their lead driver to ensure that Bottas does not undercut them. They had no way of knowing real pace of Vettel or Daniel. Nobody did.

The fact that those 2 put those incredible laps after the pitstops of kimi, Bottas and Verstappen is all down to their superb driving. Even after initial traffic was cleared which had allowed Bottas to close the gap, Kimi wasnt fast enough ahead.

Kimi got favourable strategy considering the situation at that point in race. And he did manage to come out just ahead them. Vettel gaining that place was all down to Vettel. He grabbed his chance and did what was needed to stay at front. Anything else Ferrari would have done to keep Kimi ahead of Vettel would have been nothing short of deliberately engineering Vettel's downfall in this race. There are no 2 ways about it.

If some people wanted Ferrari to ensure Kimi stays ahead of Vettel in this race, they are hypocrite to accuse Ferrari of double standards, because that is exactly what they want Ferrari to do but in favour of Kimi.

in the five laps before Bottas pitted Kimi was faster than him in every lap bar the very last, and in that one Bottas was 0.444s faster, but equally Kimi was 0.589s slower than his previous lap, so it was clearly an anomaly. At no point before the pit stops was Bottas ever more than a second quicker than Kimi. Not once. In those four laps previously mentioned, Kimi extended his lead over Bottas from 3.142s to 5.430s, which is an average of 0.572s a lap increase. And when Kimi came out of the pits he'd extended that gap to 6.082s. So I don't know where you're getting this "taking out more than a second a lap" from but it wasn't the Monaco race.

It was a panic move because Bottas was never a threat. He pitted into traffic, so was never going to close the gap, and the sensible thing would have been to keep both Ferraris out until they could find a clear window to pit into.

Image

This is when he was taking more than second a lap out of ferrari's lead. Even Vettel had closed the gap to just 1.5 seconds at that point. basically everyone had closed the gap at front on kimi.
The gap went up again when the people behind had to clear traffic. This clearly meant there was a threat of undercut always.

Had they pitted Vettel first, he could have undercut kimi and possibly even Daniel could have overcut kimi. Had they pitted Kimi later and Vettel even later, then they could have lost both places to Daniel.They did the right thing by pitting Kimi first. It at least meant he was clear of the 2 threats at that point. Kimi wasnt going fast enough for them to put both win and 2nd place in danger.
Image

Image

Its all down to Kimi and his pace. As soon as Max pitted, Daniel picked up pace with gap less than 6 seconds and falling behind vettel.

Had they not done that, daniel would have done what he did to Bottas and jumped at least 1 Ferrari if not both.

I don't see on there how Bottas closed it up by more than a second per lap. Because he didn't.

Here are the lap times and gaps throughout the race. The closest Bottas got to a second was a single lap where he closed by 0.915s, but that was it. He never closed by a second a lap in the first stint, let alone more than that.

And as already mentioned, in the laps preceding the pit stops Kimis was pulling away from Bottas at a significant rate. There was no need to pit him at the time as he wasn't under threat


Look at the timing chart yourself. See lap 22-28. And more than a second was on Vettel who was slowed because of kimi. See lap 27 time against Vettel.

You are so fixated on kimi's timing that you dont see the whole picture which Ferrari had to see and act on. And I posted timing screen screenshot right there showing 1.1 second faster lap by bottas. But no..... That didnt happen right?

Rewatch the race, listen to commentators and the whole situation rather than checking timing gap of 2 drivers. It was 5 driver group when pitlane poker started. Not just kimi and bottas or kimi and vettel.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2017 12:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
Zoue wrote:
And as already mentioned, in the laps preceding the pit stops Kimis was pulling away from Bottas at a significant rate. There was no need to pit him at the time as he wasn't under threat


Since you didn't respond to this post...
If Raikkonen had stayed out and had just as much difficulties with the traffic he was about to encounter and if Sainz would have pitted sooner, then Ferrari were in real danger of not having enough time to pit the both of them (whether on successive laps or by stacking in the is) and keeping the 1-2.

Ferrari could not have known which backmarker would pit when. If Kimi's backmarkers would have pitted at that point while Vettel's stayed out, that would probably have easily been race won. Without the 1-2 having been under threat.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2017 12:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
mds wrote:
Zoue wrote:
And as already mentioned, in the laps preceding the pit stops Kimis was pulling away from Bottas at a significant rate. There was no need to pit him at the time as he wasn't under threat


Since you didn't respond to this post...
If Raikkonen had stayed out and had just as much difficulties with the traffic he was about to encounter and if Sainz would have pitted sooner, then Ferrari were in real danger of not having enough time to pit the both of them (whether on successive laps or by stacking in the is) and keeping the 1-2.

