planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Nov 13, 2019 8:21 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16240
pokerman wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
Todd wrote:
Was this the first time a driver was told to slow down 3.4 seconds a lap to keep from passing his teammate? Bottas should have at least received a warning from race control for brake checking Albon.


This situation was embarrassing and considering Mercedes were fighting over 4th to 6th here with only a small difference in points either way and Hamilton being miles ahead in the WDC, it was unnecessary to give Bottas this order to make him feel even more like a number 2. I mean we all know that he is their number 2, but that doesn't mean that every situation in every race needs to have the number 1 driver get preferential treatment to the detriment of the number 2 driver, or 'wingman' in this case.

By doing what they did Mercedes ensured 4th and 5th rather than 4th and 6th, isn't this what's getting a pass for what Ferrari did which cost Leclerc the win?

Nominally it's Bottas that got protected from finishing 6th behind Albon by being allowed to pit before Hamilton.


I think what they did makes sense in the circumstances. It also took Bottas out the race and i'd be pretty tiddled if I was him. I also think you'd be the first to complain if it was Hamilton in the Bottas position.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:15 am
Posts: 2079
ReservoirDog wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
This is why Bottas contract was extended. They knew he lacks a backbone.


Title looks to be done, Mercedes have rules in the team and Bottas stuck by them. Is it worth upsetting the team for the rest of the season when you have a contract and a new crack at the title next year.


Bottas doesn't have a crack at the title next year.

This is very unlikely to be the case, but is not impossible. If Mercedes are dominant and Hamilton happens not to be at his best any more plus having poor reliability, then Bottas does have a slim chance. And if Bottas keeps up his qualifying form - resulting in reasonably often beating Hamilton and the overtaking difficulties still being the case, he does have a very slim chance. It is not impossible, but I think it won't happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 4:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2644
That team order in Singapore is the most pathetic team order in living memory.

There is not a non-Mercedes single driver within 90 points of Hamilton and there are only 6 races left to go.

Utterly pathetic, even Austria 2002 was more understandable than this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 3002
KingVoid wrote:
That team order in Singapore is the most pathetic team order in living memory.

There is not a non-Mercedes single driver within 90 points of Hamilton and there are only 6 races left to go.

Utterly pathetic, even Austria 2002 was more understandable than this.


Yes, they should have just brought Ham in at the normal time and he would have slotted into third place wouldn't he. With Bottas still in fifth.

Not sure of your reference to points? Surely its the very fact Ham is so far ahead on points that the Merc voluntarily gave up a place to Max to execute a risky 'going long' strategy. If the championship was closer they would not have gambled with those few extra points, and just left Ham to come home third.

Personally I thought it was good to see that they were prepared to gamble a few Ham points on the chance of a Mercedes win. Although I suppose some would argue with the WDC not secured they should have gone for a safe third.

Saying that their seems to be some here who believe if you go long to gain fresher tyres; you should then slot the guy in behind his teammate and waste the life of the tyres following him. Go figure.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 12:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33073
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
Todd wrote:
Was this the first time a driver was told to slow down 3.4 seconds a lap to keep from passing his teammate? Bottas should have at least received a warning from race control for brake checking Albon.


This situation was embarrassing and considering Mercedes were fighting over 4th to 6th here with only a small difference in points either way and Hamilton being miles ahead in the WDC, it was unnecessary to give Bottas this order to make him feel even more like a number 2. I mean we all know that he is their number 2, but that doesn't mean that every situation in every race needs to have the number 1 driver get preferential treatment to the detriment of the number 2 driver, or 'wingman' in this case.

By doing what they did Mercedes ensured 4th and 5th rather than 4th and 6th, isn't this what's getting a pass for what Ferrari did which cost Leclerc the win?

Nominally it's Bottas that got protected from finishing 6th behind Albon by being allowed to pit before Hamilton.


I think what they did makes sense in the circumstances. It also took Bottas out the race and i'd be pretty tiddled if I was him. I also think you'd be the first to complain if it was Hamilton in the Bottas position.

The only Mercedes driver that got royally screwed in the race was Hamilton, he went from 2nd to 4th whilst Bottas simply maintained his 5th position, I think this is more on how you think more than me and how you can view Bottas as the victim.

_________________
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: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 12:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16240
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
Todd wrote:
Was this the first time a driver was told to slow down 3.4 seconds a lap to keep from passing his teammate? Bottas should have at least received a warning from race control for brake checking Albon.


This situation was embarrassing and considering Mercedes were fighting over 4th to 6th here with only a small difference in points either way and Hamilton being miles ahead in the WDC, it was unnecessary to give Bottas this order to make him feel even more like a number 2. I mean we all know that he is their number 2, but that doesn't mean that every situation in every race needs to have the number 1 driver get preferential treatment to the detriment of the number 2 driver, or 'wingman' in this case.

By doing what they did Mercedes ensured 4th and 5th rather than 4th and 6th, isn't this what's getting a pass for what Ferrari did which cost Leclerc the win?

Nominally it's Bottas that got protected from finishing 6th behind Albon by being allowed to pit before Hamilton.


I think what they did makes sense in the circumstances. It also took Bottas out the race and i'd be pretty tiddled if I was him. I also think you'd be the first to complain if it was Hamilton in the Bottas position.

The only Mercedes driver that got royally screwed in the race was Hamilton, he went from 2nd to 4th whilst Bottas simply maintained his 5th position, I think this is more on how you think more than me and how you can view Bottas as the victim.


