planetf1.com

MasterRacer wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote: I think Ferrari dominating would be the second worst thing that could happen this year.

Either way we aren't getting a fight between teammates based in what we've seen of Bottas/Kimi so far but at least with Ferrari it would be a change in who is dominating, a miniscule improvement sure, but still one IMO. Also I can't quite separate myself from the romantic element in Ferrari winning a title after not doing so for a decade and coming so close on so many occasions.

Would Ferrari allow Kimi to challenge Seb if they were a class above the field? I doubt that. With Merc at least you can say we’ve seen it in the past and there is no reason to believe we wouldn’t see it again.

Why not? Aside from the fact that we've never actually seen Kimi challenging Vettel beyond qualifying anyway, what possible evidence is there that Ferrari would engineer the races if they had as big an advantage as Mercedes had while Nico and Lewis were team mates?

That’s just not how Ferrari has operated in the past. Kimi had chances to win a couple races last year. Each time he was denied by his team. Was Barichello allowed to beat Schumacher?What more evidence do you need?

Rubens wasn't good enough to beat Schumi and Kimi isn't quick enough to beat Seb.

He was good enough to beat Schumacher 3 to 4 times a year but even then he wasn't allowed to.

kleefton wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote: Personally I think it's a false narrative. I saw Kimi hold Vettel up massively in China for instance last year without being told to move aside and I saw Bottas be ordered aside at least twice from memory.

I see as much evidence to suggest Mercedes favour Hamilton as I do that Ferrari favour Vettel. Of course they are both the focus of the team, they are the better drivers by a country mile, but if Kimi/Bottas suddenly started outperforming their teammates that wouldn't take long to change, for either team.

You are entitled to your opinion. But there is a reason Kimi is still at Ferrari and there is a reason Bottas is always under enormous pressure to perform. Frankly anyone that doesn't see the difference between these two teams just leaves me baffled.

Indeed Kimi starts his 5th straight season at Ferrari this year, if Bottas performs at the level that Kimi has these past 4 years then he's out the door.

A.J. wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote: Personally I think it's a false narrative. I saw Kimi hold Vettel up massively in China for instance last year without being told to move aside and I saw Bottas be ordered aside at least twice from memory.

I see as much evidence to suggest Mercedes favour Hamilton as I do that Ferrari favour Vettel. Of course they are both the focus of the team, they are the better drivers by a country mile, but if Kimi/Bottas suddenly started outperforming their teammates that wouldn't take long to change, for either team.

You are entitled to your opinion. But there is a reason Kimi is still at Ferrari and there is a reason Bottas is always under enormous pressure to perform. Frankly anyone that doesn't see the difference between these two teams just leaves me baffled.

Bottas replaced the WDC, and is driving the best car on the grid - why would he not be under enormous pressure to perform? What BF11 said is absolutely true - Bottas was ordered to move over for Hamilton at least a couple of times, and even forced to play rear gunner in Spain (he himself even described it as holding Vettel up for as long as he could). And yet, the constant narrative pushed out by Sky (and some people here) is that Ferrari is a one-man team, while Mercedes doesn't favour Lewis at all.

Hogwash. The driver that both teams favour is the one who is faster more often than not - in this case it happens to be Vettel and Hamilton. Throw in an equally capable driver (and even more helpful - a dominant car), and both teams will be happy to let it play out on track (as long as they don't tangle too often on track).

Hamilton gave the place back to Bottas in Hungary whilst Kimi wasn't allowed to win in Hungary and Monaco, not quite the same.

pokerman wrote:

A.J. wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote: Personally I think it's a false narrative. I saw Kimi hold Vettel up massively in China for instance last year without being told to move aside and I saw Bottas be ordered aside at least twice from memory.

I see as much evidence to suggest Mercedes favour Hamilton as I do that Ferrari favour Vettel. Of course they are both the focus of the team, they are the better drivers by a country mile, but if Kimi/Bottas suddenly started outperforming their teammates that wouldn't take long to change, for either team.

You are entitled to your opinion. But there is a reason Kimi is still at Ferrari and there is a reason Bottas is always under enormous pressure to perform. Frankly anyone that doesn't see the difference between these two teams just leaves me baffled.

Bottas replaced the WDC, and is driving the best car on the grid - why would he not be under enormous pressure to perform? What BF11 said is absolutely true - Bottas was ordered to move over for Hamilton at least a couple of times, and even forced to play rear gunner in Spain (he himself even described it as holding Vettel up for as long as he could). And yet, the constant narrative pushed out by Sky (and some people here) is that Ferrari is a one-man team, while Mercedes doesn't favour Lewis at all.

Hogwash. The driver that both teams favour is the one who is faster more often than not - in this case it happens to be Vettel and Hamilton. Throw in an equally capable driver (and even more helpful - a dominant car), and both teams will be happy to let it play out on track (as long as they don't tangle too often on track).

Hamilton gave the place back to Bottas in Hungary whilst Kimi wasn't allowed to win in Hungary and Monaco, not quite the same.

That's because Mercedes are not so hell bent to favour their number 1 driver as Ferrari. Ferrari are kown to be a strict no.1 & no. 2 driver team since Schumi days. What Hamilton did for Bottas in Hungary is impossible to be replicated if Vettel & Raikkonen were to be put in that scenario.

BTW, Hamilton moving over for Bottas was Hamilton's or Mercedes' call?

UnlikeUday wrote:

pokerman wrote:

A.J. wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote: Personally I think it's a false narrative. I saw Kimi hold Vettel up massively in China for instance last year without being told to move aside and I saw Bottas be ordered aside at least twice from memory.

I see as much evidence to suggest Mercedes favour Hamilton as I do that Ferrari favour Vettel. Of course they are both the focus of the team, they are the better drivers by a country mile, but if Kimi/Bottas suddenly started outperforming their teammates that wouldn't take long to change, for either team.

You are entitled to your opinion. But there is a reason Kimi is still at Ferrari and there is a reason Bottas is always under enormous pressure to perform. Frankly anyone that doesn't see the difference between these two teams just leaves me baffled.

Bottas replaced the WDC, and is driving the best car on the grid - why would he not be under enormous pressure to perform? What BF11 said is absolutely true - Bottas was ordered to move over for Hamilton at least a couple of times, and even forced to play rear gunner in Spain (he himself even described it as holding Vettel up for as long as he could). And yet, the constant narrative pushed out by Sky (and some people here) is that Ferrari is a one-man team, while Mercedes doesn't favour Lewis at all.

Hogwash. The driver that both teams favour is the one who is faster more often than not - in this case it happens to be Vettel and Hamilton. Throw in an equally capable driver (and even more helpful - a dominant car), and both teams will be happy to let it play out on track (as long as they don't tangle too often on track).

Hamilton gave the place back to Bottas in Hungary whilst Kimi wasn't allowed to win in Hungary and Monaco, not quite the same.