Ferrari could not have known which backmarker would pit when. If Kimi's backmarkers would have pitted at that point while Vettel's stayed out, that would probably have easily been race won. Without the 1-2 having been under threat.

IIRC there was a single backmarker left to clear, after which Vettel had an empty race track. So with Kimi they had the choice of clearing that back marker with him, in the knowledge that all his competitors would have to do the same, or pit him at a time when it was guaranteed he would face more traffic. Which would have been the better option do you think?

I repeat, there was no need to pit Kimi as he was not facing any threat, but waiting would have given him a better pit window. He wasn't facing a threat by Bottas, while they had a golden opportunity to see how the harder compound would fare when Verstappen pitted - and he was nearly 7s behind at the time - so again no threat. It was either a panic move, or they didn't really care about his race and were focusing their strategy around Vettel's.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2017 12:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
funkymonkey wrote:
Zoue wrote:
funkymonkey wrote:
Zoue wrote:
funkymonkey wrote:
It wasnt a panic move. Bottas was closing up on 2 Ferraris by taking out more than a second a lap when he pitted. That was worrying because Kimi wasnt going fast enough. At that point Ferrari had to pit their lead driver to ensure that Bottas does not undercut them. They had no way of knowing real pace of Vettel or Daniel. Nobody did.

The fact that those 2 put those incredible laps after the pitstops of kimi, Bottas and Verstappen is all down to their superb driving. Even after initial traffic was cleared which had allowed Bottas to close the gap, Kimi wasnt fast enough ahead.

Kimi got favourable strategy considering the situation at that point in race. And he did manage to come out just ahead them. Vettel gaining that place was all down to Vettel. He grabbed his chance and did what was needed to stay at front. Anything else Ferrari would have done to keep Kimi ahead of Vettel would have been nothing short of deliberately engineering Vettel's downfall in this race. There are no 2 ways about it.

If some people wanted Ferrari to ensure Kimi stays ahead of Vettel in this race, they are hypocrite to accuse Ferrari of double standards, because that is exactly what they want Ferrari to do but in favour of Kimi.

in the five laps before Bottas pitted Kimi was faster than him in every lap bar the very last, and in that one Bottas was 0.444s faster, but equally Kimi was 0.589s slower than his previous lap, so it was clearly an anomaly. At no point before the pit stops was Bottas ever more than a second quicker than Kimi. Not once. In those four laps previously mentioned, Kimi extended his lead over Bottas from 3.142s to 5.430s, which is an average of 0.572s a lap increase. And when Kimi came out of the pits he'd extended that gap to 6.082s. So I don't know where you're getting this "taking out more than a second a lap" from but it wasn't the Monaco race.

It was a panic move because Bottas was never a threat. He pitted into traffic, so was never going to close the gap, and the sensible thing would have been to keep both Ferraris out until they could find a clear window to pit into.

Image

This is when he was taking more than second a lap out of ferrari's lead. Even Vettel had closed the gap to just 1.5 seconds at that point. basically everyone had closed the gap at front on kimi.
The gap went up again when the people behind had to clear traffic. This clearly meant there was a threat of undercut always.

Had they pitted Vettel first, he could have undercut kimi and possibly even Daniel could have overcut kimi. Had they pitted Kimi later and Vettel even later, then they could have lost both places to Daniel.They did the right thing by pitting Kimi first. It at least meant he was clear of the 2 threats at that point. Kimi wasnt going fast enough for them to put both win and 2nd place in danger.
Image

Image

Its all down to Kimi and his pace. As soon as Max pitted, Daniel picked up pace with gap less than 6 seconds and falling behind vettel.

Had they not done that, daniel would have done what he did to Bottas and jumped at least 1 Ferrari if not both.

I don't see on there how Bottas closed it up by more than a second per lap. Because he didn't.

Here are the lap times and gaps throughout the race. The closest Bottas got to a second was a single lap where he closed by 0.915s, but that was it. He never closed by a second a lap in the first stint, let alone more than that.

And as already mentioned, in the laps preceding the pit stops Kimis was pulling away from Bottas at a significant rate. There was no need to pit him at the time as he wasn't under threat


Look at the timing chart yourself. See lap 22-28. And more than a second was on Vettel who was slowed because of kimi. See lap 27 time against Vettel.

You are so fixated on kimi's timing that you dont see the whole picture which Ferrari had to see and act on. And I posted timing screen screenshot right there showing 1.1 second faster lap by bottas. But no..... That didnt happen right?

Rewatch the race, listen to commentators and the whole situation rather than checking timing gap of 2 drivers. It was 5 driver group when pitlane poker started. Not just kimi and bottas or kimi and vettel.

