planetf1.com

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote: There's been a few different responses to the possibility of Dan joining. All long winded and all focused on Dan staying exactly where he is.

Those alone obviously didn't illicit a post from me about not wanting to face Dan but that was the impression it left, I'd be lying if I said otherwise. This Marko comment along with it and Lauda saying they've made no contact with Dan was what done it but it's obviously just my opinion on some pretty random comments to be fair so I should've worded it better.

Well like I've already posted Hamilton doesn't fear not being able to beat Ricciardo but the cosy situation Vettel has at Ferrari.

Could well be, your entitled to your opinion of course but the specifics of why he'd want to block, if that was the case, wasn't really the point.

Still it's supposition, has Bottas really driven that badly to be dropped, he's certainly out performing Kimi, maybe that's what Hamilton thinks as well although the question he is asked is specifically about Ricciardo and he gives what appears to be a honest answer that then allows people to jump to certain conclusions because he doesn't seem to be welcoming Ricciardo with open arms.

Whereas when Vettel is asked about Ricciardo he says he wouldn't mind him as a teammate whilst we hear stories that in the background he is campaigning yet again for Kimi to be retained so the overview is that it's Ferrari that doesn't want Ricciardo whilst at Mercedes it's Hamilton that doesn't want him.

No my overview would be the same on that front, everyone at both Mercedes and Ferrari want the status quo. And I can see the sense in why too of course.

If you think it's Mercedes then what does it matter what Hamilton might think or not?

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Well like I've already posted Hamilton doesn't fear not being able to beat Ricciardo but the cosy situation Vettel has at Ferrari.

Could well be, your entitled to your opinion of course but the specifics of why he'd want to block, if that was the case, wasn't really the point.

Still it's supposition, has Bottas really driven that badly to be dropped, he's certainly out performing Kimi, maybe that's what Hamilton thinks as well although the question he is asked is specifically about Ricciardo and he gives what appears to be a honest answer that then allows people to jump to certain conclusions because he doesn't seem to be welcoming Ricciardo with open arms.

Whereas when Vettel is asked about Ricciardo he says he wouldn't mind him as a teammate whilst we hear stories that in the background he is campaigning yet again for Kimi to be retained so the overview is that it's Ferrari that doesn't want Ricciardo whilst at Mercedes it's Hamilton that doesn't want him.

No my overview would be the same on that front, everyone at both Mercedes and Ferrari want the status quo. And I can see the sense in why too of course.

If you think it's Mercedes then what does it matter what Hamilton might think or not?

Because no-one else is talking publicly about other drivers using vetoes on other drivers, so obviously if he was himself doing it privately I'd be disappointed as he's made such a fuss about this kind of thing.

I think Mercedes are on the same page as Ferrari, I'm not claiming it's the drivers having the final say or anything if that's what it came across like.

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: None of the top 3 teams are interested in Alonso with talk of past histories with 2 of them.

And Ricciardo....

Well Red Bull at least are and he was getting more of a mention than Alonso.

And was Vettel pursued by Merc last year and is Hamilton being pursued by Ferrari and Red Bull this year?

If not, along with the fact that both Merc and Ferrari have had numerous opportunities to upgrade drivers, you have to wonder of the reason Alonso not getting hired by them is because of a decade old feud or because both Vettel and Hamilton refuse to have another cock in the hen house.

Vettel and Wolff were in contact with one another before the 2017 season, confirmed by Hamilton.

In respect to Hamilton he doesn't want Alonso at Mercedes but would clearly love to go up against Vettel, in respect to Ricciardo he's aware of Vettel's situation at Ferrari with respect to Kimi so having what many believe to be a stronger driver than Bottas weakens Hamilton in respect to beating Vettel.

I don't think it's at all clear that he'd love to go up against Vettel. Comments in a press conference can't be taken as gospel, it's not as though contracts are negotiated in public and he could just as easily be needling Vettel for psychological points.

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote: Could well be, your entitled to your opinion of course but the specifics of why he'd want to block, if that was the case, wasn't really the point.

Still it's supposition, has Bottas really driven that badly to be dropped, he's certainly out performing Kimi, maybe that's what Hamilton thinks as well although the question he is asked is specifically about Ricciardo and he gives what appears to be a honest answer that then allows people to jump to certain conclusions because he doesn't seem to be welcoming Ricciardo with open arms.

Whereas when Vettel is asked about Ricciardo he says he wouldn't mind him as a teammate whilst we hear stories that in the background he is campaigning yet again for Kimi to be retained so the overview is that it's Ferrari that doesn't want Ricciardo whilst at Mercedes it's Hamilton that doesn't want him.

No my overview would be the same on that front, everyone at both Mercedes and Ferrari want the status quo. And I can see the sense in why too of course.

If you think it's Mercedes then what does it matter what Hamilton might think or not?

Because no-one else is talking publicly about other drivers using vetoes on other drivers, so obviously if he was himself doing it privately I'd be disappointed as he's made such a fuss about this kind of thing.

I think Mercedes are on the same page as Ferrari, I'm not claiming it's the drivers having the final say or anything if that's what it came across like.