That's because Mercedes are not so hell bent to favour their number 1 driver as Ferrari. Ferrari are kown to be a strict no.1 & no. 2 driver team since Schumi days. What Hamilton did for Bottas in Hungary is impossible to be replicated if Vettel & Raikkonen were to be put in that scenario.

BTW, Hamilton moving over for Bottas was Hamilton's or Mercedes' call?

I believe it was Lewis's call. Even though Mercedes said that they asked Lewis to give the place back, but there is no evidence of any radio message or transcripts saying that they told Lewis to give the place back. Lewis decided to keep his word, simple as that. You are right that this would never happen at Ferrari.

pokerman wrote:

A.J. wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote: Personally I think it's a false narrative. I saw Kimi hold Vettel up massively in China for instance last year without being told to move aside and I saw Bottas be ordered aside at least twice from memory.

I see as much evidence to suggest Mercedes favour Hamilton as I do that Ferrari favour Vettel. Of course they are both the focus of the team, they are the better drivers by a country mile, but if Kimi/Bottas suddenly started outperforming their teammates that wouldn't take long to change, for either team.

You are entitled to your opinion. But there is a reason Kimi is still at Ferrari and there is a reason Bottas is always under enormous pressure to perform. Frankly anyone that doesn't see the difference between these two teams just leaves me baffled.

Bottas replaced the WDC, and is driving the best car on the grid - why would he not be under enormous pressure to perform? What BF11 said is absolutely true - Bottas was ordered to move over for Hamilton at least a couple of times, and even forced to play rear gunner in Spain (he himself even described it as holding Vettel up for as long as he could). And yet, the constant narrative pushed out by Sky (and some people here) is that Ferrari is a one-man team, while Mercedes doesn't favour Lewis at all.

Hogwash. The driver that both teams favour is the one who is faster more often than not - in this case it happens to be Vettel and Hamilton. Throw in an equally capable driver (and even more helpful - a dominant car), and both teams will be happy to let it play out on track (as long as they don't tangle too often on track).

Hamilton gave the place back to Bottas in Hungary whilst Kimi wasn't allowed to win in Hungary and Monaco, not quite the same.

Exactly.

UnlikeUday wrote:

pokerman wrote:

A.J. wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote: Personally I think it's a false narrative. I saw Kimi hold Vettel up massively in China for instance last year without being told to move aside and I saw Bottas be ordered aside at least twice from memory.

I see as much evidence to suggest Mercedes favour Hamilton as I do that Ferrari favour Vettel. Of course they are both the focus of the team, they are the better drivers by a country mile, but if Kimi/Bottas suddenly started outperforming their teammates that wouldn't take long to change, for either team.

You are entitled to your opinion. But there is a reason Kimi is still at Ferrari and there is a reason Bottas is always under enormous pressure to perform. Frankly anyone that doesn't see the difference between these two teams just leaves me baffled.

Bottas replaced the WDC, and is driving the best car on the grid - why would he not be under enormous pressure to perform? What BF11 said is absolutely true - Bottas was ordered to move over for Hamilton at least a couple of times, and even forced to play rear gunner in Spain (he himself even described it as holding Vettel up for as long as he could). And yet, the constant narrative pushed out by Sky (and some people here) is that Ferrari is a one-man team, while Mercedes doesn't favour Lewis at all.

Hogwash. The driver that both teams favour is the one who is faster more often than not - in this case it happens to be Vettel and Hamilton. Throw in an equally capable driver (and even more helpful - a dominant car), and both teams will be happy to let it play out on track (as long as they don't tangle too often on track).

Hamilton gave the place back to Bottas in Hungary whilst Kimi wasn't allowed to win in Hungary and Monaco, not quite the same.

That's because Mercedes are not so hell bent to favour their number 1 driver as Ferrari. Ferrari are kown to be a strict no.1 & no. 2 driver team since Schumi days. What Hamilton did for Bottas in Hungary is impossible to be replicated if Vettel & Raikkonen were to be put in that scenario.

BTW, Hamilton moving over for Bottas was Hamilton's or Mercedes' call?

Well Toto Wolff seemed very happy, Lauda didn't agree but I don't believe that he has much say in such things.

pokerman wrote:

A.J. wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote: Personally I think it's a false narrative. I saw Kimi hold Vettel up massively in China for instance last year without being told to move aside and I saw Bottas be ordered aside at least twice from memory.

I see as much evidence to suggest Mercedes favour Hamilton as I do that Ferrari favour Vettel. Of course they are both the focus of the team, they are the better drivers by a country mile, but if Kimi/Bottas suddenly started outperforming their teammates that wouldn't take long to change, for either team.

You are entitled to your opinion. But there is a reason Kimi is still at Ferrari and there is a reason Bottas is always under enormous pressure to perform. Frankly anyone that doesn't see the difference between these two teams just leaves me baffled.

Bottas replaced the WDC, and is driving the best car on the grid - why would he not be under enormous pressure to perform? What BF11 said is absolutely true - Bottas was ordered to move over for Hamilton at least a couple of times, and even forced to play rear gunner in Spain (he himself even described it as holding Vettel up for as long as he could). And yet, the constant narrative pushed out by Sky (and some people here) is that Ferrari is a one-man team, while Mercedes doesn't favour Lewis at all.

Hogwash. The driver that both teams favour is the one who is faster more often than not - in this case it happens to be Vettel and Hamilton. Throw in an equally capable driver (and even more helpful - a dominant car), and both teams will be happy to let it play out on track (as long as they don't tangle too often on track).

Hamilton gave the place back to Bottas in Hungary whilst Kimi wasn't allowed to win in Hungary and Monaco, not quite the same.

He gave the place back because that was the deal in order for him to be allowed ahead in the first place. This is a crucial point that many appear to overlook

pokerman wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote: Personally I think it's a false narrative. I saw Kimi hold Vettel up massively in China for instance last year without being told to move aside and I saw Bottas be ordered aside at least twice from memory.

I see as much evidence to suggest Mercedes favour Hamilton as I do that Ferrari favour Vettel. Of course they are both the focus of the team, they are the better drivers by a country mile, but if Kimi/Bottas suddenly started outperforming their teammates that wouldn't take long to change, for either team.

You are entitled to your opinion. But there is a reason Kimi is still at Ferrari and there is a reason Bottas is always under enormous pressure to perform. Frankly anyone that doesn't see the difference between these two teams just leaves me baffled.

Indeed Kimi starts his 5th straight season at Ferrari this year, if Bottas performs at the level that Kimi has these past 4 years then he's out the door.

Based on..?

kleefton wrote:

UnlikeUday wrote:

pokerman wrote:

A.J. wrote:

kleefton wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion. But there is a reason Kimi is still at Ferrari and there is a reason Bottas is always under enormous pressure to perform. Frankly anyone that doesn't see the difference between these two teams just leaves me baffled.