Hamilton had a bad strategy I agree. Bottas had a good strategy but had to effectively give up his own race. Surely you see this?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33073
KingVoid wrote:
That team order in Singapore is the most pathetic team order in living memory.

There is not a non-Mercedes single driver within 90 points of Hamilton and there are only 6 races left to go.

Utterly pathetic, even Austria 2002 was more understandable than this.

It was made because Mercedes thought they still had a chance of winning the race and coming back at the leaders on fresher tyres late in the race as they struggled with their tyres but the 3 safety cars totally negated that.

Mercedes are there to win races and not accommodate which driver comes 4th or 5th, if that was the limit of their ambition then they would have pitted Hamilton earlier to stop the undercut from his teammate, what right did Bottas have to do that?

People soon forget what happened in Monza, if Hamilton's main goal is to beat his main rival Bottas then he simply just sits behind Leclerc but he's also driving for Mercedes who want to win the race so he destroyed his tyres in his attempt to win the race but the secondary notion was that Leclerc may also damage his tyres and then Bottas on his fresher tyres may cruise by because make no mistake Bottas would have been let by Hamilton once his tyres had gone if he'd not made his mistake at the chicane.

I have to wonder why people have a bigger issue with which Mercedes driver came 4th or 5th than what happened at the front with Ferrari?

_________________
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: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33073
shoot999 wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
That team order in Singapore is the most pathetic team order in living memory.

There is not a non-Mercedes single driver within 90 points of Hamilton and there are only 6 races left to go.

Utterly pathetic, even Austria 2002 was more understandable than this.


Yes, they should have just brought Ham in at the normal time and he would have slotted into third place wouldn't he. With Bottas still in fifth.

Not sure of your reference to points? Surely its the very fact Ham is so far ahead on points that the Merc voluntarily gave up a place to Max to execute a risky 'going long' strategy. If the championship was closer they would not have gambled with those few extra points, and just left Ham to come home third.

Personally I thought it was good to see that they were prepared to gamble a few Ham points on the chance of a Mercedes win. Although I suppose some would argue with the WDC not secured they should have gone for a safe third.

Saying that their seems to be some here who believe if you go long to gain fresher tyres; you should then slot the guy in behind his teammate and waste the life of the tyres following him. Go figure.

I don't think I need to go figure. :uhoh:

_________________
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: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33073
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
F1 Racer wrote:
This situation was embarrassing and considering Mercedes were fighting over 4th to 6th here with only a small difference in points either way and Hamilton being miles ahead in the WDC, it was unnecessary to give Bottas this order to make him feel even more like a number 2. I mean we all know that he is their number 2, but that doesn't mean that every situation in every race needs to have the number 1 driver get preferential treatment to the detriment of the number 2 driver, or 'wingman' in this case.

By doing what they did Mercedes ensured 4th and 5th rather than 4th and 6th, isn't this what's getting a pass for what Ferrari did which cost Leclerc the win?

Nominally it's Bottas that got protected from finishing 6th behind Albon by being allowed to pit before Hamilton.


I think what they did makes sense in the circumstances. It also took Bottas out the race and i'd be pretty tiddled if I was him. I also think you'd be the first to complain if it was Hamilton in the Bottas position.

The only Mercedes driver that got royally screwed in the race was Hamilton, he went from 2nd to 4th whilst Bottas simply maintained his 5th position, I think this is more on how you think more than me and how you can view Bottas as the victim.


Hamilton had a bad strategy I agree. Bottas had a good strategy but had to effectively give up his own race. Surely you see this?

Neither Mercedes driver had a good strategy, but the driver with the best strategy to win the race was Hamilton on his fresher tyres plus he was a few tenths quicker than Bottas on like for like tyres anyway, yet you wanted Mercedes to position Bottas in front of Hamilton to kill that strategy?

_________________
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: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7728
pokerman wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
That team order in Singapore is the most pathetic team order in living memory.

There is not a non-Mercedes single driver within 90 points of Hamilton and there are only 6 races left to go.

Utterly pathetic, even Austria 2002 was more understandable than this.

It was made because Mercedes thought they still had a chance of winning the race and coming back at the leaders on fresher tyres late in the race as they struggled with their tyres but the 3 safety cars totally negated that.

Mercedes are there to win races and not accommodate which driver comes 4th or 5th, if that was the limit of their ambition then they would have pitted Hamilton earlier to stop the undercut from his teammate, what right did Bottas have to do that?

People soon forget what happened in Monza, if Hamilton's main goal is to beat his main rival Bottas then he simply just sits behind Leclerc but he's also driving for Mercedes who want to win the race so he destroyed his tyres in his attempt to win the race but the secondary notion was that Leclerc may also damage his tyres and then Bottas on his fresher tyres may cruise by because make no mistake Bottas would have been let by Hamilton once his tyres had gone if he'd not made his mistake at the chicane.

I have to wonder why people have a bigger issue with which Mercedes driver came 4th or 5th than what happened at the front with Ferrari?

They stopped Seb first to cover Hamilton and Max. What was so shocking with that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33073
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
That team order in Singapore is the most pathetic team order in living memory.

There is not a non-Mercedes single driver within 90 points of Hamilton and there are only 6 races left to go.

Utterly pathetic, even Austria 2002 was more understandable than this.