Hamilton doesn't have a veto, he didn't want Alonso at Mercedes but but he couldn't have stopped it happening, drivers with vetos don't have the need to express who they don't want or make negative overtones, they may in fact say that they wouldn't mind having a certain driver knowing it's never going to happen.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote: And Ricciardo....

Well Red Bull at least are and he was getting more of a mention than Alonso.

And was Vettel pursued by Merc last year and is Hamilton being pursued by Ferrari and Red Bull this year?

If not, along with the fact that both Merc and Ferrari have had numerous opportunities to upgrade drivers, you have to wonder of the reason Alonso not getting hired by them is because of a decade old feud or because both Vettel and Hamilton refuse to have another cock in the hen house.

Vettel and Wolff were in contact with one another before the 2017 season, confirmed by Hamilton.

In respect to Hamilton he doesn't want Alonso at Mercedes but would clearly love to go up against Vettel, in respect to Ricciardo he's aware of Vettel's situation at Ferrari with respect to Kimi so having what many believe to be a stronger driver than Bottas weakens Hamilton in respect to beating Vettel.

I don't think it's at all clear that he'd love to go up against Vettel. Comments in a press conference can't be taken as gospel, it's not as though contracts are negotiated in public and he could just as easily be needling Vettel for psychological points.

So when he said he didn't want Alonso at Mercedes he was out psyching himself?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Well Red Bull at least are and he was getting more of a mention than Alonso.

And was Vettel pursued by Merc last year and is Hamilton being pursued by Ferrari and Red Bull this year?

If not, along with the fact that both Merc and Ferrari have had numerous opportunities to upgrade drivers, you have to wonder of the reason Alonso not getting hired by them is because of a decade old feud or because both Vettel and Hamilton refuse to have another cock in the hen house.

Vettel and Wolff were in contact with one another before the 2017 season, confirmed by Hamilton.

In respect to Hamilton he doesn't want Alonso at Mercedes but would clearly love to go up against Vettel, in respect to Ricciardo he's aware of Vettel's situation at Ferrari with respect to Kimi so having what many believe to be a stronger driver than Bottas weakens Hamilton in respect to beating Vettel.

I don't think it's at all clear that he'd love to go up against Vettel. Comments in a press conference can't be taken as gospel, it's not as though contracts are negotiated in public and he could just as easily be needling Vettel for psychological points.

So when he said he didn't want Alonso at Mercedes he was out psyching himself?

No idea what he was doing. The point was simply that you can't take it as gospel just because Hamilton mentions it in a press conference. He talks about Vettel's veto, for example, when there's no way he could possibly know about the contents of another driver's contract. Public announcements should always be taken with an open mind

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Still it's supposition, has Bottas really driven that badly to be dropped, he's certainly out performing Kimi, maybe that's what Hamilton thinks as well although the question he is asked is specifically about Ricciardo and he gives what appears to be a honest answer that then allows people to jump to certain conclusions because he doesn't seem to be welcoming Ricciardo with open arms.

Whereas when Vettel is asked about Ricciardo he says he wouldn't mind him as a teammate whilst we hear stories that in the background he is campaigning yet again for Kimi to be retained so the overview is that it's Ferrari that doesn't want Ricciardo whilst at Mercedes it's Hamilton that doesn't want him.

No my overview would be the same on that front, everyone at both Mercedes and Ferrari want the status quo. And I can see the sense in why too of course.

If you think it's Mercedes then what does it matter what Hamilton might think or not?

Because no-one else is talking publicly about other drivers using vetoes on other drivers, so obviously if he was himself doing it privately I'd be disappointed as he's made such a fuss about this kind of thing.

I think Mercedes are on the same page as Ferrari, I'm not claiming it's the drivers having the final say or anything if that's what it came across like.

Hamilton doesn't have a veto, he didn't want Alonso at Mercedes but but he couldn't have stopped it happening, drivers with vetos don't have the need to express who they don't want or make negative overtones, they may in fact say that they wouldn't mind having a certain driver knowing it's never going to happen.

and yet you've talked about Vettel's veto in the past. Double standard, perhaps?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote: And was Vettel pursued by Merc last year and is Hamilton being pursued by Ferrari and Red Bull this year?

If not, along with the fact that both Merc and Ferrari have had numerous opportunities to upgrade drivers, you have to wonder of the reason Alonso not getting hired by them is because of a decade old feud or because both Vettel and Hamilton refuse to have another cock in the hen house.

Vettel and Wolff were in contact with one another before the 2017 season, confirmed by Hamilton.

In respect to Hamilton he doesn't want Alonso at Mercedes but would clearly love to go up against Vettel, in respect to Ricciardo he's aware of Vettel's situation at Ferrari with respect to Kimi so having what many believe to be a stronger driver than Bottas weakens Hamilton in respect to beating Vettel.

I don't think it's at all clear that he'd love to go up against Vettel. Comments in a press conference can't be taken as gospel, it's not as though contracts are negotiated in public and he could just as easily be needling Vettel for psychological points.

So when he said he didn't want Alonso at Mercedes he was out psyching himself?