Bottas replaced the WDC, and is driving the best car on the grid - why would he not be under enormous pressure to perform? What BF11 said is absolutely true - Bottas was ordered to move over for Hamilton at least a couple of times, and even forced to play rear gunner in Spain (he himself even described it as holding Vettel up for as long as he could). And yet, the constant narrative pushed out by Sky (and some people here) is that Ferrari is a one-man team, while Mercedes doesn't favour Lewis at all.

Hogwash. The driver that both teams favour is the one who is faster more often than not - in this case it happens to be Vettel and Hamilton. Throw in an equally capable driver (and even more helpful - a dominant car), and both teams will be happy to let it play out on track (as long as they don't tangle too often on track).

Hamilton gave the place back to Bottas in Hungary whilst Kimi wasn't allowed to win in Hungary and Monaco, not quite the same.

That's because Mercedes are not so hell bent to favour their number 1 driver as Ferrari. Ferrari are kown to be a strict no.1 & no. 2 driver team since Schumi days. What Hamilton did for Bottas in Hungary is impossible to be replicated if Vettel & Raikkonen were to be put in that scenario.

BTW, Hamilton moving over for Bottas was Hamilton's or Mercedes' call?

I believe it was Lewis's call. Even though Mercedes said that they asked Lewis to give the place back, but there is no evidence of any radio message or transcripts saying that they told Lewis to give the place back. Lewis decided to keep his word, simple as that. You are right that this would never happen at Ferrari.

Given that you've basically stated that it had nothing to do with the team anyway, how can you say that last bit?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

A.J. wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote: Personally I think it's a false narrative. I saw Kimi hold Vettel up massively in China for instance last year without being told to move aside and I saw Bottas be ordered aside at least twice from memory.

I see as much evidence to suggest Mercedes favour Hamilton as I do that Ferrari favour Vettel. Of course they are both the focus of the team, they are the better drivers by a country mile, but if Kimi/Bottas suddenly started outperforming their teammates that wouldn't take long to change, for either team.

You are entitled to your opinion. But there is a reason Kimi is still at Ferrari and there is a reason Bottas is always under enormous pressure to perform. Frankly anyone that doesn't see the difference between these two teams just leaves me baffled.

Bottas replaced the WDC, and is driving the best car on the grid - why would he not be under enormous pressure to perform? What BF11 said is absolutely true - Bottas was ordered to move over for Hamilton at least a couple of times, and even forced to play rear gunner in Spain (he himself even described it as holding Vettel up for as long as he could). And yet, the constant narrative pushed out by Sky (and some people here) is that Ferrari is a one-man team, while Mercedes doesn't favour Lewis at all.

Hogwash. The driver that both teams favour is the one who is faster more often than not - in this case it happens to be Vettel and Hamilton. Throw in an equally capable driver (and even more helpful - a dominant car), and both teams will be happy to let it play out on track (as long as they don't tangle too often on track).

Hamilton gave the place back to Bottas in Hungary whilst Kimi wasn't allowed to win in Hungary and Monaco, not quite the same.

He gave the place back because that was the deal in order for him to be allowed ahead in the first place. This is a crucial point that many appear to overlook

I'm not sure if you meant to make the argument for me?

A supposed #1 driver does not have to make such deals.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote: Personally I think it's a false narrative. I saw Kimi hold Vettel up massively in China for instance last year without being told to move aside and I saw Bottas be ordered aside at least twice from memory.

I see as much evidence to suggest Mercedes favour Hamilton as I do that Ferrari favour Vettel. Of course they are both the focus of the team, they are the better drivers by a country mile, but if Kimi/Bottas suddenly started outperforming their teammates that wouldn't take long to change, for either team.

You are entitled to your opinion. But there is a reason Kimi is still at Ferrari and there is a reason Bottas is always under enormous pressure to perform. Frankly anyone that doesn't see the difference between these two teams just leaves me baffled.

Indeed Kimi starts his 5th straight season at Ferrari this year, if Bottas performs at the level that Kimi has these past 4 years then he's out the door.

Based on..?

Well I'm looking at Bottas' 1 year contract for starters, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Zoue wrote: Given that you've basically stated that it had nothing to do with the team anyway, how can you say that last bit?

If the roles were reversed, I feel that Ferrari would have just asked Kimi to let Vettel through, and Kimi would have been too happy to oblige. None of this giving the place back stuff. Vettel would not have had to "ask for a go" like Lewis did. Lewis asked because he knows that Mercedes was not going to ask Bottas that. But Mercedes was asking Bottas to speed it up before the position was given back to him. I feel they would have been totally fine if Lewis did not give the position back.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote: Personally I think it's a false narrative. I saw Kimi hold Vettel up massively in China for instance last year without being told to move aside and I saw Bottas be ordered aside at least twice from memory.

I see as much evidence to suggest Mercedes favour Hamilton as I do that Ferrari favour Vettel. Of course they are both the focus of the team, they are the better drivers by a country mile, but if Kimi/Bottas suddenly started outperforming their teammates that wouldn't take long to change, for either team.

You are entitled to your opinion. But there is a reason Kimi is still at Ferrari and there is a reason Bottas is always under enormous pressure to perform. Frankly anyone that doesn't see the difference between these two teams just leaves me baffled.

Indeed Kimi starts his 5th straight season at Ferrari this year, if Bottas performs at the level that Kimi has these past 4 years then he's out the door.

Based on..?

Well I'm looking at Bottas' 1 year contract for starters, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

doesn't Kimi always get short deals, too?

Didn't Webber only get single year deals as well?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

kleefton wrote:You are entitled to your opinion. But there is a reason Kimi is still at Ferrari and there is a reason Bottas is always under enormous pressure to perform. Frankly anyone that doesn't see the difference between these two teams just leaves me baffled.

Indeed Kimi starts his 5th straight season at Ferrari this year, if Bottas performs at the level that Kimi has these past 4 years then he's out the door.

Based on..?

Well I'm looking at Bottas' 1 year contract for starters, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

doesn't Kimi always get short deals, too?

He does. But the context is different. It's unclear when Kimi will be ready to call it a day and leave, but it's something that is definitely on the horizon. Valteri is looking at the opportunity to win his first title, and is only at the beginning of his career at the top.
From the teams' point of view, I find Ferrari's single year contract for Kimi easier to understand than Mercedes's hesitation with Valteri. Who would they like to replace him with, assuming they will do everything in their power to retain Lewis?

kleefton wrote:

Zoue wrote: Given that you've basically stated that it had nothing to do with the team anyway, how can you say that last bit?

If the roles were reversed, I feel that Ferrari would have just asked Kimi to let Vettel through, and Kimi would have been too happy to oblige. None of this giving the place back stuff. Vettel would not have had to "ask for a go" like Lewis did. Lewis asked because he knows that Mercedes was not going to ask Bottas that. But Mercedes was asking Bottas to speed it up before the position was given back to him. I feel they would have been totally fine if Lewis did not give the position back.