It was made because Mercedes thought they still had a chance of winning the race and coming back at the leaders on fresher tyres late in the race as they struggled with their tyres but the 3 safety cars totally negated that.

Mercedes are there to win races and not accommodate which driver comes 4th or 5th, if that was the limit of their ambition then they would have pitted Hamilton earlier to stop the undercut from his teammate, what right did Bottas have to do that?

People soon forget what happened in Monza, if Hamilton's main goal is to beat his main rival Bottas then he simply just sits behind Leclerc but he's also driving for Mercedes who want to win the race so he destroyed his tyres in his attempt to win the race but the secondary notion was that Leclerc may also damage his tyres and then Bottas on his fresher tyres may cruise by because make no mistake Bottas would have been let by Hamilton once his tyres had gone if he'd not made his mistake at the chicane.

I have to wonder why people have a bigger issue with which Mercedes driver came 4th or 5th than what happened at the front with Ferrari?

They stopped Seb first to cover Hamilton and Max. What was so shocking with that?

It took the win from Leclerc, does nobody remember what happened when such a thing happened to Vettel, does no one remember multi 21?

Also it's interesting how this can be explained away for strategic reasons yet Mercedes strategy reasons have no concern for the ones that what to criticise.

_________________
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: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7728
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
That team order in Singapore is the most pathetic team order in living memory.

There is not a non-Mercedes single driver within 90 points of Hamilton and there are only 6 races left to go.

Utterly pathetic, even Austria 2002 was more understandable than this.

It was made because Mercedes thought they still had a chance of winning the race and coming back at the leaders on fresher tyres late in the race as they struggled with their tyres but the 3 safety cars totally negated that.

Mercedes are there to win races and not accommodate which driver comes 4th or 5th, if that was the limit of their ambition then they would have pitted Hamilton earlier to stop the undercut from his teammate, what right did Bottas have to do that?

People soon forget what happened in Monza, if Hamilton's main goal is to beat his main rival Bottas then he simply just sits behind Leclerc but he's also driving for Mercedes who want to win the race so he destroyed his tyres in his attempt to win the race but the secondary notion was that Leclerc may also damage his tyres and then Bottas on his fresher tyres may cruise by because make no mistake Bottas would have been let by Hamilton once his tyres had gone if he'd not made his mistake at the chicane.

I have to wonder why people have a bigger issue with which Mercedes driver came 4th or 5th than what happened at the front with Ferrari?

They stopped Seb first to cover Hamilton and Max. What was so shocking with that?

It took the win from Leclerc, does nobody remember what happened when such a thing happened to Vettel, does no one remember multi 21?

I don't get this, did Ferrari issue any orders to either driver? It is not the same scenario


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 3002
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
By doing what they did Mercedes ensured 4th and 5th rather than 4th and 6th, isn't this what's getting a pass for what Ferrari did which cost Leclerc the win?

Nominally it's Bottas that got protected from finishing 6th behind Albon by being allowed to pit before Hamilton.


I think what they did makes sense in the circumstances. It also took Bottas out the race and i'd be pretty tiddled if I was him. I also think you'd be the first to complain if it was Hamilton in the Bottas position.

The only Mercedes driver that got royally screwed in the race was Hamilton, he went from 2nd to 4th whilst Bottas simply maintained his 5th position, I think this is more on how you think more than me and how you can view Bottas as the victim.


Hamilton had a bad strategy I agree. Bottas had a good strategy but had to effectively give up his own race. Surely you see this?

Neither Mercedes driver had a good strategy, but the driver with the best strategy to win the race was Hamilton on his fresher tyres plus he was a few tenths quicker than Bottas on like for like tyres anyway, yet you wanted Mercedes to position Bottas in front of Hamilton to kill that strategy?


Not just position Bottas in front of Hamilton. Remember what the Bottas role was in this team strategy, to slow those behind him. So what they are suggesting is Bottas go against Mercedes with the result that Ham would come out behind Gasly so both Ham and Mercedes would lose points.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33073
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
That team order in Singapore is the most pathetic team order in living memory.

There is not a non-Mercedes single driver within 90 points of Hamilton and there are only 6 races left to go.

Utterly pathetic, even Austria 2002 was more understandable than this.

It was made because Mercedes thought they still had a chance of winning the race and coming back at the leaders on fresher tyres late in the race as they struggled with their tyres but the 3 safety cars totally negated that.

Mercedes are there to win races and not accommodate which driver comes 4th or 5th, if that was the limit of their ambition then they would have pitted Hamilton earlier to stop the undercut from his teammate, what right did Bottas have to do that?

People soon forget what happened in Monza, if Hamilton's main goal is to beat his main rival Bottas then he simply just sits behind Leclerc but he's also driving for Mercedes who want to win the race so he destroyed his tyres in his attempt to win the race but the secondary notion was that Leclerc may also damage his tyres and then Bottas on his fresher tyres may cruise by because make no mistake Bottas would have been let by Hamilton once his tyres had gone if he'd not made his mistake at the chicane.

I have to wonder why people have a bigger issue with which Mercedes driver came 4th or 5th than what happened at the front with Ferrari?

They stopped Seb first to cover Hamilton and Max. What was so shocking with that?

It took the win from Leclerc, does nobody remember what happened when such a thing happened to Vettel, does no one remember multi 21?

I don't get this, did Ferrari issue any orders to either driver? It is not the same scenario

All I see is defend one thing but attack the other, so you would have been quite happy for Mercedes to deliberately undercut Hamilton with Bottas, they could have easily stopped that by pitting Hamilton earlier.