No idea what he was doing. The point was simply that you can't take it as gospel just because Hamilton mentions it in a press conference. He talks about Vettel's veto, for example, when there's no way he could possibly know about the contents of another driver's contract. Public announcements should always be taken with an open mind

So we can't take it as gospel anything that Hamilton says about other drivers including Ricciardo?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote: No my overview would be the same on that front, everyone at both Mercedes and Ferrari want the status quo. And I can see the sense in why too of course.

If you think it's Mercedes then what does it matter what Hamilton might think or not?

Because no-one else is talking publicly about other drivers using vetoes on other drivers, so obviously if he was himself doing it privately I'd be disappointed as he's made such a fuss about this kind of thing.

I think Mercedes are on the same page as Ferrari, I'm not claiming it's the drivers having the final say or anything if that's what it came across like.

Hamilton doesn't have a veto, he didn't want Alonso at Mercedes but but he couldn't have stopped it happening, drivers with vetos don't have the need to express who they don't want or make negative overtones, they may in fact say that they wouldn't mind having a certain driver knowing it's never going to happen.

and yet you've talked about Vettel's veto in the past. Double standard, perhaps?

I never seen anyone in the paddock say that Hamilton has a veto, I have about Vettel though.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
And was Vettel pursued by Merc last year and is Hamilton being pursued by Ferrari and Red Bull this year?

If not, along with the fact that both Merc and Ferrari have had numerous opportunities to upgrade drivers, you have to wonder of the reason Alonso not getting hired by them is because of a decade old feud or because both Vettel and Hamilton refuse to have another cock in the hen house.

Vettel and Wolff were in contact with one another before the 2017 season, confirmed by Hamilton.

In respect to Hamilton he doesn't want Alonso at Mercedes but would clearly love to go up against Vettel, in respect to Ricciardo he's aware of Vettel's situation at Ferrari with respect to Kimi so having what many believe to be a stronger driver than Bottas weakens Hamilton in respect to beating Vettel.

I don't think it's at all clear that he'd love to go up against Vettel. Comments in a press conference can't be taken as gospel, it's not as though contracts are negotiated in public and he could just as easily be needling Vettel for psychological points.

So when he said he didn't want Alonso at Mercedes he was out psyching himself?

No idea what he was doing. The point was simply that you can't take it as gospel just because Hamilton mentions it in a press conference. He talks about Vettel's veto, for example, when there's no way he could possibly know about the contents of another driver's contract. Public announcements should always be taken with an open mind

Course there is. They people in the paddock do talk to each other you know. Unlikely that they get into the details of a contract maybe, but it is easily possible.

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Still it's supposition, has Bottas really driven that badly to be dropped, he's certainly out performing Kimi, maybe that's what Hamilton thinks as well although the question he is asked is specifically about Ricciardo and he gives what appears to be a honest answer that then allows people to jump to certain conclusions because he doesn't seem to be welcoming Ricciardo with open arms.

Whereas when Vettel is asked about Ricciardo he says he wouldn't mind him as a teammate whilst we hear stories that in the background he is campaigning yet again for Kimi to be retained so the overview is that it's Ferrari that doesn't want Ricciardo whilst at Mercedes it's Hamilton that doesn't want him.

No my overview would be the same on that front, everyone at both Mercedes and Ferrari want the status quo. And I can see the sense in why too of course.

If you think it's Mercedes then what does it matter what Hamilton might think or not?

Because no-one else is talking publicly about other drivers using vetoes on other drivers, so obviously if he was himself doing it privately I'd be disappointed as he's made such a fuss about this kind of thing.

I think Mercedes are on the same page as Ferrari, I'm not claiming it's the drivers having the final say or anything if that's what it came across like.

Hamilton doesn't have a veto, he didn't want Alonso at Mercedes but but he couldn't have stopped it happening, drivers with vetos don't have the need to express who they don't want or make negative overtones, they may in fact say that they wouldn't mind having a certain driver knowing it's never going to happen.

None of the drivers have a veto as far as I'm aware. Why would any team give that sort of power to a driver? There would be little point having a driver academy for a start as the driver in question could just nix any talent you brought forward.

Drivers of that calibre are $40m investments, so I'd imagine yes they are consulted and can have opinions that are taken on board, the teams are heavily invested in keeping them operating at the level they paid for after all. I don't think any of them have the power to single-handedly block a driver but I do think their input is considered and I don't see why that wouldn't be the case for both Lewis and Seb.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:and yet you've talked about Vettel's veto in the past. Double standard, perhaps?

I never seen anyone in the paddock say that Hamilton has a veto, I have about Vettel though.

People in the paddock say a lot of crap. Until it's ever confirmed that any driver had/has a veto - or there's demonstrable evidence that they used one - how about we stop stating it as fact that they do?

Hamilton hasn't been joined by a driver he feels threatened by as a teammate, and neither has Vettel. There's equal reason to think the same of both of them, based only on direct evidence.

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:
No my overview would be the same on that front, everyone at both Mercedes and Ferrari want the status quo. And I can see the sense in why too of course.

If you think it's Mercedes then what does it matter what Hamilton might think or not?