The situations were different at Ferrari and Mercedes, though. Bottas was one mechanical retirement away from leapfrogging Hamilton in the WDC, while Kimi was already well out of the running with just over half his team mate's points tally. So yes, I reckon Ferrari may well have asked Kimi to move over, if all else was equal, but probably not if Kimi had been in the position Bottas was at the time.

it's easier to give a driver preferential treatment if he's the only one in the title hunt. Doesn't mean that would be the same in every situation

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:Indeed Kimi starts his 5th straight season at Ferrari this year, if Bottas performs at the level that Kimi has these past 4 years then he's out the door.

Based on..?

Well I'm looking at Bottas' 1 year contract for starters, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

doesn't Kimi always get short deals, too?

He does. But the context is different. It's unclear when Kimi will be ready to call it a day and leave, but it's something that is definitely on the horizon. Valteri is looking at the opportunity to win his first title, and is only at the beginning of his career at the top.
From the teams' point of view, I find Ferrari's single year contract for Kimi easier to understand than Mercedes's hesitation with Valteri. Who would they like to replace him with, assuming they will do everything in their power to retain Lewis?

Yes I'd agree with you that there are differences in their situations. But both teams aren't committing to a driver who hasn't shown himself to be the best, so in that respect it's the same. If Bottas suddenly starts showing himself to be a match for Lewis, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't be given a longer contract. But he's not exactly setting the world alight, really. I can understand them holding out for e.g. Ricciardo, if there's a chance he will become available. That is no different to the Ferrari situation

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

kleefton wrote: You are entitled to your opinion. But there is a reason Kimi is still at Ferrari and there is a reason Bottas is always under enormous pressure to perform. Frankly anyone that doesn't see the difference between these two teams just leaves me baffled.

Indeed Kimi starts his 5th straight season at Ferrari this year, if Bottas performs at the level that Kimi has these past 4 years then he's out the door.

Based on..?

Well I'm looking at Bottas' 1 year contract for starters, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

doesn't Kimi always get short deals, too?

Older sportsman tend to get short deals unless they are seen as being special plus Ferrari have form for re-employing under performing drivers, Bottas is the only driver in his age group on a 1 year contract and like I said that unlike Ferrari I believe he has to perform to stay with Mercedes.

mikeyg123 wrote:Didn't Webber only get single year deals as well?

I mentioned it before that with Webber that was his choice.

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Zoue wrote: Given that you've basically stated that it had nothing to do with the team anyway, how can you say that last bit?

If the roles were reversed, I feel that Ferrari would have just asked Kimi to let Vettel through, and Kimi would have been too happy to oblige. None of this giving the place back stuff. Vettel would not have had to "ask for a go" like Lewis did. Lewis asked because he knows that Mercedes was not going to ask Bottas that. But Mercedes was asking Bottas to speed it up before the position was given back to him. I feel they would have been totally fine if Lewis did not give the position back.

The situations were different at Ferrari and Mercedes, though. Bottas was one mechanical retirement away from leapfrogging Hamilton in the WDC, while Kimi was already well out of the running with just over half his team mate's points tally. So yes, I reckon Ferrari may well have asked Kimi to move over, if all else was equal, but probably not if Kimi had been in the position Bottas was at the time.

it's easier to give a driver preferential treatment if he's the only one in the title hunt. Doesn't mean that would be the same in every situation

It's a shame that McLaren did not take that stance in 2012 but I digress somewhat.

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: Based on..?

Well I'm looking at Bottas' 1 year contract for starters, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

doesn't Kimi always get short deals, too?

He does. But the context is different. It's unclear when Kimi will be ready to call it a day and leave, but it's something that is definitely on the horizon. Valteri is looking at the opportunity to win his first title, and is only at the beginning of his career at the top.
From the teams' point of view, I find Ferrari's single year contract for Kimi easier to understand than Mercedes's hesitation with Valteri. Who would they like to replace him with, assuming they will do everything in their power to retain Lewis?

Yes I'd agree with you that there are differences in their situations. But both teams aren't committing to a driver who hasn't shown himself to be the best, so in that respect it's the same. If Bottas suddenly starts showing himself to be a match for Lewis, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't be given a longer contract. But he's not exactly setting the world alight, really. I can understand them holding out for e.g. Ricciardo, if there's a chance he will become available. That is no different to the Ferrari situation

You think that if Bottas doesn't perform this year if he will be retained by Mercedes like we see year after year with Kimi?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:Well I'm looking at Bottas' 1 year contract for starters, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

doesn't Kimi always get short deals, too?

He does. But the context is different. It's unclear when Kimi will be ready to call it a day and leave, but it's something that is definitely on the horizon. Valteri is looking at the opportunity to win his first title, and is only at the beginning of his career at the top.
From the teams' point of view, I find Ferrari's single year contract for Kimi easier to understand than Mercedes's hesitation with Valteri. Who would they like to replace him with, assuming they will do everything in their power to retain Lewis?

Yes I'd agree with you that there are differences in their situations. But both teams aren't committing to a driver who hasn't shown himself to be the best, so in that respect it's the same. If Bottas suddenly starts showing himself to be a match for Lewis, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't be given a longer contract. But he's not exactly setting the world alight, really. I can understand them holding out for e.g. Ricciardo, if there's a chance he will become available. That is no different to the Ferrari situation

You think that if Bottas doesn't perform this year if he will be retained by Mercedes like we see year after year with Kimi?

I think that depends entirely on who might be available for his seat. In that respect, they are no different to Ferrari.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:He does. But the context is different. It's unclear when Kimi will be ready to call it a day and leave, but it's something that is definitely on the horizon. Valteri is looking at the opportunity to win his first title, and is only at the beginning of his career at the top.
From the teams' point of view, I find Ferrari's single year contract for Kimi easier to understand than Mercedes's hesitation with Valteri. Who would they like to replace him with, assuming they will do everything in their power to retain Lewis?

Yes I'd agree with you that there are differences in their situations. But both teams aren't committing to a driver who hasn't shown himself to be the best, so in that respect it's the same. If Bottas suddenly starts showing himself to be a match for Lewis, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't be given a longer contract. But he's not exactly setting the world alight, really. I can understand them holding out for e.g. Ricciardo, if there's a chance he will become available. That is no different to the Ferrari situation

You think that if Bottas doesn't perform this year if he will be retained by Mercedes like we see year after year with Kimi?

I think that depends entirely on who might be available for his seat. In that respect, they are no different to Ferrari.

I think it's going to depend on Mercedes' performance as much as anything. If they're over half a second clear of the rest, Bottas can afford to be three/four tenths off Hamilton on average and still be finishing P2. He'd pick up a few wins when Hamilton hits trouble, and I dare say the odd weekend where he's actually quicker for whatever reason. Do that, helping Mercedes to another WCC in the process, and I can't see him being dropped. Particularly if the harmony within the team continues.