_________________
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: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33073
shoot999 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I think what they did makes sense in the circumstances. It also took Bottas out the race and i'd be pretty tiddled if I was him. I also think you'd be the first to complain if it was Hamilton in the Bottas position.

The only Mercedes driver that got royally screwed in the race was Hamilton, he went from 2nd to 4th whilst Bottas simply maintained his 5th position, I think this is more on how you think more than me and how you can view Bottas as the victim.


Hamilton had a bad strategy I agree. Bottas had a good strategy but had to effectively give up his own race. Surely you see this?

Neither Mercedes driver had a good strategy, but the driver with the best strategy to win the race was Hamilton on his fresher tyres plus he was a few tenths quicker than Bottas on like for like tyres anyway, yet you wanted Mercedes to position Bottas in front of Hamilton to kill that strategy?


Not just position Bottas in front of Hamilton. Remember what the Bottas role was in this team strategy, to slow those behind him. So what they are suggesting is Bottas go against Mercedes with the result that Ham would come out behind Gasly so both Ham and Mercedes would lose points.

It's always the case, these people are hardly supporters of either Mercedes or Hamilton and any support of Bottas is in the hope of stopping the Hamilton/Mercedes juggernaut, which I also believe is the backbone of support for reverse grids.

_________________
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: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7728
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
It was made because Mercedes thought they still had a chance of winning the race and coming back at the leaders on fresher tyres late in the race as they struggled with their tyres but the 3 safety cars totally negated that.

Mercedes are there to win races and not accommodate which driver comes 4th or 5th, if that was the limit of their ambition then they would have pitted Hamilton earlier to stop the undercut from his teammate, what right did Bottas have to do that?

People soon forget what happened in Monza, if Hamilton's main goal is to beat his main rival Bottas then he simply just sits behind Leclerc but he's also driving for Mercedes who want to win the race so he destroyed his tyres in his attempt to win the race but the secondary notion was that Leclerc may also damage his tyres and then Bottas on his fresher tyres may cruise by because make no mistake Bottas would have been let by Hamilton once his tyres had gone if he'd not made his mistake at the chicane.

I have to wonder why people have a bigger issue with which Mercedes driver came 4th or 5th than what happened at the front with Ferrari?

They stopped Seb first to cover Hamilton and Max. What was so shocking with that?

It took the win from Leclerc, does nobody remember what happened when such a thing happened to Vettel, does no one remember multi 21?

I don't get this, did Ferrari issue any orders to either driver? It is not the same scenario

All I see is defend one thing but attack the other, so you would have been quite happy for Mercedes to deliberately undercut Hamilton with Bottas, they could have easily stopped that by pitting Hamilton earlier.

I attacked something? Maybe you are mixing me with another poster, I suggest you re-read what I wrote (hint; it is only about the Ferrari strategy)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33073
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
They stopped Seb first to cover Hamilton and Max. What was so shocking with that?

It took the win from Leclerc, does nobody remember what happened when such a thing happened to Vettel, does no one remember multi 21?

I don't get this, did Ferrari issue any orders to either driver? It is not the same scenario

All I see is defend one thing but attack the other, so you would have been quite happy for Mercedes to deliberately undercut Hamilton with Bottas, they could have easily stopped that by pitting Hamilton earlier.

I attacked something? Maybe you are mixing me with another poster, I suggest you re-read what I wrote (hint; it is only about the Ferrari strategy)

I replied to a post that said that the Mercedes strategy decision against Bottas was the most pathetic in the history of F1 yet you only want to critique what I said about Ferrari.

The attack/defend is in respect to the posts in this thread line conversation were you seemingly only have a problem with what I said, if you let the other post go then that's kind of like saying that you agree with it.

_________________
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: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16240
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
By doing what they did Mercedes ensured 4th and 5th rather than 4th and 6th, isn't this what's getting a pass for what Ferrari did which cost Leclerc the win?

Nominally it's Bottas that got protected from finishing 6th behind Albon by being allowed to pit before Hamilton.


I think what they did makes sense in the circumstances. It also took Bottas out the race and i'd be pretty tiddled if I was him. I also think you'd be the first to complain if it was Hamilton in the Bottas position.

The only Mercedes driver that got royally screwed in the race was Hamilton, he went from 2nd to 4th whilst Bottas simply maintained his 5th position, I think this is more on how you think more than me and how you can view Bottas as the victim.


Hamilton had a bad strategy I agree. Bottas had a good strategy but had to effectively give up his own race. Surely you see this?

Neither Mercedes driver had a good strategy, but the driver with the best strategy to win the race was Hamilton on his fresher tyres plus he was a few tenths quicker than Bottas on like for like tyres anyway, yet you wanted Mercedes to position Bottas in front of Hamilton to kill that strategy?


Nope and I've never said I did. I'd have been pretty hacked of if I was Bottas though. More so than If I was Hamilton.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7728
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
It took the win from Leclerc, does nobody remember what happened when such a thing happened to Vettel, does no one remember multi 21?

I don't get this, did Ferrari issue any orders to either driver? It is not the same scenario

All I see is defend one thing but attack the other, so you would have been quite happy for Mercedes to deliberately undercut Hamilton with Bottas, they could have easily stopped that by pitting Hamilton earlier.