Because no-one else is talking publicly about other drivers using vetoes on other drivers, so obviously if he was himself doing it privately I'd be disappointed as he's made such a fuss about this kind of thing.

I think Mercedes are on the same page as Ferrari, I'm not claiming it's the drivers having the final say or anything if that's what it came across like.

Hamilton doesn't have a veto, he didn't want Alonso at Mercedes but but he couldn't have stopped it happening, drivers with vetos don't have the need to express who they don't want or make negative overtones, they may in fact say that they wouldn't mind having a certain driver knowing it's never going to happen.

None of the drivers have a veto as far as I'm aware. Why would any team give that sort of power to a driver? There would be little point having a driver academy for a start as the driver in question could just nix any talent you brought forward.

Drivers of that calibre are $40m investments, so I'd imagine yes they are consulted and can have opinions that are taken on board, the teams are heavily invested in keeping them operating at the level they paid for after all. I don't think any of them have the power to single-handedly block a driver but I do think their input is considered and I don't see why that wouldn't be the case for both Lewis and Seb.

Herb wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: I don't think it's at all clear that he'd love to go up against Vettel. Comments in a press conference can't be taken as gospel, it's not as though contracts are negotiated in public and he could just as easily be needling Vettel for psychological points.

So when he said he didn't want Alonso at Mercedes he was out psyching himself?

No idea what he was doing. The point was simply that you can't take it as gospel just because Hamilton mentions it in a press conference. He talks about Vettel's veto, for example, when there's no way he could possibly know about the contents of another driver's contract. Public announcements should always be taken with an open mind

Course there is. They people in the paddock do talk to each other you know. Unlikely that they get into the details of a contract maybe, but it is easily possible.

Gossip is not the same as knowledge.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: Vettel and Wolff were in contact with one another before the 2017 season, confirmed by Hamilton.

In respect to Hamilton he doesn't want Alonso at Mercedes but would clearly love to go up against Vettel, in respect to Ricciardo he's aware of Vettel's situation at Ferrari with respect to Kimi so having what many believe to be a stronger driver than Bottas weakens Hamilton in respect to beating Vettel.

I don't think it's at all clear that he'd love to go up against Vettel. Comments in a press conference can't be taken as gospel, it's not as though contracts are negotiated in public and he could just as easily be needling Vettel for psychological points.

So when he said he didn't want Alonso at Mercedes he was out psyching himself?

No idea what he was doing. The point was simply that you can't take it as gospel just because Hamilton mentions it in a press conference. He talks about Vettel's veto, for example, when there's no way he could possibly know about the contents of another driver's contract. Public announcements should always be taken with an open mind

So we can't take it as gospel anything that Hamilton says about other drivers including Ricciardo?

It's not Hamilton specifically. I don't we can take anything as gospel from what drivers or TPs say when discussing things like contracts or driver lineups. They don't negotiate these things in public

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote: If you think it's Mercedes then what does it matter what Hamilton might think or not?

Because no-one else is talking publicly about other drivers using vetoes on other drivers, so obviously if he was himself doing it privately I'd be disappointed as he's made such a fuss about this kind of thing.

I think Mercedes are on the same page as Ferrari, I'm not claiming it's the drivers having the final say or anything if that's what it came across like.

Hamilton doesn't have a veto, he didn't want Alonso at Mercedes but but he couldn't have stopped it happening, drivers with vetos don't have the need to express who they don't want or make negative overtones, they may in fact say that they wouldn't mind having a certain driver knowing it's never going to happen.

and yet you've talked about Vettel's veto in the past. Double standard, perhaps?

I never seen anyone in the paddock say that Hamilton has a veto, I have about Vettel though.

and we're back to rumour being fact?

Zoue wrote:

Herb wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: I don't think it's at all clear that he'd love to go up against Vettel. Comments in a press conference can't be taken as gospel, it's not as though contracts are negotiated in public and he could just as easily be needling Vettel for psychological points.

So when he said he didn't want Alonso at Mercedes he was out psyching himself?

No idea what he was doing. The point was simply that you can't take it as gospel just because Hamilton mentions it in a press conference. He talks about Vettel's veto, for example, when there's no way he could possibly know about the contents of another driver's contract. Public announcements should always be taken with an open mind

Course there is. They people in the paddock do talk to each other you know. Unlikely that they get into the details of a contract maybe, but it is easily possible.

Gossip is not the same as knowledge.

I'm not arguing it is. Take your strawman elsewhere.

I'm pointing out you have no idea what it's possible for people to know. Vettel could have told Hamilton he has a veto over a beer in Monaco. Maybe unlikely, but Its entirely possible.

Herb wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Herb wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:So when he said he didn't want Alonso at Mercedes he was out psyching himself?

No idea what he was doing. The point was simply that you can't take it as gospel just because Hamilton mentions it in a press conference. He talks about Vettel's veto, for example, when there's no way he could possibly know about the contents of another driver's contract. Public announcements should always be taken with an open mind

Course there is. They people in the paddock do talk to each other you know. Unlikely that they get into the details of a contract maybe, but it is easily possible.