I have looked at the timing charts. There was a single lap where Bottas was over a second faster than Vettel, but none where he was even a second faster than Kimi. And from lap 28 on until Bottas pitted, both Ferraris pulled away by a fairly substantial amount So your claim that Bottas was catching them by more than a second a lap when he pitted is simply not true.

And Bottas also came out in traffic, which Ferrari would have been able to see. So the odds of him actually being able to catch and pass them were laughably low. So Kimi had much more to lose by pitting when he did than he would have done by staying out. The most generous thing to say was that it was a sub-optimal strategy for Kimi, but in no way was it in his interests


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2017 12:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
Zoue wrote:
mds wrote:
Zoue wrote:
And as already mentioned, in the laps preceding the pit stops Kimis was pulling away from Bottas at a significant rate. There was no need to pit him at the time as he wasn't under threat


Since you didn't respond to this post...
If Raikkonen had stayed out and had just as much difficulties with the traffic he was about to encounter and if Sainz would have pitted sooner, then Ferrari were in real danger of not having enough time to pit the both of them (whether on successive laps or by stacking in the is) and keeping the 1-2.

Ferrari could not have known which backmarker would pit when. If Kimi's backmarkers would have pitted at that point while Vettel's stayed out, that would probably have easily been race won. Without the 1-2 having been under threat.

IIRC there was a single backmarker left to clear, after which Vettel had an empty race track. So with Kimi they had the choice of clearing that back marker with him, in the knowledge that all his competitors would have to do the same, or pit him at a time when it was guaranteed he would face more traffic. Which would have been the better option do you think?


But everything was moving! How could they have known what was the better option, they had NO clue which backmarker would pit first, all they knew is that pitting Kimi would ensure he would be in front of Sainz and clear Bottas without any problem, leaving every chance for them to pick up the 1-2.

And Max would have jumped Bottas if not for being misaligned in the pits so the undercut could have worked.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2017 1:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
mds wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mds wrote:
Zoue wrote:
And as already mentioned, in the laps preceding the pit stops Kimis was pulling away from Bottas at a significant rate. There was no need to pit him at the time as he wasn't under threat


Since you didn't respond to this post...
If Raikkonen had stayed out and had just as much difficulties with the traffic he was about to encounter and if Sainz would have pitted sooner, then Ferrari were in real danger of not having enough time to pit the both of them (whether on successive laps or by stacking in the is) and keeping the 1-2.

Ferrari could not have known which backmarker would pit when. If Kimi's backmarkers would have pitted at that point while Vettel's stayed out, that would probably have easily been race won. Without the 1-2 having been under threat.

IIRC there was a single backmarker left to clear, after which Vettel had an empty race track. So with Kimi they had the choice of clearing that back marker with him, in the knowledge that all his competitors would have to do the same, or pit him at a time when it was guaranteed he would face more traffic. Which would have been the better option do you think?


But everything was moving! How could they have known what was the better option, they had NO clue which backmarker would pit first, all they knew is that pitting Kimi would ensure he would be in front of Sainz and clear Bottas without any problem, leaving every chance for them to pick up the 1-2.

And Max would have jumped Bottas if not for being misaligned in the pits so the undercut could have worked.

It doesn't matter which backmarkers pitted first: they could afford to wait. They had a single backmarker to clear at the front, which would have been the same for both Ferraris and would have given both an advantage over the rest of the field, since they would subsequently have had clear air while their competitors still had to navigate the backmarkers themselves. If they had wanted to pit Kimi they could then have told him to put the hammer down for a lap or two to both build a buffer and ensure that when he did pit it would be in clear air. Pitting Kimi when they did was a high-risk / low reward strategy for him that was virtually guaranteed to compromise his race. And, as I keep saying, they didn't need to. They were never, never, under threat


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2017 1:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:46 pm
Posts: 376
for me i dont really care about the ins and outs of the strategy and if they brought him in too early etc into traffic etc. It is purely down to 1 fundamental thing. Vettel was allowed to challenge for the win by using a different strategy and running long. ferrari just kept him out until the gap was big enough. he was fast enough and thats what did it.

Now the problem. Obviously i cant prove this but using what has happened in the recent past with strategies i am pretty confident that kimi WOULD NOT have been allowed to challenge if the roles were reversed. so basically he now wont be allowed to win unless there is no way they can engineer vettel infront. we have just finished race 6 of the season. this in effect was an earlier confirmation of ferraris intentions then in 2002.

