planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Dec 12, 2018 12:31 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23913
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Johnson wrote:

I think its fair to be a dick about it. I gave you a long post of why Hamilton would catch him with detailed numbers you reply with a 1 line, it wasn't under threat. I note a lack of explanation of why Vettel was under no threat from Hamilton despite losing seconds per lap?

For the same reason that Hamilton declared after the race that he had not been afraid that Bottas would overtake him towards the end, regardless of team orders, because even though Bottas was on much fresher tyres Hamiiltin said overtaking in Germany was extremely difficult so he was confident he’d be able to hold him. I’ve little doubt Vettel would have felt the same and he hadn’t been pushing as hard as Hamilton because he wasn’t ever under threat


Extremely difficult to overtake?

Winner records the most overtakes for a winner in a race in about 10 years..

Like I said, Mercedes strategy team said he would win the race. Nothing you put suggests otherwise

take it up with Hamilton:

https://www.racefans.net/2018/07/22/hockenheim-f1-hardest-circuits-overtaking-hamilton/

and after

https://www.racefans.net/2018/07/26/hamilton-mercedes-german-gp-team-orders-made-difference-f1/

Did you miss this bit?

“Valtteri had fresher tyres, they woke up a little bit quicker than mine, and it was fair game,” Hamilton explained. “He gave it a great shot, I think I positioned fortunately the car in the right place.”
Hamilton said Bottas accepted the team order and acknowledged he’d missed his best chance to take the lead.

“Afterwards when we were back in the meeting room Toto [Wolff, team principal] stood there and said ‘come over’ and Valtteri came over. Valtteri was like ‘it’s fine’, because by the time [Wolff] gave the order he said [Hamilton] had already pulled away. It wasn’t like [Wolff] told him while we were in battle.”

no, why do you ask? I provided quotes where Hamilton says it was difficult to overtake


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:21 am
Posts: 3530
Johnson wrote:
That quote was in reference to Bottas being able to pass him as I have mentioned.


You asked for a quote post-race saying overtaking was difficult. You can't keep changing the goalposts and expect to win the debate.

_________________
AlienTurnedHuman wrote:
Eurytus probably thought he was God. At least until he was banned. Which means if he was God, it makes me very scared of PF1-Mod.

Please report forum problems to us, via PM/Feedback Thread. Screenshots will also help.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23913
Johnson wrote:
You mean the post race quote were you compared Bottas tyres advantage over Hamilton to Hamiltons over Vettel? Not the same thing, worlds apart and obvious that 10 laps fresher, same compound is completely different to 17 laps fresher , 2 compounds softer. You recognise that right? But still happy to reference this quote? Bottas had a small advantage over Hamilton, Hamilton had a huge advantage over Vettel.

We have had no situation in which Hamilton/Vettel was coming coming at the other with a huge tyre advantage so referencing other races is moot. The only other occasion we have this year of a car with a similar tyre advantage is Ricciardo in China going from 5th to 1st. I am sure you recognise that in China, Ricciardo was able to go from 5th to first due to his tyre advantage?

I never said Hamilton would breeze by, I am merely, saying there was a genuine race for the win. In part brought about because Ferrari left Vettel stuck behind Raikkonen (on much older tyres) for 13 laps.

No, I made zero reference to tyres. I'm talking about the post-race quote where Hamilton said it was difficult to overtake, as requested. It's you who keeps bringing up the tyres but don't project that on me


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 747
Zoue wrote:
Johnson wrote:
You mean the post race quote were you compared Bottas tyres advantage over Hamilton to Hamiltons over Vettel? Not the same thing, worlds apart and obvious that 10 laps fresher, same compound is completely different to 17 laps fresher , 2 compounds softer. You recognise that right? But still happy to reference this quote? Bottas had a small advantage over Hamilton, Hamilton had a huge advantage over Vettel.

We have had no situation in which Hamilton/Vettel was coming coming at the other with a huge tyre advantage so referencing other races is moot. The only other occasion we have this year of a car with a similar tyre advantage is Ricciardo in China going from 5th to 1st. I am sure you recognise that in China, Ricciardo was able to go from 5th to first due to his tyre advantage?

I never said Hamilton would breeze by, I am merely, saying there was a genuine race for the win. In part brought about because Ferrari left Vettel stuck behind Raikkonen (on much older tyres) for 13 laps.

No, I made zero reference to tyres. I'm talking about the post-race quote where Hamilton said it was difficult to overtake, as requested. It's you who keeps bringing up the tyres but don't project that on me


Exactly, that is the issue here and why you struggle to read the race. Tyres. That is entirely, 100% what is key to this situation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23913
Johnson wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Johnson wrote:
You mean the post race quote were you compared Bottas tyres advantage over Hamilton to Hamiltons over Vettel? Not the same thing, worlds apart and obvious that 10 laps fresher, same compound is completely different to 17 laps fresher , 2 compounds softer. You recognise that right? But still happy to reference this quote? Bottas had a small advantage over Hamilton, Hamilton had a huge advantage over Vettel.

We have had no situation in which Hamilton/Vettel was coming coming at the other with a huge tyre advantage so referencing other races is moot. The only other occasion we have this year of a car with a similar tyre advantage is Ricciardo in China going from 5th to 1st. I am sure you recognise that in China, Ricciardo was able to go from 5th to first due to his tyre advantage?

I never said Hamilton would breeze by, I am merely, saying there was a genuine race for the win. In part brought about because Ferrari left Vettel stuck behind Raikkonen (on much older tyres) for 13 laps.

No, I made zero reference to tyres. I'm talking about the post-race quote where Hamilton said it was difficult to overtake, as requested. It's you who keeps bringing up the tyres but don't project that on me


Exactly, that is the issue here and why you struggle to read the race. Tyres. That is entirely, 100% what is key to this situation.

what I'm struggling to read is your hopping from one topic to another and coming with weird non-sequiturs just about every posting. It's like trying to have a conversation on acid


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 747
P-F1 Mod wrote:
Johnson wrote:
That quote was in reference to Bottas being able to pass him as I have mentioned.