Gossip is not the same as knowledge.

I'm not arguing it is. Take your strawman elsewhere.

I'm pointing out you have no idea what it's possible for people to know. Vettel could have told Hamilton he has a veto over a beer in Monaco. Maybe unlikely, but Its entirely possible.

It's not a strawman when it directly answers the point being made. Possible misinterpretation maybe, but nothing else.

People talking to each other doesn't mean they are sitting down in contract discussions. And even in the highly unlikely scenario that Driver A brags about a veto to Driver B, unless he sees the contract itself then he has no way of knowing whether it's an idle boast or not, which in turn makes it little better than gossip. So yes, I'm fairly confident that there's no way the contents of a driver's contract would be truly known by another and I stand by what I said.

Of course, if we're really going to get stuck on semantics then I suppose it's possible that Hamilton could have hacked Vettel's emails and found out that way, but I should have thought it's clear that I'm talking about non-illegal means.

Zoue wrote:

Herb wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Herb wrote:

Zoue wrote: No idea what he was doing. The point was simply that you can't take it as gospel just because Hamilton mentions it in a press conference. He talks about Vettel's veto, for example, when there's no way he could possibly know about the contents of another driver's contract. Public announcements should always be taken with an open mind

Course there is. They people in the paddock do talk to each other you know. Unlikely that they get into the details of a contract maybe, but it is easily possible.

Gossip is not the same as knowledge.

I'm not arguing it is. Take your strawman elsewhere.

I'm pointing out you have no idea what it's possible for people to know. Vettel could have told Hamilton he has a veto over a beer in Monaco. Maybe unlikely, but Its entirely possible.

It's not a strawman when it directly answers the point being made. Possible misinterpretation maybe, but nothing else.

People talking to each other doesn't mean they are sitting down in contract discussions. And even in the highly unlikely scenario that Driver A brags about a veto to Driver B, unless he sees the contract itself then he has no way of knowing whether it's an idle boast or not, which in turn makes it little better than gossip. So yes, I'm fairly confident that there's no way the contents of a driver's contract would be truly known by another and I stand by what I said.

Of course, if we're really going to get stuck on semantics then I suppose it's possible that Hamilton could have hacked Vettel's emails and found out that way, but I should have thought it's clear that I'm talking about non-illegal means.

Good - glad you accept that you were wrong and it's possible that Hamilton knows about a veto. Glad we cleared that up.

Herb wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Herb wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Herb wrote:
Course there is. They people in the paddock do talk to each other you know. Unlikely that they get into the details of a contract maybe, but it is easily possible.

Gossip is not the same as knowledge.

I'm not arguing it is. Take your strawman elsewhere.

I'm pointing out you have no idea what it's possible for people to know. Vettel could have told Hamilton he has a veto over a beer in Monaco. Maybe unlikely, but Its entirely possible.

It's not a strawman when it directly answers the point being made. Possible misinterpretation maybe, but nothing else.

People talking to each other doesn't mean they are sitting down in contract discussions. And even in the highly unlikely scenario that Driver A brags about a veto to Driver B, unless he sees the contract itself then he has no way of knowing whether it's an idle boast or not, which in turn makes it little better than gossip. So yes, I'm fairly confident that there's no way the contents of a driver's contract would be truly known by another and I stand by what I said.

Of course, if we're really going to get stuck on semantics then I suppose it's possible that Hamilton could have hacked Vettel's emails and found out that way, but I should have thought it's clear that I'm talking about non-illegal means.

Good - glad you accept that you were wrong and it's possible that Hamilton knows about a veto. Glad we cleared that up.

If you don't mind me butting in, I find it somewhat impossible (improbable if you want) that someone talks about his contract to others. People are not opening their personal details. I do not know what people talk about in your profession Herb, but I have never discussed anything like that with any colleagues ever. Nor do they come to talk about their contracts.

Maybe a driver can get cocky and say "you know I got veto powers in my contract boy", but I find it unlikely with Hamilton and Vettel. I can't see them two buying each other beers!

Siao7 wrote:

Herb wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Herb wrote:

Zoue wrote: Gossip is not the same as knowledge.

I'm not arguing it is. Take your strawman elsewhere.

I'm pointing out you have no idea what it's possible for people to know. Vettel could have told Hamilton he has a veto over a beer in Monaco. Maybe unlikely, but Its entirely possible.

It's not a strawman when it directly answers the point being made. Possible misinterpretation maybe, but nothing else.

People talking to each other doesn't mean they are sitting down in contract discussions. And even in the highly unlikely scenario that Driver A brags about a veto to Driver B, unless he sees the contract itself then he has no way of knowing whether it's an idle boast or not, which in turn makes it little better than gossip. So yes, I'm fairly confident that there's no way the contents of a driver's contract would be truly known by another and I stand by what I said.

Of course, if we're really going to get stuck on semantics then I suppose it's possible that Hamilton could have hacked Vettel's emails and found out that way, but I should have thought it's clear that I'm talking about non-illegal means.

Good - glad you accept that you were wrong and it's possible that Hamilton knows about a veto. Glad we cleared that up.