Now have ferrari told kimi that basically he cant directly compete with vettel on strategy. i doubt it. us fans have had a tough time since 2014 and although he has had plenty of horrendous strategy calls, sunday felt different. just a overwhelming sense of unfairness. you can take it when he is beaten by the better man fairly but i dont believe it was an entirely fair fight.

add in arrivabene's comment after quali that it was a shame that vettel made a mistake. you have a 1 2 and you say its a shame vettel made a mistake. that says it all to me. its obvious. but many will chose to disbelieve because it puts a big question mark for me over vettel in the same way as schuey and barrichello. yes schuey was the better driver, but he needed everthing around him geared for him. that takes away a bit of the shine on someones talent and career if you think they have at points had the unfair advantage of no1 driver.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2017 1:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:04 am
Posts: 1857
Zoue wrote:
I have looked at the timing charts. There was a single lap where Bottas was over a second faster than Vettel, but none where he was even a second faster than Kimi. And from lap 28 on until Bottas pitted, both Ferraris pulled away by a fairly substantial amount So your claim that Bottas was catching them by more than a second a lap when he pitted is simply not true.

And Bottas also came out in traffic, which Ferrari would have been able to see. So the odds of him actually being able to catch and pass them were laughably low. So Kimi had much more to lose by pitting when he did than he would have done by staying out. The most generous thing to say was that it was a sub-optimal strategy for Kimi, but in no way was it in his interests


That still didnt eliminate threat from Daniel. Neither did Ferrari know whether those backmarkers were going to stay out or pit ahead of bottas and max. They had to cover for both possibilities and the sensible one was to pit Kimi. At that point I actually thought Vettel is gonna loose out on P2 because of Kimi and Ferrari strategy. You can argue all you want. But at the end of the day, there was only 1 way for kimi to win and that was to open up better gap up ahead. And he didn't. It was all down to him as he was leading the GP.

Dont get me wrong, I like kimi, one of the few drivers on the grid that I like irrespective of the team he drives for. And at the moment he is driving for team I support. It does not make any difference to me whether he or Vettel wins the GP or title. But to blame Ferrari for yesterday's result is irrational FANWORD I am not supposed to say ism.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2017 2:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4798
I'm sorry but with Ferrari's record of bottling strategy, for both drivers, over the last few years I can't ascribe any malice to what happened Sunday. I was shaking my head when they didn't pit Vettel under the VSC in Spain and there have been several other times when I'm left wondering why the hell they've left Kimi out so long.

I don't recall which race it was, but there was one in 2015 where Kimi was leading and wasn't pitted first where I was more upset than I am over this latest incident. But that was early in the Vettel/Kimi partnership and was the first time I was paying close attention to the Ferrari strategy because I knew Kimi was always going to be compromised for his team mates sake when paired with Alonso.

While this result was very disappointing and disheartening I just can't see getting overly upset over it. Now if it comes out between now and the next race that it was deliberate then I'll change my mind but for now I just see a continuation of their stream of poor decisions.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2017 2:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
funkymonkey wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I have looked at the timing charts. There was a single lap where Bottas was over a second faster than Vettel, but none where he was even a second faster than Kimi. And from lap 28 on until Bottas pitted, both Ferraris pulled away by a fairly substantial amount So your claim that Bottas was catching them by more than a second a lap when he pitted is simply not true.

And Bottas also came out in traffic, which Ferrari would have been able to see. So the odds of him actually being able to catch and pass them were laughably low. So Kimi had much more to lose by pitting when he did than he would have done by staying out. The most generous thing to say was that it was a sub-optimal strategy for Kimi, but in no way was it in his interests


That still didnt eliminate threat from Daniel. Neither did Ferrari know whether those backmarkers were going to stay out or pit ahead of bottas and max. They had to cover for both possibilities and the sensible one was to pit Kimi. At that point I actually thought Vettel is gonna loose out on P2 because of Kimi and Ferrari strategy. You can argue all you want. But at the end of the day, there was only 1 way for kimi to win and that was to open up better gap up ahead. And he didn't. It was all down to him as he was leading the GP.

Dont get me wrong, I like kimi, one of the few drivers on the grid that I like irrespective of the team he drives for. And at the moment he is driving for team I support. It does not make any difference to me whether he or Vettel wins the GP or title. But to blame Ferrari for yesterday's result is irrational FANWORD I am not supposed to say ism.

Ah, so if you persist in your point then it's OK, but if I do I'm arguing? The fanboy comment is just a a desperate ploy to discredit when you know your own argument doesn't make sense

I don't really know what to say to the above. There was even less threat from Daniel at the time than there was from Bottas, so why he should factor into Ferrari's pit stop calculation is anybody's guess. You claimed that Bottas was catching the Ferraris at over a second a lap before he pitted, whereas the data shows that to have been a single lap long before the pits stops and in the ones just before both Ferraris were consistently pulling away. But I'm the fanboy?