On the other hand, if it is pretty close at the front - perhaps where only a few tenths separate the front three teams - then if Bottas is that same three/four tenths behind Hamilton there are going to be plenty of weekends where Hamilton could be winning races but Bottas has a Ferrari and a Red Bull (or two) ahead of him. A season like that and I think he'll be in real danger of getting dropped, particularly if those points he gives away are the difference between Mercedes retaining the WCC and actually losing it. Although it's also going to depend on how Ocon is performing because if Perez is outpacing him, that's only going to help Bottas. (Not that I actually think that will happen because Ocon's biggest weakness was qualifying, and once he started getting faster on Saturday he was, more often than not, ahead of Perez).

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote: doesn't Kimi always get short deals, too?

He does. But the context is different. It's unclear when Kimi will be ready to call it a day and leave, but it's something that is definitely on the horizon. Valteri is looking at the opportunity to win his first title, and is only at the beginning of his career at the top.
From the teams' point of view, I find Ferrari's single year contract for Kimi easier to understand than Mercedes's hesitation with Valteri. Who would they like to replace him with, assuming they will do everything in their power to retain Lewis?

Yes I'd agree with you that there are differences in their situations. But both teams aren't committing to a driver who hasn't shown himself to be the best, so in that respect it's the same. If Bottas suddenly starts showing himself to be a match for Lewis, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't be given a longer contract. But he's not exactly setting the world alight, really. I can understand them holding out for e.g. Ricciardo, if there's a chance he will become available. That is no different to the Ferrari situation

You think that if Bottas doesn't perform this year if he will be retained by Mercedes like we see year after year with Kimi?

I think that depends entirely on who might be available for his seat. In that respect, they are no different to Ferrari.

So why did Ferrari never sign the Hulk a driver who was first choice for Mercedes to replace Rosberg, Ferrari have history for being happy to have weaker second drivers.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:Yes I'd agree with you that there are differences in their situations. But both teams aren't committing to a driver who hasn't shown himself to be the best, so in that respect it's the same. If Bottas suddenly starts showing himself to be a match for Lewis, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't be given a longer contract. But he's not exactly setting the world alight, really. I can understand them holding out for e.g. Ricciardo, if there's a chance he will become available. That is no different to the Ferrari situation

You think that if Bottas doesn't perform this year if he will be retained by Mercedes like we see year after year with Kimi?

I think that depends entirely on who might be available for his seat. In that respect, they are no different to Ferrari.

So why did Ferrari never sign the Hulk a driver who was first choice for Mercedes to replace Rosberg, Ferrari have history for being happy to have weaker second drivers.

Because they clearly didn't rate him that highly?

Jenson's Understeer wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:He does. But the context is different. It's unclear when Kimi will be ready to call it a day and leave, but it's something that is definitely on the horizon. Valteri is looking at the opportunity to win his first title, and is only at the beginning of his career at the top.
From the teams' point of view, I find Ferrari's single year contract for Kimi easier to understand than Mercedes's hesitation with Valteri. Who would they like to replace him with, assuming they will do everything in their power to retain Lewis?

Yes I'd agree with you that there are differences in their situations. But both teams aren't committing to a driver who hasn't shown himself to be the best, so in that respect it's the same. If Bottas suddenly starts showing himself to be a match for Lewis, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't be given a longer contract. But he's not exactly setting the world alight, really. I can understand them holding out for e.g. Ricciardo, if there's a chance he will become available. That is no different to the Ferrari situation

You think that if Bottas doesn't perform this year if he will be retained by Mercedes like we see year after year with Kimi?

I think that depends entirely on who might be available for his seat. In that respect, they are no different to Ferrari.

I think it's going to depend on Mercedes' performance as much as anything. If they're over half a second clear of the rest, Bottas can afford to be three/four tenths off Hamilton on average and still be finishing P2. He'd pick up a few wins when Hamilton hits trouble, and I dare say the odd weekend where he's actually quicker for whatever reason. Do that, helping Mercedes to another WCC in the process, and I can't see him being dropped. Particularly if the harmony within the team continues.

On the other hand, if it is pretty close at the front - perhaps where only a few tenths separate the front three teams - then if Bottas is that same three/four tenths behind Hamilton there are going to be plenty of weekends where Hamilton could be winning races but Bottas has a Ferrari and a Red Bull (or two) ahead of him. A season like that and I think he'll be in real danger of getting dropped, particularly if those points he gives away are the difference between Mercedes retaining the WCC and actually losing it. Although it's also going to depend on how Ocon is performing because if Perez is outpacing him, that's only going to help Bottas. (Not that I actually think that will happen because Ocon's biggest weakness was qualifying, and once he started getting faster on Saturday he was, more often than not, ahead of Perez).

yes I think you're spot on here

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Zoue wrote: Given that you've basically stated that it had nothing to do with the team anyway, how can you say that last bit?

If the roles were reversed, I feel that Ferrari would have just asked Kimi to let Vettel through, and Kimi would have been too happy to oblige. None of this giving the place back stuff. Vettel would not have had to "ask for a go" like Lewis did. Lewis asked because he knows that Mercedes was not going to ask Bottas that. But Mercedes was asking Bottas to speed it up before the position was given back to him. I feel they would have been totally fine if Lewis did not give the position back.

The situations were different at Ferrari and Mercedes, though. Bottas was one mechanical retirement away from leapfrogging Hamilton in the WDC, while Kimi was already well out of the running with just over half his team mate's points tally. So yes, I reckon Ferrari may well have asked Kimi to move over, if all else was equal, but probably not if Kimi had been in the position Bottas was at the time.

it's easier to give a driver preferential treatment if he's the only one in the title hunt. Doesn't mean that would be the same in every situation

It's a shame that McLaren did not take that stance in 2012 but I digress somewhat.

McLaren's issues in 2012 were reliability. Nothing to do with team orders, or lack of them

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:Indeed Kimi starts his 5th straight season at Ferrari this year, if Bottas performs at the level that Kimi has these past 4 years then he's out the door.

Based on..?

Well I'm looking at Bottas' 1 year contract for starters, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

doesn't Kimi always get short deals, too?

Older sportsman tend to get short deals unless they are seen as being special plus Ferrari have form for re-employing under performing drivers, Bottas is the only driver in his age group on a 1 year contract and like I said that unlike Ferrari I believe he has to perform to stay with Mercedes.

You don't really have anything to back this up, though. Bottas is also the only underperforming driver in his age group in a front-running car. Context is key.

Fact is Bottas hasn't really done anything to demonstrate that he's the best choice for the seat in the long term. Both Ferrari and Mercedes could be said to be holding out for a top driver

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:Yes I'd agree with you that there are differences in their situations. But both teams aren't committing to a driver who hasn't shown himself to be the best, so in that respect it's the same. If Bottas suddenly starts showing himself to be a match for Lewis, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't be given a longer contract. But he's not exactly setting the world alight, really. I can understand them holding out for e.g. Ricciardo, if there's a chance he will become available. That is no different to the Ferrari situation

You think that if Bottas doesn't perform this year if he will be retained by Mercedes like we see year after year with Kimi?

I think that depends entirely on who might be available for his seat. In that respect, they are no different to Ferrari.