You asked for a quote post-race saying overtaking was difficult. You can't keep changing the goalposts and expect to win the debate.


Ok, yes he found a quote. But that's not the core of the discussion. The context of the quote is Bottas overtaking Hamilton.

I am not moving goal posts. Overtaking would be impossible in Germany between Ferrari's/Mercedes on equal aged tyres or even just slight offset in age/compound.

What we are discussing here is a huge disparity in tyre age/compound - about as huge as you ever get in F1. It makes a Ferrari vs Mercedes battle more like a Haas/Renault vs Mercedes.

We saw in China, Ricciardo who was 0.5 a lap slower than Bottas when on the same tyre and age and then 1.5 quicker than him when he had a life/compound advantage at the end and easily win. It just seems people are happy to ignore huge tyre disparities to fit there arguments.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 747
Zoue wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Johnson wrote:
You mean the post race quote were you compared Bottas tyres advantage over Hamilton to Hamiltons over Vettel? Not the same thing, worlds apart and obvious that 10 laps fresher, same compound is completely different to 17 laps fresher , 2 compounds softer. You recognise that right? But still happy to reference this quote? Bottas had a small advantage over Hamilton, Hamilton had a huge advantage over Vettel.

We have had no situation in which Hamilton/Vettel was coming coming at the other with a huge tyre advantage so referencing other races is moot. The only other occasion we have this year of a car with a similar tyre advantage is Ricciardo in China going from 5th to 1st. I am sure you recognise that in China, Ricciardo was able to go from 5th to first due to his tyre advantage?

I never said Hamilton would breeze by, I am merely, saying there was a genuine race for the win. In part brought about because Ferrari left Vettel stuck behind Raikkonen (on much older tyres) for 13 laps.

No, I made zero reference to tyres. I'm talking about the post-race quote where Hamilton said it was difficult to overtake, as requested. It's you who keeps bringing up the tyres but don't project that on me


Exactly, that is the issue here and why you struggle to read the race. Tyres. That is entirely, 100% what is key to this situation.

what I'm struggling to read is your hopping from one topic to another and coming with weird non-sequiturs just about every posting. It's like trying to have a conversation on acid


I can only spoon feed the dynamics of the race so much. I would recommend watching the final stint in China to help understand tyre age/compound disparities between cars and its effect.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23913
Johnson wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Johnson wrote:
You mean the post race quote were you compared Bottas tyres advantage over Hamilton to Hamiltons over Vettel? Not the same thing, worlds apart and obvious that 10 laps fresher, same compound is completely different to 17 laps fresher , 2 compounds softer. You recognise that right? But still happy to reference this quote? Bottas had a small advantage over Hamilton, Hamilton had a huge advantage over Vettel.

We have had no situation in which Hamilton/Vettel was coming coming at the other with a huge tyre advantage so referencing other races is moot. The only other occasion we have this year of a car with a similar tyre advantage is Ricciardo in China going from 5th to 1st. I am sure you recognise that in China, Ricciardo was able to go from 5th to first due to his tyre advantage?

I never said Hamilton would breeze by, I am merely, saying there was a genuine race for the win. In part brought about because Ferrari left Vettel stuck behind Raikkonen (on much older tyres) for 13 laps.

No, I made zero reference to tyres. I'm talking about the post-race quote where Hamilton said it was difficult to overtake, as requested. It's you who keeps bringing up the tyres but don't project that on me


Exactly, that is the issue here and why you struggle to read the race. Tyres. That is entirely, 100% what is key to this situation.

what I'm struggling to read is your hopping from one topic to another and coming with weird non-sequiturs just about every posting. It's like trying to have a conversation on acid


I can only spoon feed the dynamics of the race so much. I would recommend watching the final stint in China to help understand tyre age/compound disparities between cars and its effect.

I'm pretty confident I have at least as strong an understanding of the effects of tyres as you do. I also appear to have a far better grasp of English, since your claim in the previous post that we were discussing the disparity in tyre compounds is simply a lie. We were doing nothing of the sort. You asked for quotes showing Hamilton said overtaking was difficult. No other caveats. Given the number of false statements you have made so far I'd say you are being less than honest here. And I also think you know it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 3092
With the difference in compounds, how much advantage Hamilton had being on the sofest compund which generate heat quicker, Vettel having used tyres (17 laps older) and Hamilton simply being the best in those conditions, I'm pretty sure if Hamilton would have closed the gap to Vettel the chance of the overtake is in Hamilton's favour. Those used softs was not good in those conditions.

_________________
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: Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6209
Location: Michigan, USA
I'm confused... I went to the latest page of the Russian Grand Prix thread, but I don't see anyone talking about the Russian Grand Prix. Why is the German Grand Prix suddenly being talked about here?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5607
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:

Did you miss this bit?

“Valtteri had fresher tyres, they woke up a little bit quicker than mine, and it was fair game,” Hamilton explained. “He gave it a great shot, I think I positioned fortunately the car in the right place.”
Hamilton said Bottas accepted the team order and acknowledged he’d missed his best chance to take the lead.

“Afterwards when we were back in the meeting room Toto [Wolff, team principal] stood there and said ‘come over’ and Valtteri came over. Valtteri was like ‘it’s fine’, because by the time [Wolff] gave the order he said [Hamilton] had already pulled away. It wasn’t like [Wolff] told him while we were in battle.”

no, why do you ask? I provided quotes where Hamilton says it was difficult to overtake

You're using anecdotal references to a driver's comments to try to refute the empirical reality of what happened in the race. What's more, when Hamilton says something you don't like, you have tended to call into question his integrity. This is a pattern with you. Using quotes from a source when you think they back up your point of view but casting doubt on those same sources when you think they oppose you.