There was zero pressure for Ferrari. Neither position was at risk at that stage in the race, so there was no need to commit to any action that carried a risk. And bringing Kimi in at that time carried that risk.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2017 2:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:04 am
Posts: 1857
Zoue wrote:
funkymonkey wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I have looked at the timing charts. There was a single lap where Bottas was over a second faster than Vettel, but none where he was even a second faster than Kimi. And from lap 28 on until Bottas pitted, both Ferraris pulled away by a fairly substantial amount So your claim that Bottas was catching them by more than a second a lap when he pitted is simply not true.

And Bottas also came out in traffic, which Ferrari would have been able to see. So the odds of him actually being able to catch and pass them were laughably low. So Kimi had much more to lose by pitting when he did than he would have done by staying out. The most generous thing to say was that it was a sub-optimal strategy for Kimi, but in no way was it in his interests


That still didnt eliminate threat from Daniel. Neither did Ferrari know whether those backmarkers were going to stay out or pit ahead of bottas and max. They had to cover for both possibilities and the sensible one was to pit Kimi. At that point I actually thought Vettel is gonna loose out on P2 because of Kimi and Ferrari strategy. You can argue all you want. But at the end of the day, there was only 1 way for kimi to win and that was to open up better gap up ahead. And he didn't. It was all down to him as he was leading the GP.

Dont get me wrong, I like kimi, one of the few drivers on the grid that I like irrespective of the team he drives for. And at the moment he is driving for team I support. It does not make any difference to me whether he or Vettel wins the GP or title. But to blame Ferrari for yesterday's result is irrational FANWORD I am not supposed to say ism.

Ah, so if you persist in your point then it's OK, but if I do I'm arguing? The fanboy comment is just a a desperate ploy to discredit when you know your own argument doesn't make sense

I don't really know what to say to the above. There was even less threat from Daniel at the time than there was from Bottas, so why he should factor into Ferrari's pit stop calculation is anybody's guess. You claimed that Bottas was catching the Ferraris at over a second a lap before he pitted, whereas the data shows that to have been a single lap long before the pits stops and in the ones just before both Ferraris were consistently pulling away. But I'm the fanboy?

There was zero pressure for Ferrari. Neither position was at risk at that stage in the race, so there was no need to commit to any action that carried a risk. And bringing Kimi in at that time carried that risk.

The last part is where everyone involved with Ferrari team, 2 other team principals and lot of F1 pundits disagree. Your argument assumes Ferrari knew how backmarkers were going to pit or rather not pit, how Daniel was not going to continue pulling in fast laps and how Vettel would not be have been able to be ahead with undercut or overcut at later stage in the race. Because either way in any clear air, he had chance to be faster than Kimi.

How convenient.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2017 2:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:49 pm
Posts: 45
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
for me i dont really care about the ins and outs of the strategy and if they brought him in too early etc into traffic etc. It is purely down to 1 fundamental thing. Vettel was allowed to challenge for the win by using a different strategy and running long. ferrari just kept him out until the gap was big enough. he was fast enough and thats what did it.

Now the problem. Obviously i cant prove this but using what has happened in the recent past with strategies i am pretty confident that kimi WOULD NOT have been allowed to challenge if the roles were reversed. so basically he now wont be allowed to win unless there is no way they can engineer vettel infront. we have just finished race 6 of the season. this in effect was an earlier confirmation of ferraris intentions then in 2002.

Now have ferrari told kimi that basically he cant directly compete with vettel on strategy. i doubt it. us fans have had a tough time since 2014 and although he has had plenty of horrendous strategy calls, sunday felt different. just a overwhelming sense of unfairness. you can take it when he is beaten by the better man fairly but i dont believe it was an entirely fair fight.

add in arrivabene's comment after quali that it was a shame that vettel made a mistake. you have a 1 2 and you say its a shame vettel made a mistake. that says it all to me. its obvious. but many will chose to disbelieve because it puts a big question mark for me over vettel in the same way as schuey and barrichello. yes schuey was the better driver, but he needed everthing around him geared for him. that takes away a bit of the shine on someones talent and career if you think they have at points had the unfair advantage of no1 driver.


Caserole of Nonsense, Arrivabene continued to throw daggers and insults at Kimi after the race, speaking to Gazzetta dello Sport:

Quote:
– Kimi took the pole, and he also proved in the race that he is not here just to participate.


Erm, so according to Arrivabene Kimi has just been cruising around until Monaco GP...

Ferrari sure knows how to bash and trash their driver in the media. We are probably only witnessing the start of the public Kimi-bashing á la Ferrari - once again :uhoh:

They probably prevented Barrichello from showing what he was made of. Remember when Schumi had already taken the WDC and Ferrari graciously allowed Barrichello to win a GP?

Poor Barrichello was crying on the podium, that is how much emotions he had kept inside :(

Hopefully the same doesn't happen with Kimi. It would be horrible to witness him winning due to Ferrari's mercy.