I attacked something? Maybe you are mixing me with another poster, I suggest you re-read what I wrote (hint; it is only about the Ferrari strategy)

I replied to a post that said that the Mercedes strategy decision against Bottas was the most pathetic in the history of F1 yet you only want to critique what I said about Ferrari.

The attack/defend is in respect to the posts in this thread line conversation were you seemingly only have a problem with what I said, if you let the other post go then that's kind of like saying that you agree with it.


Well, no. That's your interpretation, a leap from your side, I did not agree with anything, rather discussed your last sentence and that alone. Am I allowed to discuss one part of your post or do I have to comment on the whole post? Weird.

To recap, why do you find the decision of Ferrari so bad? They wanted to cover Max and Lewis and as Totto himself mentioned, the power of the undercut proved to be stronger than anyone predicted. It wasn't premeditated for Ferrari to screw up Charles's race. So why do you find it so shocking?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33073
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I think what they did makes sense in the circumstances. It also took Bottas out the race and i'd be pretty tiddled if I was him. I also think you'd be the first to complain if it was Hamilton in the Bottas position.

The only Mercedes driver that got royally screwed in the race was Hamilton, he went from 2nd to 4th whilst Bottas simply maintained his 5th position, I think this is more on how you think more than me and how you can view Bottas as the victim.


Hamilton had a bad strategy I agree. Bottas had a good strategy but had to effectively give up his own race. Surely you see this?

Neither Mercedes driver had a good strategy, but the driver with the best strategy to win the race was Hamilton on his fresher tyres plus he was a few tenths quicker than Bottas on like for like tyres anyway, yet you wanted Mercedes to position Bottas in front of Hamilton to kill that strategy?


Nope and I've never said I did. I'd have been pretty hacked of if I was Bottas though. More so than If I was Hamilton.

You seem to have not read posts why it was done, there was no point leaving Hamilton out only to get undercut by Bottas, Bottas had no right to be in front of Hamilton.

However I would agree that they way it was done was farcical, yet again not James Vowles' finest hour.

_________________
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: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16240
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
The only Mercedes driver that got royally screwed in the race was Hamilton, he went from 2nd to 4th whilst Bottas simply maintained his 5th position, I think this is more on how you think more than me and how you can view Bottas as the victim.


Hamilton had a bad strategy I agree. Bottas had a good strategy but had to effectively give up his own race. Surely you see this?

Neither Mercedes driver had a good strategy, but the driver with the best strategy to win the race was Hamilton on his fresher tyres plus he was a few tenths quicker than Bottas on like for like tyres anyway, yet you wanted Mercedes to position Bottas in front of Hamilton to kill that strategy?


Nope and I've never said I did. I'd have been pretty hacked of if I was Bottas though. More so than If I was Hamilton.

You seem to have not read posts why it was done, there was no point leaving Hamilton out only to get undercut by Bottas, Bottas had no right to be in front of Hamilton.

However I would agree that they way it was done was farcical, yet again not James Vowles' finest hour.


You're missing the point. It's not about why it was done. It's about they effect of doing it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33073
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
I don't get this, did Ferrari issue any orders to either driver? It is not the same scenario

All I see is defend one thing but attack the other, so you would have been quite happy for Mercedes to deliberately undercut Hamilton with Bottas, they could have easily stopped that by pitting Hamilton earlier.

I attacked something? Maybe you are mixing me with another poster, I suggest you re-read what I wrote (hint; it is only about the Ferrari strategy)

I replied to a post that said that the Mercedes strategy decision against Bottas was the most pathetic in the history of F1 yet you only want to critique what I said about Ferrari.

The attack/defend is in respect to the posts in this thread line conversation were you seemingly only have a problem with what I said, if you let the other post go then that's kind of like saying that you agree with it.


Well, no. That's your interpretation, a leap from your side, I did not agree with anything, rather discussed your last sentence and that alone. Am I allowed to discuss one part of your post or do I have to comment on the whole post? Weird.

To recap, why do you find the decision of Ferrari so bad? They wanted to cover Max and Lewis and as Totto himself mentioned, the power of the undercut proved to be stronger than anyone predicted. It wasn't premeditated for Ferrari to screw up Charles's race. So why do you find it so shocking?

My posting actually started with people not being happy with what happened at Mercedes between Bottas and Hamilton whilst seemingly given Ferrari a free pass.

The Ferrari situation later got explained and the strategy around it and that has to excepted but apparently not the Mercedes strategy?

So much caring about who finished 4th and 5th but not so much about a driver I would say unfairly losing a win?

_________________
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: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 33073
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Hamilton had a bad strategy I agree. Bottas had a good strategy but had to effectively give up his own race. Surely you see this?

Neither Mercedes driver had a good strategy, but the driver with the best strategy to win the race was Hamilton on his fresher tyres plus he was a few tenths quicker than Bottas on like for like tyres anyway, yet you wanted Mercedes to position Bottas in front of Hamilton to kill that strategy?


Nope and I've never said I did. I'd have been pretty hacked of if I was Bottas though. More so than If I was Hamilton.

You seem to have not read posts why it was done, there was no point leaving Hamilton out only to get undercut by Bottas, Bottas had no right to be in front of Hamilton.

However I would agree that they way it was done was farcical, yet again not James Vowles' finest hour.


You're missing the point. It's not about why it was done. It's about they effect of doing it.

Well it clearly wasn't being done out of favouritism to Hamilton, did Hamilton not sacrifice his second place to Bottas at Monza?