I can't tell you why Lewis feels that it's not easy to overtake at this track but I can point out the fact that he won the race from 14th on the grid and that he went from 22nd to 3rd at this same track back in 2014. So, using empirical facts, Lewis has shown that he can overtake at this track with ease. With the new DRS zone and the fact that he was on newer and softer tires than Vettel, my money says he would have gotten him before the end. We'll never know though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 747
Were you not discussing the tyres when you said this?

"after the SC the drivers were going as fast as they had ever been, so there's even less reason to believe that Hamilton would still have maintained the performance advantage he did right until the end"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 747
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:

Did you miss this bit?

“Valtteri had fresher tyres, they woke up a little bit quicker than mine, and it was fair game,” Hamilton explained. “He gave it a great shot, I think I positioned fortunately the car in the right place.”
Hamilton said Bottas accepted the team order and acknowledged he’d missed his best chance to take the lead.

“Afterwards when we were back in the meeting room Toto [Wolff, team principal] stood there and said ‘come over’ and Valtteri came over. Valtteri was like ‘it’s fine’, because by the time [Wolff] gave the order he said [Hamilton] had already pulled away. It wasn’t like [Wolff] told him while we were in battle.”

no, why do you ask? I provided quotes where Hamilton says it was difficult to overtake

You're using anecdotal references to a driver's comments to try to refute the empirical reality of what happened in the race. What's more, when Hamilton says something you don't like, you have tended to call into question his integrity. This is a pattern with you. Using quotes from a source when you think they back up your point of view but casting doubt on those same sources when you think they oppose you.

I can't tell you why Lewis feels that it's not easy to overtake at this track but I can point out the fact that he won the race from 14th on the grid and that he went from 22nd to 3rd at this same track back in 2014. So, using empirical facts, Lewis has shown that he can overtake at this track with ease. With the new DRS zone and the fact that he was on newer and softer tires than Vettel, my money says he would have gotten him before the end. We'll never know though.


Hamilton also went from 5th-6th at this track in 2008. Ironically because had a tyre advantage over everybody else :lol: Also in an era when Ferrari's/Mclaren couldn't overtake one another unless under special circumstances, yet he overtook Massa. Purely because of a tyre life/compound advantage.

I would wager, Lewis had made more overtakes per race at that track than any other. After his puncture in 2012 he made quite a few overtakes there too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 747
Exediron wrote:
I'm confused... I went to the latest page of the Russian Grand Prix thread, but I don't see anyone talking about the Russian Grand Prix. Why is the German Grand Prix suddenly being talked about here?


Because I mentioned Ferrari's lack of team orders had cost Vettel this year.

1) Him having to fight Kimi on track in Monza / giving Kimi a tow in qualifying.

2) Ferrari leaving him behind Raikkonen for absolutely no strategic reason for 13 laps in the German GP. Vettel had much fresher tyres and lost about 10 seconds which ultimately gave Hamilton a chance at the race win (most here agree) if Vettel hadn't have crashed out. Where as if Kimi was moved out the way immediately, Hamilton likely had no chance to challenge.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6209
Location: Michigan, USA
Johnson wrote:
Because I mentioned Ferrari's lack of team orders had cost Vettel this year.

1) Him having to fight Kimi on track in Monza / giving Kimi a tow in qualifying.

2) Ferrari leaving him behind Raikkonen for absolutely no strategic reason for 13 laps in the German GP. Vettel had much fresher tyres and lost about 10 seconds which ultimately gave Hamilton a chance at the race win (most here agree) if Vettel hadn't have crashed out. Where as if Kimi was moved out the way immediately, Hamilton likely had no chance to challenge.

Interesting point. It certainly does turn the narrative of Ferrari using team orders while the Merc drivers have to race each other on its head.

Of course, many of us said all along that the only reason Mercedes was willing to give equal treatment was because they had such a huge car advantage. I, for one, am not surprirsed by the team orders at Merc, but I am a little surprised at the general lack at Ferrari.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5607
Exediron wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Because I mentioned Ferrari's lack of team orders had cost Vettel this year.

1) Him having to fight Kimi on track in Monza / giving Kimi a tow in qualifying.

2) Ferrari leaving him behind Raikkonen for absolutely no strategic reason for 13 laps in the German GP. Vettel had much fresher tyres and lost about 10 seconds which ultimately gave Hamilton a chance at the race win (most here agree) if Vettel hadn't have crashed out. Where as if Kimi was moved out the way immediately, Hamilton likely had no chance to challenge.

Interesting point. It certainly does turn the narrative of Ferrari using team orders while the Merc drivers have to race each other on its head.

Of course, many of us said all along that the only reason Mercedes was willing to give equal treatment was because they had such a huge car advantage. I, for one, am not surprirsed by the team orders at Merc, but I am a little surprised at the general lack at Ferrari.

No it doesn't (unless you have a very selective memory).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23913
Johnson wrote:
Were you not discussing the tyres when you said this?

"after the SC the drivers were going as fast as they had ever been, so there's even less reason to believe that Hamilton would still have maintained the performance advantage he did right until the end"

no, I wasn't


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 747
Zoue wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Were you not discussing the tyres when you said this?

"after the SC the drivers were going as fast as they had ever been, so there's even less reason to believe that Hamilton would still have maintained the performance advantage he did right until the end"

no, I wasn't


What was that in reference to then? His performance advantage was tyre based.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 747
Exediron wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Because I mentioned Ferrari's lack of team orders had cost Vettel this year.

1) Him having to fight Kimi on track in Monza / giving Kimi a tow in qualifying.

2) Ferrari leaving him behind Raikkonen for absolutely no strategic reason for 13 laps in the German GP. Vettel had much fresher tyres and lost about 10 seconds which ultimately gave Hamilton a chance at the race win (most here agree) if Vettel hadn't have crashed out. Where as if Kimi was moved out the way immediately, Hamilton likely had no chance to challenge.

Interesting point. It certainly does turn the narrative of Ferrari using team orders while the Merc drivers have to race each other on its head.