But like you said, Vettel's 'mistake' was a shame to Arrivabene. One starts to think why the race engineer told Vettel 'you deserved this win'?!? Because he made a mistake in quali?

_________________
NeverCryWolf aka Wolfie


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2017 2:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23910
funkymonkey wrote:
Zoue wrote:
funkymonkey wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I have looked at the timing charts. There was a single lap where Bottas was over a second faster than Vettel, but none where he was even a second faster than Kimi. And from lap 28 on until Bottas pitted, both Ferraris pulled away by a fairly substantial amount So your claim that Bottas was catching them by more than a second a lap when he pitted is simply not true.

And Bottas also came out in traffic, which Ferrari would have been able to see. So the odds of him actually being able to catch and pass them were laughably low. So Kimi had much more to lose by pitting when he did than he would have done by staying out. The most generous thing to say was that it was a sub-optimal strategy for Kimi, but in no way was it in his interests


That still didnt eliminate threat from Daniel. Neither did Ferrari know whether those backmarkers were going to stay out or pit ahead of bottas and max. They had to cover for both possibilities and the sensible one was to pit Kimi. At that point I actually thought Vettel is gonna loose out on P2 because of Kimi and Ferrari strategy. You can argue all you want. But at the end of the day, there was only 1 way for kimi to win and that was to open up better gap up ahead. And he didn't. It was all down to him as he was leading the GP.

Dont get me wrong, I like kimi, one of the few drivers on the grid that I like irrespective of the team he drives for. And at the moment he is driving for team I support. It does not make any difference to me whether he or Vettel wins the GP or title. But to blame Ferrari for yesterday's result is irrational FANWORD I am not supposed to say ism.

Ah, so if you persist in your point then it's OK, but if I do I'm arguing? The fanboy comment is just a a desperate ploy to discredit when you know your own argument doesn't make sense

I don't really know what to say to the above. There was even less threat from Daniel at the time than there was from Bottas, so why he should factor into Ferrari's pit stop calculation is anybody's guess. You claimed that Bottas was catching the Ferraris at over a second a lap before he pitted, whereas the data shows that to have been a single lap long before the pits stops and in the ones just before both Ferraris were consistently pulling away. But I'm the fanboy?

There was zero pressure for Ferrari. Neither position was at risk at that stage in the race, so there was no need to commit to any action that carried a risk. And bringing Kimi in at that time carried that risk.

The last part is where everyone involved with Ferrari team, 2 other team principals and lot of F1 pundits disagree. Your argument assumes Ferrari knew how backmarkers were going to pit or rather not pit, how Daniel was not going to continue pulling in fast laps and how Vettel would not be have been able to be ahead with undercut or overcut at later stage in the race. Because either way in any clear air, he had chance to be faster than Kimi.

How convenient.

Where are you getting your figures from? Kimi pitted on lap 34 when Ricciardo was some 7s behind him. This makes pitting urgent for you?

My argument assumes nothing except the status quo. If Ferrari had left both drivers out, the worst that would happen is that the car immediately in front of Kimi wouldn't pit. But once he cleared him - and he would, as he was lapping him - he would have had a number of laps in clear air to build a gap and ensure that when he did pit he would clear the Wehrlein/Button battle. This is in fact what happened with Vettel, with the added bonus that the backmarker pitted anyway.

Pitting Kimi when they did, OTOH, relied to a certain extent on them hoping WEH/BUT wouldn't hold him up too much and ran the risk that his pace might be slower than the other front runners. So why take that risk? The sensible option would be to clear the car they did have and then enjoy the open road for a few laps. They did that, of course, but only with Vettel.

As for the pundits, not everyone agrees:

Why was Raikkonen stopped when he would come out in traffic, when there was no need to stop then? It was the plan, Ferrari said, and, whenever you stop in Monaco, you'll get traffic eventually

The problem with that is a team would not normally choose to pit a race leader when he was going to come out behind back markers. It was the key moment, and it hampered Raikkonen's attempt to defend his position.


http://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/40079411


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2017 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:40 pm
Posts: 6628
1. Ferrari pits the lead driver. On the next lap, the second driver, who comes out behind. The first driver wins. Nothing to say about.
2. Ferrari pits the lead driver. Goes to keep the second driver out, giving him a chance for an over-cut. He pulls few great laps, does the job. Wins Monaco. A controversy among the fans of the "lead" driver, a lot to say about.

Well, Ferrari opted for 2. And for that, they can be either blamed or not. But there wasn't anything particularly orchestrated or masterminded, not to speak of a TO. It was but the question of a preference. And here, that was Vettel, not Kimi. A kind of bias, if you like. Was the situation reversed (Vettel lead driver), I believe without a doubt that Ferrari would go for 1.