So why did Ferrari never sign the Hulk a driver who was first choice for Mercedes to replace Rosberg, Ferrari have history for being happy to have weaker second drivers.

Because they clearly didn't rate him that highly?

Well that's one way how you keep under performing drivers year after year, it's strange how apparently half the grid would be good enough to replace Bottas.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:You think that if Bottas doesn't perform this year if he will be retained by Mercedes like we see year after year with Kimi?

I think that depends entirely on who might be available for his seat. In that respect, they are no different to Ferrari.

So why did Ferrari never sign the Hulk a driver who was first choice for Mercedes to replace Rosberg, Ferrari have history for being happy to have weaker second drivers.

Because they clearly didn't rate him that highly?

Well that's one way how you keep under performing drivers year after year, it's strange how apparently half the grid would be good enough to replace Bottas.

according to who?

Zoue wrote:

Jenson's Understeer wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: Yes I'd agree with you that there are differences in their situations. But both teams aren't committing to a driver who hasn't shown himself to be the best, so in that respect it's the same. If Bottas suddenly starts showing himself to be a match for Lewis, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't be given a longer contract. But he's not exactly setting the world alight, really. I can understand them holding out for e.g. Ricciardo, if there's a chance he will become available. That is no different to the Ferrari situation

You think that if Bottas doesn't perform this year if he will be retained by Mercedes like we see year after year with Kimi?

I think that depends entirely on who might be available for his seat. In that respect, they are no different to Ferrari.

I think it's going to depend on Mercedes' performance as much as anything. If they're over half a second clear of the rest, Bottas can afford to be three/four tenths off Hamilton on average and still be finishing P2. He'd pick up a few wins when Hamilton hits trouble, and I dare say the odd weekend where he's actually quicker for whatever reason. Do that, helping Mercedes to another WCC in the process, and I can't see him being dropped. Particularly if the harmony within the team continues.

On the other hand, if it is pretty close at the front - perhaps where only a few tenths separate the front three teams - then if Bottas is that same three/four tenths behind Hamilton there are going to be plenty of weekends where Hamilton could be winning races but Bottas has a Ferrari and a Red Bull (or two) ahead of him. A season like that and I think he'll be in real danger of getting dropped, particularly if those points he gives away are the difference between Mercedes retaining the WCC and actually losing it. Although it's also going to depend on how Ocon is performing because if Perez is outpacing him, that's only going to help Bottas. (Not that I actually think that will happen because Ocon's biggest weakness was qualifying, and once he started getting faster on Saturday he was, more often than not, ahead of Perez).

yes I think you're spot on here

Whilst Kimi keeps his seat despite losing points to the Red Bull drivers.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Jenson's Understeer wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:You think that if Bottas doesn't perform this year if he will be retained by Mercedes like we see year after year with Kimi?

I think that depends entirely on who might be available for his seat. In that respect, they are no different to Ferrari.

I think it's going to depend on Mercedes' performance as much as anything. If they're over half a second clear of the rest, Bottas can afford to be three/four tenths off Hamilton on average and still be finishing P2. He'd pick up a few wins when Hamilton hits trouble, and I dare say the odd weekend where he's actually quicker for whatever reason. Do that, helping Mercedes to another WCC in the process, and I can't see him being dropped. Particularly if the harmony within the team continues.

On the other hand, if it is pretty close at the front - perhaps where only a few tenths separate the front three teams - then if Bottas is that same three/four tenths behind Hamilton there are going to be plenty of weekends where Hamilton could be winning races but Bottas has a Ferrari and a Red Bull (or two) ahead of him. A season like that and I think he'll be in real danger of getting dropped, particularly if those points he gives away are the difference between Mercedes retaining the WCC and actually losing it. Although it's also going to depend on how Ocon is performing because if Perez is outpacing him, that's only going to help Bottas. (Not that I actually think that will happen because Ocon's biggest weakness was qualifying, and once he started getting faster on Saturday he was, more often than not, ahead of Perez).

yes I think you're spot on here

Whilst Kimi keeps his seat despite losing points to the Red Bull drivers.

But he does tend to hang on by a thread, so it's not like he has a safe seat. It's a least debatable whether there have been any superior drivers available.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Jenson's Understeer wrote:I think it's going to depend on Mercedes' performance as much as anything. If they're over half a second clear of the rest, Bottas can afford to be three/four tenths off Hamilton on average and still be finishing P2. He'd pick up a few wins when Hamilton hits trouble, and I dare say the odd weekend where he's actually quicker for whatever reason. Do that, helping Mercedes to another WCC in the process, and I can't see him being dropped. Particularly if the harmony within the team continues.

On the other hand, if it is pretty close at the front - perhaps where only a few tenths separate the front three teams - then if Bottas is that same three/four tenths behind Hamilton there are going to be plenty of weekends where Hamilton could be winning races but Bottas has a Ferrari and a Red Bull (or two) ahead of him. A season like that and I think he'll be in real danger of getting dropped, particularly if those points he gives away are the difference between Mercedes retaining the WCC and actually losing it. Although it's also going to depend on how Ocon is performing because if Perez is outpacing him, that's only going to help Bottas. (Not that I actually think that will happen because Ocon's biggest weakness was qualifying, and once he started getting faster on Saturday he was, more often than not, ahead of Perez).

yes I think you're spot on here

Whilst Kimi keeps his seat despite losing points to the Red Bull drivers.

But he does tend to hang on by a thread, so it's not like he has a safe seat. It's a least debatable whether there have been any superior drivers available.

I've honestly given up trying to predict whether Ferrari will retain Kimi or not. The case for dropping him was there in three of the past four seasons: 2014, 2015 and 2017. 2016 was the only year in which he was close enough to his teammate to justify being kept on. Yet they did exactly that each year.

I actually wonder if Seb winning the title would be what results in Kimi getting dropped as winning the WDC seems to be their ultimate goal. Which is odd because as a team you'd think the WCC would be the target, but it can't be when they continue to retain Kimi knowing he's going to cost them a significant number of points.

It's interesting that everyone including the drivers appears to think Red Bull will be serious title contenders this year, while many pessimists seem to think Ferrari will be punted down to third in the Constructors Championship.

Renault themselves though don't think they have an engine that can compete with Mercedes, and have been saying they need more steady results in the championships before they will commit the resources necessary to really challenge the undisputed champions.

It's going to be fascinating to see how Red Bull perform in Australia but I think they are being over-hyped by the media.

I hope Ferrari can give Seb a car to show what he can do in a fair fight with Hamilton. But most of the Ferrari fans (on other sites) are so negative it is depressing me into thinking maybe they are right and the team are going nowhere this year. Apparently the new car guzzles fuel at an alarming rate, and while it might be lighter on tyre wear, if its going through fuel quickly then that's going to seriously hamper how hard the drivers can push it.

I'm trying to remain optimistic about Ferrari because we haven't seen a real race yet. I think we can all agree F1 desperately needs a new winner and some real competition between teams to make it exciting again. I hope this is the year.