Of course, many of us said all along that the only reason Mercedes was willing to give equal treatment was because they had such a huge car advantage. I, for one, am not surprirsed by the team orders at Merc, but I am a little surprised at the general lack at Ferrari.


Yes, no doubt Mercedes only gave equal treatment due to the advantage. But they did use them when one driver had a better chance to win (against other teams drivers) and the other didn't such as Hungary 2014 and Monaco 2016.

Its like you have a chip on your shoulder regarding team orders, like they are some dirty thing. They are not, teams should maximise there chances of both the WDC and WCC at all times.

If I was a Vettel fan (I don't know if you are) I would have been fuming at Ferrari's choices in both Germany and Italy. I was fuming at Mercedes for allowing Hamilton to be undercut by Vettel in Russia, which remains a terrible decision by Mercedes, although they got away with it.


Last edited by Johnson on Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23913
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:

Did you miss this bit?

“Valtteri had fresher tyres, they woke up a little bit quicker than mine, and it was fair game,” Hamilton explained. “He gave it a great shot, I think I positioned fortunately the car in the right place.”
Hamilton said Bottas accepted the team order and acknowledged he’d missed his best chance to take the lead.

“Afterwards when we were back in the meeting room Toto [Wolff, team principal] stood there and said ‘come over’ and Valtteri came over. Valtteri was like ‘it’s fine’, because by the time [Wolff] gave the order he said [Hamilton] had already pulled away. It wasn’t like [Wolff] told him while we were in battle.”

no, why do you ask? I provided quotes where Hamilton says it was difficult to overtake

You're using anecdotal references to a driver's comments to try to refute the empirical reality of what happened in the race. What's more, when Hamilton says something you don't like, you have tended to call into question his integrity. This is a pattern with you. Using quotes from a source when you think they back up your point of view but casting doubt on those same sources when you think they oppose you.

I can't tell you why Lewis feels that it's not easy to overtake at this track but I can point out the fact that he won the race from 14th on the grid and that he went from 22nd to 3rd at this same track back in 2014. So, using empirical facts, Lewis has shown that he can overtake at this track with ease. With the new DRS zone and the fact that he was on newer and softer tires than Vettel, my money says he would have gotten him before the end. We'll never know though.

I'm not using anything of the sort. I was asked to provide a quote where Hamilton said that it was difficult to overtake in Germany. I did that. Three times. That it may have contained other information is neither here nor there, since none of it was relevant to the point being made.

I'm calling his integrity into question because throughout the conversation he has made claims and statements which are patently false, accused me of saying things which I simply didn't, ignored info which was provided to him and pretended it hadn't been, and tried to make out the conversation was about something it wasn't. When challenged on any of it, he simply ignored it and kept moving the goalposts. It makes for a very frustrating conversation when one party appears to have the most tenuous grip on reality and acts as though he's having an entirely different conversation in his head to the one being played out in the posts


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23913
Johnson wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Were you not discussing the tyres when you said this?

"after the SC the drivers were going as fast as they had ever been, so there's even less reason to believe that Hamilton would still have maintained the performance advantage he did right until the end"

no, I wasn't


What was that in reference to then? His performance advantage was tyre based.

wet weather confidence?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 747
Zoue wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Were you not discussing the tyres when you said this?

"after the SC the drivers were going as fast as they had ever been, so there's even less reason to believe that Hamilton would still have maintained the performance advantage he did right until the end"

no, I wasn't


What was that in reference to then? His performance advantage was tyre based.

wet weather confidence?


No.

Only 1 sector was very slightly wet. Hamilton was taking huge chunks in all three sectors.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23913
Johnson wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Were you not discussing the tyres when you said this?

"after the SC the drivers were going as fast as they had ever been, so there's even less reason to believe that Hamilton would still have maintained the performance advantage he did right until the end"

no, I wasn't


What was that in reference to then? His performance advantage was tyre based.

wet weather confidence?


No.

Only 1 sector was wet. Hamilton was taking huge chunks in all three sectors.

what do you mean, no. I think I know what I was referencing better than you do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 747
Zoue wrote:
what do you mean, no. I think I know what I was referencing better than you do.


So why are you asking me what you are referencing? Unless you are dragging this into tedium which is always a "good" tactic when your fundamental argument is weak.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23913
Johnson wrote:
Zoue wrote:
what do you mean, no. I think I know what I was referencing better than you do.


So why are you asking me what you are referencing? Unless you are dragging this into tedium which is always a "good" tactic when your fundamental argument is weak.

That's it. I think you're officially deranged. I haven't asked you what I was referencing. You asked me?

You're clearly on some kind of windup here and incapable of holding a proper conversation, so I'm going to leave it there. Not a single thing you've said in our conversation today has made sense and you appear to be throwing things out there just for the fun of it. I'm not playing your silly game any more


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 747
Please attack my arguments and points, not me personally. I note you make very little reference to the discussion at hand.

I'm here to discuss F1. I called you out for lack of F1 knowledge and understanding of race dynamics, this is not a personal attack but a relevant point to the conversation because the points you make lack insightful knowledge. Such as;

Ferrari's and Mercedes don't overtake one another this season - completely ignoring that Hamilton had a huge tyre advantage that has never occurred this year. This is why I question your F1 knowledge, why even bring this up? Its clear this is a special circumstance due to the tyres.

Vettel matched Hamiltons lap time the lap before he crashed - you didn't realise Hamilton lapped 4 or 5 cars that lap.

Hamilton said overtaking was difficult - you twist a quote from Hamilton with regards to Bottas passing him and apply it to a completely different scenario of Hamilton being able to pass Vettel. Kudos for finding the quote though. I never read the entire article and missed this quote and you have really clung to this small victory in the discussion. Happy to admit I was wrong in missing that. If you are quoting something though, its much better to post the quote and not a link with the quote embedded deep into the article. No chance for the person to miss it then.

"Vettel wasn't pushing and slowed down" - a completely baseless comment that has zero evidence supporting it. The fact he went off road twice suggests otherwise as does his pace relative to Raikkonen.