And frankly, I believe equally that such would be the situation in Mercedes with Hamilton and Bottas. Hamilton would not perhaps come in to pit the next lap even if called, knowing that that would be the end of his chances to win, and knowing that he was the faster of the two.

It's just like that. That is what it means to not let yourself be beaten so convincingly by your teammates in the previous years, and particularly in these very first 5 races of the season where the long sought, elusive WDC is finally on the radar. Kimi can stand there looking as devastated as he wants, but this moment had been written in the books since the day he came to Ferrari from Lotus, and turned out to be a disappointment to both the team that hired him, and to his own fans too. Kimi is a supportive driver in Ferrari, that is why he was getting his contract prolonged another year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2017 5:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:49 pm
Posts: 45
Finnish reporters have raised their suspicions this season:

Quote:
Is Kimi Räikkönen's biggest strenght from the past, the reason for Ferrari's stunningingly stupid action?

17.04.2017

Kimi Räikkönen's fans teared their hair after watching Bahrain GP.

Kimi begged - and even raged - to his team for a better strategy, but despite his complaints he was forced to drive lap after lap in China GP with worn-out tyres. And he lost the possible 3rd place.

People's rage is absolutely appropriate.

It's impossible to follow the reasoning of Ferrari's strategists. At least when it comes to Räikkönen. How can it be possible that Kimi's strategy fails in every race, whereas the team seems to succeed in Vettel's strategies time and time again?

Since it's difficult to explain Räikkönen's treatment in Bahrain with reason, one has to use the imagination.

What if Räikkönen's reputation is the reason for Ferrari's actions?

Räikkönen became famous during his Lotus-years as a driver, who can tend his tyres amazingly tenderly during the rae.

Kimi's driving style is still tender, but it doesn't offer the advantage Lotus-years offered. Today Pirelli's tyres are like from another planet, when compared to the earlier chewgum-balls.

Times have changed, but is Ferrari still trying to use Kimi's special talent without realizing how impossible it is?

If the answer is yes, then I am very worried about Ferrari.

Juuso Taipale
http://www.suomif1.com/2017/04/kommentt ... oimintaan/





Quote:
Why is Ferrari messing with Kimi Räikkönen?

26.04.2017

The sun was still shining for Kimi Räikkönen in Barcelona tests, when Ferraris new SF70H seemed to fit him perfectly like a glove. When the season started everything changed.

Sebastian Vettel has already clinched two victories, while Kimi has finished 4th, 5th and 4th. With this pace Kimi's F1-career is over.

Ferrari's leadership give direct critisism to Räikkönen, then again Kimi hasn't spared his words in the team radio either. Everyone has seen that Kimi's race strategies have been failures, while Vettel's race strategies have succeeded every time; it makes one think if it's deliberate. And I say this without white-blue glasses.

Both Sergio Marchionne and Maurizio Arrivabene's Kimi-critisism sounds weird. Why have they started it this early in the season, why are they peeing in their own nest? Maybe they try to pin their own obvious mistakes on Kimi, because they know that Kimi will not take part in public bashing. He is the easiest scapegoat.

In Australia Kimi drove the fastest lap, in Bahrain he drove the 3rd fastest lap; his pace hasn't vanished anywhere. But for some unknown reason, which we will never know, Ferrari has now a bad attitude towards Räikkönen. Perhaps the joy over Vettel's victories has blocked the thinking in Maranello so badly, that they have forgot that it takes two successful drivers to win the WCC. Not even Jesus or Santa Claus can make them succeed if their strategy is messed up and they can't tune Kimi's car.

Both Räikkönen and Ferrari are under pressure to succeed in Russia. It requires a lot more seamless co-operation than what we have seen this far.

Is Ferrari willing to do it? If not, why the hell aren't they? With this progression the Italian pee flows nastily on their own hand-made leather shoes.

Lauri Hollo

http://www.suomif1.com/2017/04/kommentt ... en-kanssa/




Quote:
Tyre games and a horrid Finnish day - Why is it always Kimi Räikkönen?

15.05.2017

Spain GP was going to change the power relations between teams, but it didn't.

The race was horrible for Finns. Why does it always feel the same, that when something happens in Ferrari it's always to Kimi Räikkönen?

When Mercedes put an old engine in Bottas' car on Saturday, it immediately raised fears. The engine didn't last the 5th race.

The horrible conclusion of Kimi's and Vatteri's DNFs are, that their destinies will be drivers #2, no matter what the team management says.


Lauri Hollo
http://www.suomif1.com/2017/05/kommentt ... raikkonen/


Quote:
Will Ferrari orchestrate Sebastian Vettel ahead of Kimi Räikkönen in Monaco?

27.05.2017

Kimi Räikkönen took pole position in Monaco GP qualifications and Valtteri Bottas starts from the 3rd grid.