MasterRacer wrote:It's interesting that everyone including the drivers appears to think Red Bull will be serious title contenders this year, while many pessimists seem to think Ferrari will be punted down to third in the Constructors Championship.

Renault themselves though don't think they have an engine that can compete with Mercedes, and have been saying they need more steady results in the championships before they will commit the resources necessary to really challenge the undisputed champions.

It's going to be fascinating to see how Red Bull perform in Australia but I think they are being over-hyped by the media.

I hope Ferrari can give Seb a car to show what he can do in a fair fight with Hamilton. But most of the Ferrari fans (on other sites) are so negative it is depressing me into thinking maybe they are right and the team are going nowhere this year. Apparently the new car guzzles fuel at an alarming rate, and while it might be lighter on tyre wear, if its going through fuel quickly then that's going to seriously hamper how hard the drivers can push it.

I'm trying to remain optimistic about Ferrari because we haven't seen a real race yet. I think we can all agree F1 desperately needs a new winner and some real competition between teams to make it exciting again. I hope this is the year.

I am not sure how to read into the Ferrari situation.. They made a decent step forward last year, but the real question surrounds how much of that was to do with the oil burning fiasco. If you remove that element, do they return to a 2016 spec Power-Unit? I doubt it, if Mercedes redesigned as much of their engine as rumored for this season to not only enable power gains, but to meet the reliability requirements of making 3 units last 21 races; you would have to presume that Ferrari have done the same. This is where they maybe have gone wrong in the design. I have tried to find an interview with Seb (I think it was Autosport or Craig Slater from Sky Sports F1), where he was asked about the relative lack of pace in the Ferrari compared to the Mercedes long-runs. I believe Seb shrugged it off as following their own programme and the usual 'its testing'. He also pointed to the Mercedes not running the softer compounds, so testing is all irrelevant until Qualifying in Melbourne and the Race when we will see where the teams are I guess.

I personally dont see Red Bull qualifying ahead of Mercedes, but I think they will be there or thereabouts at the majority of races. If Mercedes are chewing up there softer tyres or are susceptible to set-up issues at the usual tracks again like the past 3 years, the Bulls will be there..

I know personally that this seems like the shortest off-season in my life, and I am genuinely excited for this weekend. I support Lewis, but I would love to see a season long battle again instead of domination.

M44 wrote:

MasterRacer wrote:It's interesting that everyone including the drivers appears to think Red Bull will be serious title contenders this year, while many pessimists seem to think Ferrari will be punted down to third in the Constructors Championship.

Renault themselves though don't think they have an engine that can compete with Mercedes, and have been saying they need more steady results in the championships before they will commit the resources necessary to really challenge the undisputed champions.

It's going to be fascinating to see how Red Bull perform in Australia but I think they are being over-hyped by the media.

I hope Ferrari can give Seb a car to show what he can do in a fair fight with Hamilton. But most of the Ferrari fans (on other sites) are so negative it is depressing me into thinking maybe they are right and the team are going nowhere this year. Apparently the new car guzzles fuel at an alarming rate, and while it might be lighter on tyre wear, if its going through fuel quickly then that's going to seriously hamper how hard the drivers can push it.

I'm trying to remain optimistic about Ferrari because we haven't seen a real race yet. I think we can all agree F1 desperately needs a new winner and some real competition between teams to make it exciting again. I hope this is the year.

I am not sure how to read into the Ferrari situation.. They made a decent step forward last year, but the real question surrounds how much of that was to do with the oil burning fiasco. If you remove that element, do they return to a 2016 spec Power-Unit? I doubt it, if Mercedes redesigned as much of their engine as rumored for this season to not only enable power gains, but to meet the reliability requirements of making 3 units last 21 races; you would have to presume that Ferrari have done the same. This is where they maybe have gone wrong in the design. I have tried to find an interview with Seb (I think it was Autosport or Craig Slater from Sky Sports F1), where he was asked about the relative lack of pace in the Ferrari compared to the Mercedes long-runs. I believe Seb shrugged it off as following their own programme and the usual 'its testing'. He also pointed to the Mercedes not running the softer compounds, so testing is all irrelevant until Qualifying in Melbourne and the Race when we will see where the teams are I guess.

I personally dont see Red Bull qualifying ahead of Mercedes, but I think they will be there or thereabouts at the majority of races. If Mercedes are chewing up there softer tyres or are susceptible to set-up issues at the usual tracks again like the past 3 years, the Bulls will be there..

I know personally that this seems like the shortest off-season in my life, and I am genuinely excited for this weekend. I support Lewis, but I would love to see a season long battle again instead of domination.

Yes there are legitimate concerns Ferrari is behind in development/have unresolved issues, but it's all uneasy speculation until we see how they run in Australia. The Ferrari fans I follow all seem to be much more nervous than normal this year, and that nervousness is now rubbing off on me.

I have to say Seb doesn't appear overwhelmingly confident in interviews about his prospects of a fifth WDC this year. He did make some valid arguments about people commenting on the analysis of test data, but it feels like Ferrari are hoping more than believing at this stage that everything will be ok. Hoping is not a good place to be, especially given Mercedes recent dominance. We have to expect them to be very good, but Ferrari needs to be even better.

If Ferrari really have screwed things up, then I'll hope we'll at least see the Red Bull drivers competing aggressively with Mercedes. I don't want the two Mercedes drivers squabbling on their own for the title.

I am genuinely excited too, and I can't wait for even the first practice session haha!

MasterRacer wrote:

M44 wrote:

MasterRacer wrote:It's interesting that everyone including the drivers appears to think Red Bull will be serious title contenders this year, while many pessimists seem to think Ferrari will be punted down to third in the Constructors Championship.

Renault themselves though don't think they have an engine that can compete with Mercedes, and have been saying they need more steady results in the championships before they will commit the resources necessary to really challenge the undisputed champions.

It's going to be fascinating to see how Red Bull perform in Australia but I think they are being over-hyped by the media.

I hope Ferrari can give Seb a car to show what he can do in a fair fight with Hamilton. But most of the Ferrari fans (on other sites) are so negative it is depressing me into thinking maybe they are right and the team are going nowhere this year. Apparently the new car guzzles fuel at an alarming rate, and while it might be lighter on tyre wear, if its going through fuel quickly then that's going to seriously hamper how hard the drivers can push it.

I'm trying to remain optimistic about Ferrari because we haven't seen a real race yet. I think we can all agree F1 desperately needs a new winner and some real competition between teams to make it exciting again. I hope this is the year.

I am not sure how to read into the Ferrari situation.. They made a decent step forward last year, but the real question surrounds how much of that was to do with the oil burning fiasco. If you remove that element, do they return to a 2016 spec Power-Unit? I doubt it, if Mercedes redesigned as much of their engine as rumored for this season to not only enable power gains, but to meet the reliability requirements of making 3 units last 21 races; you would have to presume that Ferrari have done the same. This is where they maybe have gone wrong in the design. I have tried to find an interview with Seb (I think it was Autosport or Craig Slater from Sky Sports F1), where he was asked about the relative lack of pace in the Ferrari compared to the Mercedes long-runs. I believe Seb shrugged it off as following their own programme and the usual 'its testing'. He also pointed to the Mercedes not running the softer compounds, so testing is all irrelevant until Qualifying in Melbourne and the Race when we will see where the teams are I guess.