Hamilton still had to pass Kimi and Bottas... Bottas was still in championship contention so team orders may not have been used. Kimi was on 27 lap older tyres two compounds harder. Bottas would have been moved out the way immediately. He literally had a team order against him this very race. Mercedes also used team orders against him as early as race 2 last season. Anybody with a good knowledge of Mercedes strategy protocol would not make this comment regarding Bottas. Hamilton would have lost a bit of time getting by Kimi which is true but not much as he was over 2 seconds a lap quicker.

Maybe I am deranged. Can somebody come forward and agree with Zoue in that "Vettel's win was under no threat in Germany" if the SC didn't come out. I am yet to see a single person agree with you. Maybe we should do a poll, both creating an argument and letting the good people of planet f1 decide.


Last edited by Johnson on Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14264
Hamilton was always going to catch Vettel and with the pace advantage and the fact Vettel was all over the place driving at his slower pace, if Hamilton had caught whilst it was still slippery he would have pretty easily made it through.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 7:00 pm
Posts: 132
This is not the place to rehash the German GP. Can we get back to discussing the Russian GP please.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:15 am
Posts: 1520
An interesting point that someone made here on Racefans (in the comment of the day section): https://www.racefans.net/2018/10/04/rac ... -up-04-10/

They are referring to this: (team radio highlights) https://www.racefans.net/2018/10/03/201 ... ighlights/

I think I will agree with them that is possibly is looking like they were attempting to get Hamilton ahead without making it look like they were. But by doing this, got it wrong resulting In Hamilton being behind Vettel. I do wonder if they had to make up this thing about Hamilton's blisters (probably caused by following Vettel and overtaking him) as a reason as their plan had failed. Anyone else think this could be the case? Something about the look on Bottas's face looked like he had been told different. He's usually very willing to do things but when asked questions, there were some things he refused to answer with the media. Could it really be the case Mercedes gave a false reason for him to let Hamilton through when the actual reason was for the championship?. The 2nd reason would have been understanderble Bottas was told to stay behind Verstappen, and when he was told to Let Hamilton through, He said he could have gone much quicker. But there was no point shortening the life of tyres by overtaking a car that hadn't yet pitted. Especially given it was Verstappen. (Bottas knows what could happen with him!)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 2025
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
An interesting point that someone made here on Racefans (in the comment of the day section): https://www.racefans.net/2018/10/04/rac ... -up-04-10/

They are referring to this: (team radio highlights) https://www.racefans.net/2018/10/03/201 ... ighlights/

I think I will agree with them that is possibly is looking like they were attempting to get Hamilton ahead without making it look like they were. But by doing this, got it wrong resulting In Hamilton being behind Vettel. I do wonder if they had to make up this thing about Hamilton's blisters (probably caused by following Vettel and overtaking him) as a reason as their plan had failed. Anyone else think this could be the case? Something about the look on Bottas's face looked like he had been told different. He's usually very willing to do things but when asked questions, there were some things he refused to answer with the media. Could it really be the case Mercedes gave a false reason for him to let Hamilton through when the actual reason was for the championship?. The 2nd reason would have been understanderble Bottas was told to stay behind Verstappen, and when he was told to Let Hamilton through, He said he could have gone much quicker. But there was no point shortening the life of tyres by overtaking a car that hadn't yet pitted. Especially given it was Verstappen. (Bottas knows what could happen with him!)


I've just read through the radio transcripts - I think you are reading something that isn't there. Bottas was told to pass Verstappen for the win before being instructed to let Hamilton through:

Quote:
To Bottas: So close the gap to Verstappen.
To Bottas: You’ve got three more presses in your current mode.
To Bottas: So strat five, we need to pass Verstappen for the win.
Hamilton: I’ve already got blistering. I’ve got Vettel right behind me.
To Hamilton: Affirm Lewis Valtteri’s been given the message to attack Verstappen. Just need to keep these tyres in a decent state, got 29 laps remaining.
Hamilton: I don’t feel they’re going to last 29 laps.
To Hamilton: OK copy.

_________________
Top Three Team Champions 2017 (With Jezza13)
Group Pick 'Em 2016 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 10:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:15 am
Posts: 1520
Herb wrote:
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
An interesting point that someone made here on Racefans (in the comment of the day section): https://www.racefans.net/2018/10/04/rac ... -up-04-10/

They are referring to this: (team radio highlights) https://www.racefans.net/2018/10/03/201 ... ighlights/

I think I will agree with them that is possibly is looking like they were attempting to get Hamilton ahead without making it look like they were. But by doing this, got it wrong resulting In Hamilton being behind Vettel. I do wonder if they had to make up this thing about Hamilton's blisters (probably caused by following Vettel and overtaking him) as a reason as their plan had failed. Anyone else think this could be the case? Something about the look on Bottas's face looked like he had been told different. He's usually very willing to do things but when asked questions, there were some things he refused to answer with the media. Could it really be the case Mercedes gave a false reason for him to let Hamilton through when the actual reason was for the championship?. The 2nd reason would have been understanderble Bottas was told to stay behind Verstappen, and when he was told to Let Hamilton through, He said he could have gone much quicker. But there was no point shortening the life of tyres by overtaking a car that hadn't yet pitted. Especially given it was Verstappen. (Bottas knows what could happen with him!)


I've just read through the radio transcripts - I think you are reading something that isn't there. Bottas was told to pass Verstappen for the win before being instructed to let Hamilton through:

Quote:
To Bottas: So close the gap to Verstappen.
To Bottas: You’ve got three more presses in your current mode.
To Bottas: So strat five, we need to pass Verstappen for the win.
Hamilton: I’ve already got blistering. I’ve got Vettel right behind me.
To Hamilton: Affirm Lewis Valtteri’s been given the message to attack Verstappen. Just need to keep these tyres in a decent state, got 29 laps remaining.
Hamilton: I don’t feel they’re going to last 29 laps.
To Hamilton: OK copy.