If you don't mind me butting in, I find it somewhat impossible (improbable if you want) that someone talks about his contract to others. People are not opening their personal details. I do not know what people talk about in your profession Herb, but I have never discussed anything like that with any colleagues ever. Nor do they come to talk about their contracts.

Maybe a driver can get cocky and say "you know I got veto powers in my contract boy", but I find it unlikely with Hamilton and Vettel. I can't see them two buying each other beers!

Yeh - we discuss our contracts quite regularly. I agree its very, very unlikely - but the point I'm making is it is possible. Zoue likes to dismiss some things Hamilton says as a lie. With no evidence to back that up.

Herb wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Herb wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Herb wrote: Course there is. They people in the paddock do talk to each other you know. Unlikely that they get into the details of a contract maybe, but it is easily possible.

Gossip is not the same as knowledge.

I'm not arguing it is. Take your strawman elsewhere.

I'm pointing out you have no idea what it's possible for people to know. Vettel could have told Hamilton he has a veto over a beer in Monaco. Maybe unlikely, but Its entirely possible.

It's not a strawman when it directly answers the point being made. Possible misinterpretation maybe, but nothing else.

People talking to each other doesn't mean they are sitting down in contract discussions. And even in the highly unlikely scenario that Driver A brags about a veto to Driver B, unless he sees the contract itself then he has no way of knowing whether it's an idle boast or not, which in turn makes it little better than gossip. So yes, I'm fairly confident that there's no way the contents of a driver's contract would be truly known by another and I stand by what I said.

Of course, if we're really going to get stuck on semantics then I suppose it's possible that Hamilton could have hacked Vettel's emails and found out that way, but I should have thought it's clear that I'm talking about non-illegal means.

Good - glad you accept that you were wrong and it's possible that Hamilton knows about a veto. Glad we cleared that up.

My, aren't we feisty today? To reiterate, no, I don't think it's possible that Hamilton knows for sure about the content of Vettel's contract, no matter how childish you want to get.

Herb wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Herb wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Herb wrote: I'm not arguing it is. Take your strawman elsewhere.

I'm pointing out you have no idea what it's possible for people to know. Vettel could have told Hamilton he has a veto over a beer in Monaco. Maybe unlikely, but Its entirely possible.

It's not a strawman when it directly answers the point being made. Possible misinterpretation maybe, but nothing else.

People talking to each other doesn't mean they are sitting down in contract discussions. And even in the highly unlikely scenario that Driver A brags about a veto to Driver B, unless he sees the contract itself then he has no way of knowing whether it's an idle boast or not, which in turn makes it little better than gossip. So yes, I'm fairly confident that there's no way the contents of a driver's contract would be truly known by another and I stand by what I said.

Of course, if we're really going to get stuck on semantics then I suppose it's possible that Hamilton could have hacked Vettel's emails and found out that way, but I should have thought it's clear that I'm talking about non-illegal means.

Good - glad you accept that you were wrong and it's possible that Hamilton knows about a veto. Glad we cleared that up.

If you don't mind me butting in, I find it somewhat impossible (improbable if you want) that someone talks about his contract to others. People are not opening their personal details. I do not know what people talk about in your profession Herb, but I have never discussed anything like that with any colleagues ever. Nor do they come to talk about their contracts.

Maybe a driver can get cocky and say "you know I got veto powers in my contract boy", but I find it unlikely with Hamilton and Vettel. I can't see them two buying each other beers!

Yeh - we discuss our contracts quite regularly. I agree its very, very unlikely - but the point I'm making is it is possible. Zoue likes to dismiss some things Hamilton says as a lie. With no evidence to back that up.

Well, given that Vettel quite clearly said "I don't" when Hamilton stated that he had a veto, one of them must be lying. And that alone gives as much evidence that Vettel doesn't have a veto as that he does. Which is pretty much none either way

Whether he does or not is to a certain extent immaterial. You'll note I also said "It's not Hamilton specifically. I don't we can take anything as gospel from what drivers or TPs say when discussing things like contracts or driver lineups. They don't negotiate these things in public" So sorry to disappoint you that's it's nothing to do with Hamilton per se, but more about the gullibility of individuals who lap up every utterance as some kind of indisputable fact, when it's anything but.

Herb wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Herb wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Herb wrote:
I'm not arguing it is. Take your strawman elsewhere.

I'm pointing out you have no idea what it's possible for people to know. Vettel could have told Hamilton he has a veto over a beer in Monaco. Maybe unlikely, but Its entirely possible.

It's not a strawman when it directly answers the point being made. Possible misinterpretation maybe, but nothing else.

People talking to each other doesn't mean they are sitting down in contract discussions. And even in the highly unlikely scenario that Driver A brags about a veto to Driver B, unless he sees the contract itself then he has no way of knowing whether it's an idle boast or not, which in turn makes it little better than gossip. So yes, I'm fairly confident that there's no way the contents of a driver's contract would be truly known by another and I stand by what I said.

Of course, if we're really going to get stuck on semantics then I suppose it's possible that Hamilton could have hacked Vettel's emails and found out that way, but I should have thought it's clear that I'm talking about non-illegal means.