If Bottas doesn't succeed to overtake Vettel in the start, then it may cost dearly especially to Kimi Räikkönen. It's not difficult to imagine how Ferrari in a situation like this is hugely tempted to orchestrate Vettel to 1st place with "convenient" pitstops.

The situation is harmful for Kimi. Räikkönen will either get a team order or his pitstop lasts a little bit too long.

But if Bottas would be between Kimi and Vettel tomorrow, then the guys in Maranello can't use tactics because they need a victory.

Both Finns performed excellently in the qualification, now we hope with our huge blue-white soul, that the same will happen tomorrow also.

Lauri Hollo
http://www.suomif1.com/2017/05/kommentt ... monacossa/


Quote:
Did Ferrari orchestrate the victory from Kimi Räikkönen?

28.05.2017

Why was the leading driver called in first to the pitstop?

They don't do that very often - unless the purpose is to get the other driver ahead.

Now when tyres last longer on the track and you get to drive on an empty track, you put in faster laps than your team mate, who after the pitstop is stucked in traffic. This decided Vettel's victory.

It just doesn't feel fair, but that's how it goes.

It bugs me, that Kimi's only victory was taken away with trickery. It would have been awesome if Kimi would get himself one more victory. Maranello's trickery left a bad taste in the mouth.

I'm not saying that Vettel wasn't faster than Kimi. When he got ahead of Kimi his laptimes were really fast.

2nd and 4th position are not bad, but still it bugs.

Lauri Hollo

http://www.suomif1.com/2017/05/kommentt ... ta-voiton/


_________________
NeverCryWolf aka Wolfie


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2017 5:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:46 pm
Posts: 376
NCW wrote:
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
for me i dont really care about the ins and outs of the strategy and if they brought him in too early etc into traffic etc. It is purely down to 1 fundamental thing. Vettel was allowed to challenge for the win by using a different strategy and running long. ferrari just kept him out until the gap was big enough. he was fast enough and thats what did it.

Now the problem. Obviously i cant prove this but using what has happened in the recent past with strategies i am pretty confident that kimi WOULD NOT have been allowed to challenge if the roles were reversed. so basically he now wont be allowed to win unless there is no way they can engineer vettel infront. we have just finished race 6 of the season. this in effect was an earlier confirmation of ferraris intentions then in 2002.

Now have ferrari told kimi that basically he cant directly compete with vettel on strategy. i doubt it. us fans have had a tough time since 2014 and although he has had plenty of horrendous strategy calls, sunday felt different. just a overwhelming sense of unfairness. you can take it when he is beaten by the better man fairly but i dont believe it was an entirely fair fight.

add in arrivabene's comment after quali that it was a shame that vettel made a mistake. you have a 1 2 and you say its a shame vettel made a mistake. that says it all to me. its obvious. but many will chose to disbelieve because it puts a big question mark for me over vettel in the same way as schuey and barrichello. yes schuey was the better driver, but he needed everthing around him geared for him. that takes away a bit of the shine on someones talent and career if you think they have at points had the unfair advantage of no1 driver.


Caserole of Nonsense, Arrivabene continued to throw daggers and insults at Kimi after the race, speaking to Gazzetta dello Sport:

Quote:
– Kimi took the pole, and he also proved in the race that he is not here just to participate.


Erm, so according to Arrivabene Kimi has just been cruising around until Monaco GP...

Ferrari sure knows how to bash and trash their driver in the media. We are probably only witnessing the start of the public Kimi-bashing á la Ferrari - once again :uhoh:

They probably prevented Barrichello from showing what he was made of. Remember when Schumi had already taken the WDC and Ferrari graciously allowed Barrichello to win a GP?

Poor Barrichello was crying on the podium, that is how much emotions he had kept inside :(

Hopefully the same doesn't happen with Kimi. It would be horrible to witness him winning due to Ferrari's mercy.

But like you said, Vettel's 'mistake' was a shame to Arrivabene. One starts to think why the race engineer told Vettel 'you deserved this win'?!? Because he made a mistake in quali?


i cant imagine kimi crying on the podium. ever.

hopefully kimi might start to question his strategy now. he should do, although he probably still foolishly trusts his team too much. theres still so far to go in the championship and i hope sv has some bad luck and it allows kimi and the 2 mercs to close in.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2017 5:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 12:49 pm
Posts: 45
To lighten up the mood of Kimi-fans who wonder what Kimi might or should do in the future -

He is raising his own racing driver as we speak, he has the skills and the money to put up a F1-team when the time is right - and put mini-Kimi aka Robin Räikkönen on the track 8)

Future F1-drivers, be afraid. Very afraid :twisted:

Image

_________________
NeverCryWolf aka Wolfie


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], owenmahamilton and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group