I know that. He said he would have gone past the next lap. We can't tell when these messages were said. And I agree with another comment. Them telling Bottas to go past Verstappen wasn't very sensible given what happened to Hamilton's tyres when he went past Vettel. I still think all of what they said was a mess and they kept saying different things. And I still feel they were attempting to get Hamilton by in a way that seemed like he got there without the team helping.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 10:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 2025
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
Herb wrote:
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
An interesting point that someone made here on Racefans (in the comment of the day section): https://www.racefans.net/2018/10/04/rac ... -up-04-10/

They are referring to this: (team radio highlights) https://www.racefans.net/2018/10/03/201 ... ighlights/

I think I will agree with them that is possibly is looking like they were attempting to get Hamilton ahead without making it look like they were. But by doing this, got it wrong resulting In Hamilton being behind Vettel. I do wonder if they had to make up this thing about Hamilton's blisters (probably caused by following Vettel and overtaking him) as a reason as their plan had failed. Anyone else think this could be the case? Something about the look on Bottas's face looked like he had been told different. He's usually very willing to do things but when asked questions, there were some things he refused to answer with the media. Could it really be the case Mercedes gave a false reason for him to let Hamilton through when the actual reason was for the championship?. The 2nd reason would have been understanderble Bottas was told to stay behind Verstappen, and when he was told to Let Hamilton through, He said he could have gone much quicker. But there was no point shortening the life of tyres by overtaking a car that hadn't yet pitted. Especially given it was Verstappen. (Bottas knows what could happen with him!)


I've just read through the radio transcripts - I think you are reading something that isn't there. Bottas was told to pass Verstappen for the win before being instructed to let Hamilton through:

Quote:
To Bottas: So close the gap to Verstappen.
To Bottas: You’ve got three more presses in your current mode.
To Bottas: So strat five, we need to pass Verstappen for the win.
Hamilton: I’ve already got blistering. I’ve got Vettel right behind me.
To Hamilton: Affirm Lewis Valtteri’s been given the message to attack Verstappen. Just need to keep these tyres in a decent state, got 29 laps remaining.
Hamilton: I don’t feel they’re going to last 29 laps.
To Hamilton: OK copy.


I know that. He said he would have gone past the next lap. We can't tell when these messages were said. And I agree with another comment. Them telling Bottas to go past Verstappen wasn't very sensible given what happened to Hamilton's tyres when he went past Vettel. I still think all of what they said was a mess and they kept saying different things. And I still feel they were attempting to get Hamilton by in a way that seemed like he got there without the team helping.


Passing Verstappen on old tyres is not really comparable to passing Vettel on much newer ones.

I think you are reading far too much into the messages. Seems much more likely that they were simply reacting to the situations they found themselves in. I don't beleive in any conspiracy, have Merc have ever shied away from using team orders?

Hamilton did have a blister, it did need protecting. Nobody likes the team orders, but Mercedes did what was best for the team and for Lewis' WDC bid.

_________________
Top Three Team Champions 2017 (With Jezza13)
Group Pick 'Em 2016 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 11:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 747
The backing up of Vettel was because they realised Hamilton had become very marginal to Vettel which proved correct, because even with Vettel getting backed up a bit he still emerged ahead of Hamilton.

A huge balls up by Mercedes. I am not sure if Bottas would have ever been allowed to win but once Hamilton was back in front of Vettel I sense they might have thought "lets stop messing around here, we just dropped our lead driver to P3 behind his title rival in a race we should comfortably be taking 1-2. Lets just get him in the lead with Bottas as comfortable buffer".

When you are ahead, you are at a certain disadvantage. Whatever Hamilton did, Vettel was going to do the opposite. But Verstappens positioning on track was very problematic for Mercedes, otherwise it was a no brainer to pit Hamilton the lap after Bottas.

There was a potential scenario in which both Mercedes pitted and got stuck behind Verstappen whilst Vettel stayed out and over cuts the pair of them. Exactly what happened in Australia 2017, ironically with Verstappen holding up Hamilton in that case too. Verstappen however had a very strong pace and was actually catching the leaders between lap 8-14 before they all pitted. The ultra soft really went off quickly in this race.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6209
Location: Michigan, USA
Johnson wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Because I mentioned Ferrari's lack of team orders had cost Vettel this year.

1) Him having to fight Kimi on track in Monza / giving Kimi a tow in qualifying.

2) Ferrari leaving him behind Raikkonen for absolutely no strategic reason for 13 laps in the German GP. Vettel had much fresher tyres and lost about 10 seconds which ultimately gave Hamilton a chance at the race win (most here agree) if Vettel hadn't have crashed out. Where as if Kimi was moved out the way immediately, Hamilton likely had no chance to challenge.

Interesting point. It certainly does turn the narrative of Ferrari using team orders while the Merc drivers have to race each other on its head.

Of course, many of us said all along that the only reason Mercedes was willing to give equal treatment was because they had such a huge car advantage. I, for one, am not surprirsed by the team orders at Merc, but I am a little surprised at the general lack at Ferrari.

Yes, no doubt Mercedes only gave equal treatment due to the advantage. But they did use them when one driver had a better chance to win (against other teams drivers) and the other didn't such as Hungary 2014 and Monaco 2016.

Its like you have a chip on your shoulder regarding team orders, like they are some dirty thing. They are not, teams should maximise there chances of both the WDC and WCC at all times.

If I was a Vettel fan (I don't know if you are) I would have been fuming at Ferrari's choices in both Germany and Italy. I was fuming at Mercedes for allowing Hamilton to be undercut by Vettel in Russia, which remains a terrible decision by Mercedes, although they got away with it.

I don't have a chip on my shoulder about team orders. I do, however, have a chip on my shoulder about hypocrits, and to me most of the people now defending Mercedes are exactly that. There's also the disingenous argument being bandied about that Mercedes somehow needs these points, because they're under thread from Ferrari for the WDC. I think the first practice session in Suzuka serves as a wonderful and timely demonstration that no such thing is true.