I personally dont see Red Bull qualifying ahead of Mercedes, but I think they will be there or thereabouts at the majority of races. If Mercedes are chewing up there softer tyres or are susceptible to set-up issues at the usual tracks again like the past 3 years, the Bulls will be there..

I know personally that this seems like the shortest off-season in my life, and I am genuinely excited for this weekend. I support Lewis, but I would love to see a season long battle again instead of domination.

Yes there are legitimate concerns Ferrari is behind in development/have unresolved issues, but it's all uneasy speculation until we see how they run in Australia. The Ferrari fans I follow all seem to be much more nervous than normal this year, and that nervousness is now rubbing off on me.

I have to say Seb doesn't appear overwhelmingly confident in interviews about his prospects of a fifth WDC this year. He did make some valid arguments about people commenting on the analysis of test data, but it feels like Ferrari are hoping more than believing at this stage that everything will be ok. Hoping is not a good place to be, especially given Mercedes recent dominance. We have to expect them to be very good, but Ferrari needs to be even better.

If Ferrari really have screwed things up, then I'll hope we'll at least see the Red Bull drivers competing aggressively with Mercedes. I don't want the two Mercedes drivers squabbling on their own for the title.

I am genuinely excited too, and I can't wait for even the first practice session haha!

What might happen is that Merc might have a slight but clear advantage that allows Hamilton to qualify on pole then control the race from the front, while Ferrari and Redbull are so close in performance that Vettel, Ricciardo and Verstappen just cannibalise each other allowing Hamilton to have a clear run at the title, like Vettel 2011 and 2013.

bonecrasher wrote:

MasterRacer wrote:

M44 wrote:

MasterRacer wrote:It's interesting that everyone including the drivers appears to think Red Bull will be serious title contenders this year, while many pessimists seem to think Ferrari will be punted down to third in the Constructors Championship.

Renault themselves though don't think they have an engine that can compete with Mercedes, and have been saying they need more steady results in the championships before they will commit the resources necessary to really challenge the undisputed champions.

It's going to be fascinating to see how Red Bull perform in Australia but I think they are being over-hyped by the media.

I hope Ferrari can give Seb a car to show what he can do in a fair fight with Hamilton. But most of the Ferrari fans (on other sites) are so negative it is depressing me into thinking maybe they are right and the team are going nowhere this year. Apparently the new car guzzles fuel at an alarming rate, and while it might be lighter on tyre wear, if its going through fuel quickly then that's going to seriously hamper how hard the drivers can push it.

I'm trying to remain optimistic about Ferrari because we haven't seen a real race yet. I think we can all agree F1 desperately needs a new winner and some real competition between teams to make it exciting again. I hope this is the year.

I am not sure how to read into the Ferrari situation.. They made a decent step forward last year, but the real question surrounds how much of that was to do with the oil burning fiasco. If you remove that element, do they return to a 2016 spec Power-Unit? I doubt it, if Mercedes redesigned as much of their engine as rumored for this season to not only enable power gains, but to meet the reliability requirements of making 3 units last 21 races; you would have to presume that Ferrari have done the same. This is where they maybe have gone wrong in the design. I have tried to find an interview with Seb (I think it was Autosport or Craig Slater from Sky Sports F1), where he was asked about the relative lack of pace in the Ferrari compared to the Mercedes long-runs. I believe Seb shrugged it off as following their own programme and the usual 'its testing'. He also pointed to the Mercedes not running the softer compounds, so testing is all irrelevant until Qualifying in Melbourne and the Race when we will see where the teams are I guess.

I personally dont see Red Bull qualifying ahead of Mercedes, but I think they will be there or thereabouts at the majority of races. If Mercedes are chewing up there softer tyres or are susceptible to set-up issues at the usual tracks again like the past 3 years, the Bulls will be there..

I know personally that this seems like the shortest off-season in my life, and I am genuinely excited for this weekend. I support Lewis, but I would love to see a season long battle again instead of domination.

Yes there are legitimate concerns Ferrari is behind in development/have unresolved issues, but it's all uneasy speculation until we see how they run in Australia. The Ferrari fans I follow all seem to be much more nervous than normal this year, and that nervousness is now rubbing off on me.

I have to say Seb doesn't appear overwhelmingly confident in interviews about his prospects of a fifth WDC this year. He did make some valid arguments about people commenting on the analysis of test data, but it feels like Ferrari are hoping more than believing at this stage that everything will be ok. Hoping is not a good place to be, especially given Mercedes recent dominance. We have to expect them to be very good, but Ferrari needs to be even better.

If Ferrari really have screwed things up, then I'll hope we'll at least see the Red Bull drivers competing aggressively with Mercedes. I don't want the two Mercedes drivers squabbling on their own for the title.

I am genuinely excited too, and I can't wait for even the first practice session haha!

What might happen is that Merc might have a slight but clear advantage that allows Hamilton to qualify on pole then control the race from the front, while Ferrari and Redbull are so close in performance that Vettel, Ricciardo and Verstappen just cannibalise each other allowing Hamilton to have a clear run at the title, like Vettel 2011 and 2013.

I personally see this as the status quo going into Australia this weekend. I think that the Mercedes has at least 0.3 in Qualifying over the Ferrari - and I think there race pace is at least the same.

A little over 58 hours to go until FP1 starts. Im not counting honest.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

kleefton wrote:

Zoue wrote: Given that you've basically stated that it had nothing to do with the team anyway, how can you say that last bit?

If the roles were reversed, I feel that Ferrari would have just asked Kimi to let Vettel through, and Kimi would have been too happy to oblige. None of this giving the place back stuff. Vettel would not have had to "ask for a go" like Lewis did. Lewis asked because he knows that Mercedes was not going to ask Bottas that. But Mercedes was asking Bottas to speed it up before the position was given back to him. I feel they would have been totally fine if Lewis did not give the position back.

The situations were different at Ferrari and Mercedes, though. Bottas was one mechanical retirement away from leapfrogging Hamilton in the WDC, while Kimi was already well out of the running with just over half his team mate's points tally. So yes, I reckon Ferrari may well have asked Kimi to move over, if all else was equal, but probably not if Kimi had been in the position Bottas was at the time.

it's easier to give a driver preferential treatment if he's the only one in the title hunt. Doesn't mean that would be the same in every situation

It's a shame that McLaren did not take that stance in 2012 but I digress somewhat.

McLaren's issues in 2012 were reliability. Nothing to do with team orders, or lack of them

They clearly didn't back the WDC leader Hamilton in the way that Ferrari backed Vettel which I would be guessing is one reason why Hamilton chose to leave?