Good - glad you accept that you were wrong and it's possible that Hamilton knows about a veto. Glad we cleared that up.

If you don't mind me butting in, I find it somewhat impossible (improbable if you want) that someone talks about his contract to others. People are not opening their personal details. I do not know what people talk about in your profession Herb, but I have never discussed anything like that with any colleagues ever. Nor do they come to talk about their contracts.

Maybe a driver can get cocky and say "you know I got veto powers in my contract boy", but I find it unlikely with Hamilton and Vettel. I can't see them two buying each other beers!

Yeh - we discuss our contracts quite regularly. I agree its very, very unlikely - but the point I'm making is it is possible. Zoue likes to dismiss some things Hamilton says as a lie. With no evidence to back that up.

You do? I find this remarkable. I wonder what industry you are working in. We never ever discuss contracts here, the moment you do the other person will go and ask for a raise! It is a bit of a taboo really.

Re. Hamilton, I think the whole thing escalated needlessly. It is true that Hamilton said this thing in the interview, but for me Hamilton is the master in these psyche games so it may well be that he is saying things to upset the other drivers. I also think that if Hamilton or any other driver (this is not a Hamilton thing) claims something then he should be the one backing it up, not the person calling him out on it to prove it.

If you talk about possibilities, yes, it is possible, but I do not think that these two drivers specifically talk a lot, let alone discuss their contracts. It is most likely mind games from Hamilton's side.

Not taking either side, but imagine Hamilton going to Toto and Niki and saying=

(Lewis) I don't want him in the team

Toto/Niki Ah, thats a shame.

(Lewis) Well?

Toto/Niki Well what?

(Lewis) Well what are you going to do about it?

I let you draw your own conclusions what should be here, but you can bet it would not be

Ok, we will send him away then

moby wrote:Not taking either side, but imagine Hamilton going to Toto and Niki and saying=

(Lewis) I don't want him in the team

Toto/Niki Ah, thats a shame.

(Lewis) Well?

Toto/Niki Well what?

(Lewis) Well what are you going to do about it?

I let you draw your own conclusions what should be here, but you can bet it would not be

Ok, we will send him away then

Actually, I honestly expect that they discuss any potential driver approaches with Hamilton before even making them, and as long as he's performing to expectations they would not put a driver in the team he didn't want.

Now if Hamilton is telling the truth and he wouldn't mind having Alonso or Max or Vettel alongside him, that wouldn't be an issue. But I can't imagine that they don't take the opinion of their star driver into account when deciding on his teammate.

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:and yet you've talked about Vettel's veto in the past. Double standard, perhaps?

I never seen anyone in the paddock say that Hamilton has a veto, I have about Vettel though.

People in the paddock say a lot of crap. Until it's ever confirmed that any driver had/has a veto - or there's demonstrable evidence that they used one - how about we stop stating it as fact that they do?

Hamilton hasn't been joined by a driver he feels threatened by as a teammate, and neither has Vettel. There's equal reason to think the same of both of them, based only on direct evidence.

A certain world champion called Jenson Button was signed to go up against Hamilton at McLaren, let's see a driver of that calibre ever get signed to go up against Vettel.

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:and yet you've talked about Vettel's veto in the past. Double standard, perhaps?

I never seen anyone in the paddock say that Hamilton has a veto, I have about Vettel though.

People in the paddock say a lot of crap. Until it's ever confirmed that any driver had/has a veto - or there's demonstrable evidence that they used one - how about we stop stating it as fact that they do?

Hamilton hasn't been joined by a driver he feels threatened by as a teammate, and neither has Vettel. There's equal reason to think the same of both of them, based only on direct evidence.

A certain world champion called Jenson Button was signed to go up against Hamilton at McLaren, let's see a driver of that calibre ever get signed to go up against Vettel.

What does that have to do with the potential existence of a veto?

Jeez guys. All this talk about vetoes is a complete waste of time. Life is too short guys. We don't know who has a veto nor do we know whether a veto has taken place. All that's going on in here is people wasting their precious time arguing about nothing.

Exediron wrote:

moby wrote:Not taking either side, but imagine Hamilton going to Toto and Niki and saying=

(Lewis) I don't want him in the team

Toto/Niki Ah, thats a shame.

(Lewis) Well?

Toto/Niki Well what?

(Lewis) Well what are you going to do about it?

I let you draw your own conclusions what should be here, but you can bet it would not be

Ok, we will send him away then

Actually, I honestly expect that they discuss any potential driver approaches with Hamilton before even making them, and as long as he's performing to expectations they would not put a driver in the team he didn't want.

Now if Hamilton is telling the truth and he wouldn't mind having Alonso or Max or Vettel alongside him, that wouldn't be an issue. But I can't imagine that they don't take the opinion of their star driver into account when deciding on his teammate.

I think the problems between Senna and Prost in 1988 at McLaren are still fresh in some peoples mind!

Exediron wrote:

moby wrote:Not taking either side, but imagine Hamilton going to Toto and Niki and saying=

(Lewis) I don't want him in the team

Toto/Niki Ah, thats a shame.

(Lewis) Well?