I am against this particular team order because I think it was pointless and cruel to Bottas, but that's not the main thing I've been arguing about. Right up until this year, the narrative among the majority of Hamilton fans - including some prominant ones that I could name - was that Hamilton was superior to Vettel or Alonso because he didn't get team orders or #1 status. Now that he clearly has both, there were two ways they could have responded: denounce the treatment he was getting now, which would be consistent with their established position on Hamilton's rivals, or suddenly begin defending team orders. They've mostly done the latter, which irks me as a complete double standard and reveals that all along it was just about finding something to attack other drivers with.

As for your comment about maximizing their chances to get both WCC and WDC, I would agree. But I see their chance of getting both championships as being well over 90% at present: I would happily bet a majority of the money in my bank account on them winning both titles. It is almost certain to happen. If this incident had happened when the title race was close, or the momentum seemed to be with Ferrari, that would be a different matter. Claiming they needed it is just wrong.

PS: I am not a Vettel fan. I am a McLaren fan. I have no horse in the Ferrari/Mercedes fight, and frankly the sooner these two teams aren't the only ones fighting for the championship the better.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 6:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 3092
Exediron wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Because I mentioned Ferrari's lack of team orders had cost Vettel this year.

1) Him having to fight Kimi on track in Monza / giving Kimi a tow in qualifying.

2) Ferrari leaving him behind Raikkonen for absolutely no strategic reason for 13 laps in the German GP. Vettel had much fresher tyres and lost about 10 seconds which ultimately gave Hamilton a chance at the race win (most here agree) if Vettel hadn't have crashed out. Where as if Kimi was moved out the way immediately, Hamilton likely had no chance to challenge.

Interesting point. It certainly does turn the narrative of Ferrari using team orders while the Merc drivers have to race each other on its head.

Of course, many of us said all along that the only reason Mercedes was willing to give equal treatment was because they had such a huge car advantage. I, for one, am not surprirsed by the team orders at Merc, but I am a little surprised at the general lack at Ferrari.

Yes, no doubt Mercedes only gave equal treatment due to the advantage. But they did use them when one driver had a better chance to win (against other teams drivers) and the other didn't such as Hungary 2014 and Monaco 2016.

Its like you have a chip on your shoulder regarding team orders, like they are some dirty thing. They are not, teams should maximise there chances of both the WDC and WCC at all times.

If I was a Vettel fan (I don't know if you are) I would have been fuming at Ferrari's choices in both Germany and Italy. I was fuming at Mercedes for allowing Hamilton to be undercut by Vettel in Russia, which remains a terrible decision by Mercedes, although they got away with it.

I don't have a chip on my shoulder about team orders. I do, however, have a chip on my shoulder about hypocrits, and to me most of the people now defending Mercedes are exactly that. There's also the disingenous argument being bandied about that Mercedes somehow needs these points, because they're under thread from Ferrari for the WDC. I think the first practice session in Suzuka serves as a wonderful and timely demonstration that no such thing is true.

I am against this particular team order because I think it was pointless and cruel to Bottas, but that's not the main thing I've been arguing about. Right up until this year, the narrative among the majority of Hamilton fans - including some prominant ones that I could name - was that Hamilton was superior to Vettel or Alonso because he didn't get team orders or #1 status. Now that he clearly has both, there were two ways they could have responded: denounce the treatment he was getting now, which would be consistent with their established position on Hamilton's rivals, or suddenly begin defending team orders. They've mostly done the latter, which irks me as a complete double standard and reveals that all along it was just about finding something to attack other drivers with.

As for your comment about maximizing their chances to get both WCC and WDC, I would agree. But I see their chance of getting both championships as being well over 90% at present: I would happily bet a majority of the money in my bank account on them winning both titles. It is almost certain to happen. If this incident had happened when the title race was close, or the momentum seemed to be with Ferrari, that would be a different matter. Claiming they needed it is just wrong.

PS: I am not a Vettel fan. I am a McLaren fan. I have no horse in the Ferrari/Mercedes fight, and frankly the sooner these two teams aren't the only ones fighting for the championship the better.


Do you know the majority of Hamilton fans?

_________________
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: Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:58 pm
Posts: 1368
Location: London
I for one hope that there are no more team orders this season. The narrative since the last race on just about every F1 related media site has been staggeringly boring. There are massive hypocrits on both sides desperately pushing their own weird little agendas. I can't wait for the next race, if only so all this nonsense can be forgotten, or more likely some other utterly trivial incident can be blown out of all proportion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:58 pm
Posts: 1368
Location: London
Exediron wrote:
There's also the disingenous argument being bandied about that Mercedes somehow needs these points, because they're under thread from Ferrari for the WDC. I think the first practice session in Suzuka serves as a wonderful and timely demonstration that no such thing is true.


I'm not going to comment on this rest of your post, valid as some of it may be, but without the benefit of a Mercedes time machine, how on earth can the Suzuka practise times have any relevance on the decision made. Performance between Ferrari/Merc has fluctuated so wildly this season that making assumptions about the rest of the season based on the performance in 1 or 2 races would be sheer idiocy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:24 am
Posts: 669
Exediron wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Because I mentioned Ferrari's lack of team orders had cost Vettel this year.

1) Him having to fight Kimi on track in Monza / giving Kimi a tow in qualifying.

2) Ferrari leaving him behind Raikkonen for absolutely no strategic reason for 13 laps in the German GP. Vettel had much fresher tyres and lost about 10 seconds which ultimately gave Hamilton a chance at the race win (most here agree) if Vettel hadn't have crashed out. Where as if Kimi was moved out the way immediately, Hamilton likely had no chance to challenge.

Interesting point. It certainly does turn the narrative of Ferrari using team orders while the Merc drivers have to race each other on its head.