It just comes across as all the concern for Bottas and no concern for Hamilton being unfairly undercut by Bottas?

Bottas has also said that the rules of engagement don't allow teammates to be undercut, so what affect are you actually referring to?

_________________
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: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 7728
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
All I see is defend one thing but attack the other, so you would have been quite happy for Mercedes to deliberately undercut Hamilton with Bottas, they could have easily stopped that by pitting Hamilton earlier.

I attacked something? Maybe you are mixing me with another poster, I suggest you re-read what I wrote (hint; it is only about the Ferrari strategy)

I replied to a post that said that the Mercedes strategy decision against Bottas was the most pathetic in the history of F1 yet you only want to critique what I said about Ferrari.

The attack/defend is in respect to the posts in this thread line conversation were you seemingly only have a problem with what I said, if you let the other post go then that's kind of like saying that you agree with it.


Well, no. That's your interpretation, a leap from your side, I did not agree with anything, rather discussed your last sentence and that alone. Am I allowed to discuss one part of your post or do I have to comment on the whole post? Weird.

To recap, why do you find the decision of Ferrari so bad? They wanted to cover Max and Lewis and as Totto himself mentioned, the power of the undercut proved to be stronger than anyone predicted. It wasn't premeditated for Ferrari to screw up Charles's race. So why do you find it so shocking?

My posting actually started with people not being happy with what happened at Mercedes between Bottas and Hamilton whilst seemingly given Ferrari a free pass.

The Ferrari situation later got explained and the strategy around it and that has to excepted but apparently not the Mercedes strategy?

So much caring about who finished 4th and 5th but not so much about a driver I would say unfairly losing a win?

I only commented on the Ferrari situation. I don't care about Mercedes, I did not comment on them, how can I put this in your head? It happened a few times before, you asking people why are they not outraged with some Mercedes incident. Why should everyone be enraged with Hamilton being unreasonably/unfairly treated every time with you?


Last edited by Siao7 on Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 16240
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Neither Mercedes driver had a good strategy, but the driver with the best strategy to win the race was Hamilton on his fresher tyres plus he was a few tenths quicker than Bottas on like for like tyres anyway, yet you wanted Mercedes to position Bottas in front of Hamilton to kill that strategy?


Nope and I've never said I did. I'd have been pretty hacked of if I was Bottas though. More so than If I was Hamilton.

You seem to have not read posts why it was done, there was no point leaving Hamilton out only to get undercut by Bottas, Bottas had no right to be in front of Hamilton.

However I would agree that they way it was done was farcical, yet again not James Vowles' finest hour.


You're missing the point. It's not about why it was done. It's about they effect of doing it.

Well it clearly wasn't being done out of favouritism to Hamilton, did Hamilton not sacrifice his second place to Bottas at Monza?

It just comes across as all the concern for Bottas and no concern for Hamilton being unfairly undercut by Bottas?

Bottas has also said that the rules of engagement don't allow teammates to be undercut, so what affect are you actually referring to?


Hamilton ended up with a bad strategy but at least it was an attempt at a winning strategy. Bottas ended up with a bad strategy in an attempt to make Hamilton's a winning one.

I'd also be annoyed if I was Bottas that his team mate deciding to extend a stint can effectively end his competition in the race.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2003 11:31 am
Posts: 1882
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
ReservoirDog wrote:
This is why Bottas contract was extended. They knew he lacks a backbone.


Title looks to be done, Mercedes have rules in the team and Bottas stuck by them. Is it worth upsetting the team for the rest of the season when you have a contract and a new crack at the title next year.


Bottas doesn't have a crack at the title next year.

This is very unlikely to be the case, but is not impossible. If Mercedes are dominant and Hamilton happens not to be at his best any more plus having poor reliability, then Bottas does have a slim chance. And if Bottas keeps up his qualifying form - resulting in reasonably often beating Hamilton and the overtaking difficulties still being the case, he does have a very slim chance. It is not impossible, but I think it won't happen.


That's a lot of ifs in there. Bottom line, it won't happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:00 pm
Posts: 58
Part of me did wonder whether Bottas would have been managed differently in this race if he had got the job done in Monza (though I also felt that they should have let Bottas by to have a go on his fresher tyres earlier, rather than waiting for Hamilton to make a mistake and take the decision out of their hands.)

A joke for the sake of 2 points, and we had James saying they’d pay it back. Looking forward to that :uhoh:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 6:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:54 am
Posts: 2644
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
That team order in Singapore is the most pathetic team order in living memory.

There is not a non-Mercedes single driver within 90 points of Hamilton and there are only 6 races left to go.

Utterly pathetic, even Austria 2002 was more understandable than this.

It was made because Mercedes thought they still had a chance of winning the race and coming back at the leaders on fresher tyres late in the race as they struggled with their tyres but the 3 safety cars totally negated that.

Mercedes are there to win races and not accommodate which driver comes 4th or 5th, if that was the limit of their ambition then they would have pitted Hamilton earlier to stop the undercut from his teammate, what right did Bottas have to do that?

People soon forget what happened in Monza, if Hamilton's main goal is to beat his main rival Bottas then he simply just sits behind Leclerc but he's also driving for Mercedes who want to win the race so he destroyed his tyres in his attempt to win the race but the secondary notion was that Leclerc may also damage his tyres and then Bottas on his fresher tyres may cruise by because make no mistake Bottas would have been let by Hamilton once his tyres had gone if he'd not made his mistake at the chicane.