Toto/Niki Well what?

(Lewis) Well what are you going to do about it?

I let you draw your own conclusions what should be here, but you can bet it would not be

Ok, we will send him away then

Actually, I honestly expect that they discuss any potential driver approaches with Hamilton before even making them, and as long as he's performing to expectations they would not put a driver in the team he didn't want.

Now if Hamilton is telling the truth and he wouldn't mind having Alonso or Max or Vettel alongside him, that wouldn't be an issue. But I can't imagine that they don't take the opinion of their star driver into account when deciding on his teammate.

I agree with you except replace "he wouldn't mind having Alonso or Max or Vettel alongside him"
with " if he had a good reason not to want Alonso or Max or Vettel alongside him " and things like they would push me too close or beat me etc, would not be considered good reason.

It's a very slim chance, but I'm having my fingers crossed pretty much 24/7 that they'll put Leclerc in the Ferrari next year already. That guy is ridiculously quick.

Llotyhy wrote:It's a very slim chance, but I'm having my fingers crossed pretty much 24/7 that they'll put Leclerc in the Ferrari next year already. That guy is ridiculously quick.

He's definitely the real deal but I think Haas is the more likely destination. If he continues to impress, the Ferrari drive might be his in 2021.

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:Hamilton hasn't been joined by a driver he feels threatened by as a teammate, and neither has Vettel. There's equal reason to think the same of both of them, based only on direct evidence.

A certain world champion called Jenson Button was signed to go up against Hamilton at McLaren, let's see a driver of that calibre ever get signed to go up against Vettel.

Vettel is already teammates with a world champion...

I said that Hamilton hasn't been joined by a driver he feels threatened by, and I don't think Hamilton felt threatened by Button - any more than Alonso did when he moved to McLaren. Button was very good, but he didn't have that last bit that the Big Three have.

(BTW Vettel has been partnered by a driver of at least Button caliber and was beaten by him, but that wasn't at Ferrari so it's a bit beside the point)

I think if Red Bull can have good races in France and Austria, they'll stick with Renault. Even if it is just extending the contract for another year and continuing to evaluate Honda's progress with Toro Rosso. That'll result in Ricciardo staying with Red Bull, Kimi probably being retained by Ferrari (Leclerc is making a superb argument against that decision, though) and everything remaining static with the top four teams, and McLaren being the only team of the current top six in the WCC that might have a different line-up in 2019 should Alonso decide he's had enough.

Could still see some movement in the bottom four teams (Ferrari getting Leclerc in at Haas and Giovinazzi taking the empty seat at Sauber) and Toro Rosso probably dropping Hartley, if that hasn't already happened. But it seems like it could be a pretty boring 'silly season'. Then again all it needs is Ricciardo to end up at Ferrari and there would be a lot of changes...

This whole veto discussion is pretty pointless, regarding Hamilton. He is better than all the other drivers so I don't see why he would care who he has as a teammate. Vettel on the other hand has every reason to worry about who the other driver will be.

Ocon wrote:This whole veto discussion is pretty pointless, regarding Hamilton. He is better than all the other drivers so I don't see why he would care who he has as a teammate. Vettel on the other hand has every reason to worry about who the other driver will be.

That's what all drivers think. Why singling out Vettel as being worried?

Llotyhy wrote:It's a very slim chance, but I'm having my fingers crossed pretty much 24/7 that they'll put Leclerc in the Ferrari next year already. That guy is ridiculously quick.

Yep but it tends not to be Ferrari's way they are too cautious plus Vettel is supposedly canvassing for Ferrari to give Kimi one more year.

sandman1347 wrote:

Llotyhy wrote:It's a very slim chance, but I'm having my fingers crossed pretty much 24/7 that they'll put Leclerc in the Ferrari next year already. That guy is ridiculously quick.

He's definitely the real deal but I think Haas is the more likely destination. If he continues to impress, the Ferrari drive might be his in 2021.

No Haas have said they will keep Grosjean because of the loyalty he showed them when they first entered F1 whilst KMag seems to be safe as well, the moving of Ferrari engineers, or at least one prominent one for the time being, to Sauber points them to be Ferrari's B team, so Leclerc will run under that umbrella to perhaps be replaced in the future by Giovinazzi?

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:Hamilton hasn't been joined by a driver he feels threatened by as a teammate, and neither has Vettel. There's equal reason to think the same of both of them, based only on direct evidence.

A certain world champion called Jenson Button was signed to go up against Hamilton at McLaren, let's see a driver of that calibre ever get signed to go up against Vettel.

Vettel is already teammates with a world champion...

I said that Hamilton hasn't been joined by a driver he feels threatened by, and I don't think Hamilton felt threatened by Button - any more than Alonso did when he moved to McLaren. Button was very good, but he didn't have that last bit that the Big Three have.

(BTW Vettel has been partnered by a driver of at least Button caliber and was beaten by him, but that wasn't at Ferrari so it's a bit beside the point)

The world champion did not join Vettel at the team like Button at McLaren and Hamilton clearly had little say in the matter and was not particularly impressed by what he called the red carpet treatment that Button received upon joining the team.