Of course, many of us said all along that the only reason Mercedes was willing to give equal treatment was because they had such a huge car advantage. I, for one, am not surprirsed by the team orders at Merc, but I am a little surprised at the general lack at Ferrari.

Yes, no doubt Mercedes only gave equal treatment due to the advantage. But they did use them when one driver had a better chance to win (against other teams drivers) and the other didn't such as Hungary 2014 and Monaco 2016.

Its like you have a chip on your shoulder regarding team orders, like they are some dirty thing. They are not, teams should maximise there chances of both the WDC and WCC at all times.

If I was a Vettel fan (I don't know if you are) I would have been fuming at Ferrari's choices in both Germany and Italy. I was fuming at Mercedes for allowing Hamilton to be undercut by Vettel in Russia, which remains a terrible decision by Mercedes, although they got away with it.

I don't have a chip on my shoulder about team orders. I do, however, have a chip on my shoulder about hypocrits, and to me most of the people now defending Mercedes are exactly that. There's also the disingenous argument being bandied about that Mercedes somehow needs these points, because they're under thread from Ferrari for the WDC. I think the first practice session in Suzuka serves as a wonderful and timely demonstration that no such thing is true.

I am against this particular team order because I think it was pointless and cruel to Bottas, but that's not the main thing I've been arguing about. Right up until this year, the narrative among the majority of Hamilton fans - including some prominant ones that I could name - was that Hamilton was superior to Vettel or Alonso because he didn't get team orders or #1 status. Now that he clearly has both, there were two ways they could have responded: denounce the treatment he was getting now, which would be consistent with their established position on Hamilton's rivals, or suddenly begin defending team orders. They've mostly done the latter, which irks me as a complete double standard and reveals that all along it was just about finding something to attack other drivers with.

As for your comment about maximizing their chances to get both WCC and WDC, I would agree. But I see their chance of getting both championships as being well over 90% at present: I would happily bet a majority of the money in my bank account on them winning both titles. It is almost certain to happen. If this incident had happened when the title race was close, or the momentum seemed to be with Ferrari, that would be a different matter. Claiming they needed it is just wrong.

PS: I am not a Vettel fan. I am a McLaren fan. I have no horse in the Ferrari/Mercedes fight, and frankly the sooner these two teams aren't the only ones fighting for the championship the better.

Any team orders are cruel but this particular team order wasnt pointless. Hamilton's WDC is not guaranteed and only a few races ago it looked like Vettel was in pole position - that just shows how quickly things can change justifying Mercs call.

At the start of the year Hamilton didnt have 1# status and he doesnt have contractual #1 status.
Merc have only recently started employing team orders in the season and that is because the only person who can win the WDC from Merc is Hamilton. Had the WDC been a 3 way battle including Bottas then he would have been allowed to take the win. But the truth of the matter is he hasnt been quick enough in the first half of the season.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 12:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 2148
Lojik wrote:
Exediron wrote:
There's also the disingenous argument being bandied about that Mercedes somehow needs these points, because they're under thread from Ferrari for the WDC. I think the first practice session in Suzuka serves as a wonderful and timely demonstration that no such thing is true.


I'm not going to comment on this rest of your post, valid as some of it may be, but without the benefit of a Mercedes time machine, how on earth can the Suzuka practise times have any relevance on the decision made. Performance between Ferrari/Merc has fluctuated so wildly this season that making assumptions about the rest of the season based on the performance in 1 or 2 races would be sheer idiocy.


Not to mention mercedes funnily enough can't see into the future of the performance of their car Vs Ferrari after Russia (just noticed you did mention this). Somehow he believes that 40 points is an insurmountable lead despite this amounting to just 15 points if a dnf occurs

Exediron has already set out his stall in the Hamilton fans thread where he's already denounced all Hamilton fans as hypocrites (despite himself having no issue with team orders until now by his own admission so... Pot meet kettle) still waiting for any quote from him following this message that a number of 'prominent' Hamilton fans have had a massive change of heart about team orders, when in fact Hamilton fans merely understand the reasoning whilst not necessarily supporting the swap.

He also goes on to mention about this somehow being cruel to bottas (it is a sport...) But doesn't seem to take the same empathy when discussing the idea of Ferrari blackmailing their driver, Renault telling one to crash into a wall, Red Bull taking Webber's front wing off his car and giving it to Vettel or McLaren moving Heikki out the way in Germany '08


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28701
Johnson wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Because I mentioned Ferrari's lack of team orders had cost Vettel this year.

1) Him having to fight Kimi on track in Monza / giving Kimi a tow in qualifying.

2) Ferrari leaving him behind Raikkonen for absolutely no strategic reason for 13 laps in the German GP. Vettel had much fresher tyres and lost about 10 seconds which ultimately gave Hamilton a chance at the race win (most here agree) if Vettel hadn't have crashed out. Where as if Kimi was moved out the way immediately, Hamilton likely had no chance to challenge.

Interesting point. It certainly does turn the narrative of Ferrari using team orders while the Merc drivers have to race each other on its head.

Of course, many of us said all along that the only reason Mercedes was willing to give equal treatment was because they had such a huge car advantage. I, for one, am not surprirsed by the team orders at Merc, but I am a little surprised at the general lack at Ferrari.


Yes, no doubt Mercedes only gave equal treatment due to the advantage. But they did use them when one driver had a better chance to win (against other teams drivers) and the other didn't such as Hungary 2014 and Monaco 2016.

Its like you have a chip on your shoulder regarding team orders, like they are some dirty thing. They are not, teams should maximise there chances of both the WDC and WCC at all times.

If I was a Vettel fan (I don't know if you are) I would have been fuming at Ferrari's choices in both Germany and Italy. I was fuming at Mercedes for allowing Hamilton to be undercut by Vettel in Russia, which remains a terrible decision by Mercedes, although they got away with it.

I'm sure I heard the reason for this was because Wolff was yapping on the radio and they were not able to get the instruction through to Hamilton quickly enough to pit the lap after Bottas?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: owenmahamilton, StevoYZF 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