I have to wonder why people have a bigger issue with which Mercedes driver came 4th or 5th than what happened at the front with Ferrari?

They stopped Seb first to cover Hamilton and Max. What was so shocking with that?

It took the win from Leclerc, does nobody remember what happened when such a thing happened to Vettel, does no one remember multi 21?

Also it's interesting how this can be explained away for strategic reasons yet Mercedes strategy reasons have no concern for the ones that what to criticise.

Any team order where a driver is told to go 3 seconds slower than his potential pace by his own team is utterly pathetic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 3002
-K- wrote:
Part of me did wonder whether Bottas would have been managed differently in this race if he had got the job done in Monza (though I also felt that they should have let Bottas by to have a go on his fresher tyres earlier, rather than waiting for Hamilton to make a mistake and take the decision out of their hands.)

A joke for the sake of 2 points, and we had James saying they’d pay it back. Looking forward to that :uhoh:


Problem? All four Ferrari/Mercedes drivers have at various times over the years backed the pack up for the benefit of their teammate; including Hamilton. So why the :uhoh: Have you some inside information on why he won't do it in the future?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 3291
Location: UK
KingVoid wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
That team order in Singapore is the most pathetic team order in living memory.

There is not a non-Mercedes single driver within 90 points of Hamilton and there are only 6 races left to go.

Utterly pathetic, even Austria 2002 was more understandable than this.

It was made because Mercedes thought they still had a chance of winning the race and coming back at the leaders on fresher tyres late in the race as they struggled with their tyres but the 3 safety cars totally negated that.

Mercedes are there to win races and not accommodate which driver comes 4th or 5th, if that was the limit of their ambition then they would have pitted Hamilton earlier to stop the undercut from his teammate, what right did Bottas have to do that?

People soon forget what happened in Monza, if Hamilton's main goal is to beat his main rival Bottas then he simply just sits behind Leclerc but he's also driving for Mercedes who want to win the race so he destroyed his tyres in his attempt to win the race but the secondary notion was that Leclerc may also damage his tyres and then Bottas on his fresher tyres may cruise by because make no mistake Bottas would have been let by Hamilton once his tyres had gone if he'd not made his mistake at the chicane.

I have to wonder why people have a bigger issue with which Mercedes driver came 4th or 5th than what happened at the front with Ferrari?

They stopped Seb first to cover Hamilton and Max. What was so shocking with that?

It took the win from Leclerc, does nobody remember what happened when such a thing happened to Vettel, does no one remember multi 21?

Also it's interesting how this can be explained away for strategic reasons yet Mercedes strategy reasons have no concern for the ones that what to criticise.

Any team order where a driver is told to go 3 seconds slower than his potential pace by his own team is utterly pathetic.

You're missing the crucial context in which that order was made. It was all part of a strategic gamble to get the race win. They wouldn't have taken the gamble in the first place if they couldn't have slotted Hamilton back into 4th place in the event of it not working. Bottas was going to finish 5th no matter what and did not lose out in any way.

What would've been pathetic would be if they'd taken the gamble with Hamilton and NOT given that instruction to Bottas. Then Hamilton gets screwed over, finishes 6th at best and the team loses points unnecessarily.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2019 9:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 3002
KingVoid wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
KingVoid wrote:
That team order in Singapore is the most pathetic team order in living memory.

There is not a non-Mercedes single driver within 90 points of Hamilton and there are only 6 races left to go.

Utterly pathetic, even Austria 2002 was more understandable than this.

It was made because Mercedes thought they still had a chance of winning the race and coming back at the leaders on fresher tyres late in the race as they struggled with their tyres but the 3 safety cars totally negated that.

Mercedes are there to win races and not accommodate which driver comes 4th or 5th, if that was the limit of their ambition then they would have pitted Hamilton earlier to stop the undercut from his teammate, what right did Bottas have to do that?

People soon forget what happened in Monza, if Hamilton's main goal is to beat his main rival Bottas then he simply just sits behind Leclerc but he's also driving for Mercedes who want to win the race so he destroyed his tyres in his attempt to win the race but the secondary notion was that Leclerc may also damage his tyres and then Bottas on his fresher tyres may cruise by because make no mistake Bottas would have been let by Hamilton once his tyres had gone if he'd not made his mistake at the chicane.

I have to wonder why people have a bigger issue with which Mercedes driver came 4th or 5th than what happened at the front with Ferrari?

They stopped Seb first to cover Hamilton and Max. What was so shocking with that?

It took the win from Leclerc, does nobody remember what happened when such a thing happened to Vettel, does no one remember multi 21?

Also it's interesting how this can be explained away for strategic reasons yet Mercedes strategy reasons have no concern for the ones that what to criticise.

Any team order where a driver is told to go 3 seconds slower than his potential pace by his own team is utterly pathetic.


Yes, I think we can all agree that the delta Leclerc was operating to at the commencement of the race was utterly pathetic. As the likes of Kubica and Russell proved time and time again with their lap times, it was way beyond 3 seconds. Ferrari should be ashamed of themselves, and like you I agree that Ferrari are an utterly pathetic team.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2019 5:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9919
pokerman wrote:
shoot999 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
The only Mercedes driver that got royally screwed in the race was Hamilton, he went from 2nd to 4th whilst Bottas simply maintained his 5th position, I think this is more on how you think more than me and how you can view Bottas as the victim.


Hamilton had a bad strategy I agree. Bottas had a good strategy but had to effectively give up his own race. Surely you see this?

Neither Mercedes driver had a good strategy, but the driver with the best strategy to win the race was Hamilton on his fresher tyres plus he was a few tenths quicker than Bottas on like for like tyres anyway, yet you wanted Mercedes to position Bottas in front of Hamilton to kill that strategy?


Not just position Bottas in front of Hamilton. Remember what the Bottas role was in this team strategy, to slow those behind him. So what they are suggesting is Bottas go against Mercedes with the result that Ham would come out behind Gasly so both Ham and Mercedes would lose points.

It's always the case, these people are hardly supporters of either Mercedes or Hamilton and any support of Bottas is in the hope of stopping the Hamilton/Mercedes juggernaut, which I also believe is the backbone of support for reverse grids.

Ah of course, another case of "they're out to get Lewis".

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2019 10:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:19 pm
Posts: 577
Mercedes may well now feel vindicated by their decision to retain Bottas. After the Belgian grand Prix he was 65 points behind Hamilton, he is now 67 points behind Hamilton. He's kept pace over this second half of the season.

Japan and USA especially stand out as very strong performances, and his race pace in Mexico was also excellent. If he can eliminate that saggy middle out of his season (Hockenheim was a woefully squandered opportunity to tighten things at the top) then he could mount a serious title challenge next year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2019 10:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9919
Interesting statistics.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2019 10:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 2510
Bottas is growing. Soon he'll be too tall to fit in the car.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2019 10:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 3490
BMWSauber84 wrote:
Mercedes may well now feel vindicated by their decision to retain Bottas. After the Belgian grand Prix he was 65 points behind Hamilton, he is now 67 points behind Hamilton. He's kept pace over this second half of the season.

Japan and USA especially stand out as very strong performances, and his race pace in Mexico was also excellent. If he can eliminate that saggy middle out of his season (Hockenheim was a woefully squandered opportunity to tighten things at the top) then he could mount a serious title challenge next year.


We have heard this for the last 3 years and after every race win.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place
2018: 12th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016, 3rd China 2018, 3rd Japan 2018, 2nd Mexico 2018


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2019 10:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:15 am
Posts: 2079
F1_Ernie wrote:
BMWSauber84 wrote:
Mercedes may well now feel vindicated by their decision to retain Bottas. After the Belgian grand Prix he was 65 points behind Hamilton, he is now 67 points behind Hamilton. He's kept pace over this second half of the season.

Japan and USA especially stand out as very strong performances, and his race pace in Mexico was also excellent. If he can eliminate that saggy middle out of his season (Hockenheim was a woefully squandered opportunity to tighten things at the top) then he could mount a serious title challenge next year.


We have heard this for the last 3 years and after every race win.

But we haven't seen Bottas this strong at this stage of the season. He was convincingly strong the last 3 races and overtook hamilton twice here. When does that ever happen? I think there is more of a clear picture that Bottas has improved a bit this time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2019 11:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 2510
As an aside, at this stage in the season Bottas' performance is still in line with that of Vettel and Leclerc by my spreadsheets. In other words, he's in their league on performance this season according to my noob judgments. In 2018, I had him significantly behind Vettel, despite all of Vettel's errors.

It seems obvious to me that Bottas keeps chipping away at performance and is growing with Hamilton and Mercedes in a team environment which is allowing him to continue to better himself. He's getting better.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2019 11:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:14 am
Posts: 1305
Location: Stratford
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
BMWSauber84 wrote:
Mercedes may well now feel vindicated by their decision to retain Bottas. After the Belgian grand Prix he was 65 points behind Hamilton, he is now 67 points behind Hamilton. He's kept pace over this second half of the season.

Japan and USA especially stand out as very strong performances, and his race pace in Mexico was also excellent. If he can eliminate that saggy middle out of his season (Hockenheim was a woefully squandered opportunity to tighten things at the top) then he could mount a serious title challenge next year.


We have heard this for the last 3 years and after every race win.

But we haven't seen Bottas this strong at this stage of the season. He was convincingly strong the last 3 races and overtook hamilton twice here. When does that ever happen? I think there is more of a clear picture that Bottas has improved a bit this time.


Can you read much into those overtakes with the tyre differences?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2019 11:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:15 am
Posts: 2079
JN23 wrote:
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
F1_Ernie wrote:
BMWSauber84 wrote:
Mercedes may well now feel vindicated by their decision to retain Bottas. After the Belgian grand Prix he was 65 points behind Hamilton, he is now 67 points behind Hamilton. He's kept pace over this second half of the season.

Japan and USA especially stand out as very strong performances, and his race pace in Mexico was also excellent. If he can eliminate that saggy middle out of his season (Hockenheim was a woefully squandered opportunity to tighten things at the top) then he could mount a serious title challenge next year.


We have heard this for the last 3 years and after every race win.

But we haven't seen Bottas this strong at this stage of the season. He was convincingly strong the last 3 races and overtook hamilton twice here. When does that ever happen? I think there is more of a clear picture that Bottas has improved a bit this time.


Can you read much into those overtakes with the tyre differences?


No, but with different strategies in races the last 2 years when bottas had the advantage, he failed to get past others and hamilton pretty often. My main point is that people point out that Bottas overtaking Hamilton virtually never happens. We saw Hamilton put up a fight twice today and Bottas had to work for it. There is a difference.


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: No registered users 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