planetf1.com

gregs51 wrote:Mercedes strategists got lucky today. Utter panic when they almost brought Lewis in and they didnt even have any tyres ready for Bottas just ahead of him. Doesn’t bode well for the rest of a close season.

No and double worse is that they called both cars in with no tyres ready, this is a serious problem, I'm sure Vowles is a talented engineer but is the job of strategist something that just got thrown in his lap?

There are certain people who are specialists in the field, a remember a Lady who is renowned for being good in this area but I'm not sure if that's not just a case of crunching numbers again?

Basically it seems to reliant on computers which are fine when given the time to plan ahead like Hamilton's strategy which worked superbly until the SC was called and then yet again it was shear panic, the radio messages to Hamilton were like the guys brain had turned to jelly.

It needs a Ross Brawn like figure who basically has the common sense or instinct to do what is right.

Flash2k11 wrote:

Lt. Drebin wrote:Hamilton yesterday: "To those who take joy in seeing other people fail or suffer, I feel for you.'"

His fans today: "Who cares, let's laugh at Vettel."

Literally not one person in here laughing at Vettel. Not one.

Agreed, I was gutted when I heard his radio message back to the pit. This entire 1/2 season is one of the best in the hybrid era. Luck, misfortune, self sacrifice, joy and deep sadness and that's just this race.

I must say, the Mercs in formation on the cool down lap was quite nice to see.

mcdo wrote:

Johnson wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:For a top driver going for a world championship Vettel simply makes too many mistakes. How many good results has he lost from errors over the last 2.5 years? It feels like a lot. If you're racing Hamilton in equal or near equal cars you can't afford to drop many points.

Hamilton has more off weekends, Vettel has more risky silly accidents. Hamilton has way more off weekends than Vettel has big costly errorrs but the actual points loss - some of Hamiltons off weekends only cost him 3-5 points each time. Even five of those a year is still less than probably what Vettel lost today.

I would agree with that. Neither driver has been driving superbly for me this year. Hamilton doesn't always show up, Vettel has the occasional clanger. It's a weird one when they're gunning for a Fangio- equalling 5th title

I think Hamilton has higher highs but lower lows, he's kind of more artistic and more temperamental, whereas Vettel comes across as more of a machine, in that respect it's strange to see the amount of mistakes Vettel does.

j man wrote:

Johnson wrote:

Gumption wrote: The myth was that is was a 'fabled' win - Hamilton drove great but Ferrari screwed over his only rival. It's interesting how you ignore the only part of the race in which Kimi and Hamilton had the same fuel and tires. If you define destroying Massa and Heikki as a 'fabled win', good for you.

Not a bad day then, finishing 150 seconds ahead of your only rival .

And lapping your team mate would generally indicate an above average performance.

Let's also not forget that his teammate managed a wet podium in 2007 in a midfield car.

Exediron wrote:

sidders wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote: That's true but worth pointing out that includes Monaco 2016 and there are also some other caveats such as Ricciardo being faster in the wet part of USA 2015 but falling away in the dry.

Impressive stat bit I do think it's a mix of Hamilton being a top driver and things falling into place outside of his control. I wouldn't necessarily take Hamilton over Verstappen, Alonso, Ricciardo or Vettel if I had a choice of one with a guaranteed wet race.

I would take Hamilton over any driver if the weather was guaranteed full wet. The wetter the conditions, the more he pulls away. Max seems to possibly have that same level of potential in the wet but you must be kidding with Alonso and Ricciardo. Neither is a wet weather specialist (especially not Daniel). Vettel has had some really strong results in the wet but with Lewis there are times where he is on a different planet. Qualifying at Monza last year and of course the fabled win at Silverstone in 2008 both come to mind.

Yep agree with this. I think I read an Andrew Benson article after last year's Singapore GP stating that Lewis did lap times that weren't possible according to Mercedes simulation. Not saying he would have won if Vettel hadn't crashed but just shows how good he is in the wet

I agree, but I'd also add Hulk to the list. He consistently has something extra when it's wet (although his real area of expertise is a mixed track, much like Button's was).

He seemed to thrive in the conditions yesterday.

Johnson wrote:If Vettel hadn’t of crashed, could Hamilton have still won. He had 17 lap fresher tyres, 2 compounds softer. He emerged 24 seconds behind Vettel,by the time Vettel crashed he was 12 seconds behind with 16 laps to go. I think he had a shot depending on how quickly he dispatched Raikkonen and Bottas.

Likewise, he was 2compounds softer and 14 laps fresher than Bottas and closed the gap from 16 down to 3 seconds laps. We were kind of robbed of an epic.

http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page ... 20Hamilton

http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page ... 20Hamilton

If we theorise that Vettel doesn't crash but manages to rejoin the track losing several seconds, I can't see how he doesn't win given his pace, sad in some ways people might put his win simply down to a SC and a team order given to a driver that actually benefited more from the SC.

TedStriker wrote:

Johnson wrote:If Vettel hadn’t of crashed, could Hamilton have still won. He had 17 lap fresher tyres, 2 compounds softer. He emerged 24 seconds behind Vettel,by the time Vettel crashed he was 12 seconds behind with 16 laps to go. I think he had a shot depending on how quickly he dispatched Raikkonen and Bottas.

Likewise, he was 2compounds softer and 14 laps fresher than Bottas and closed the gap from 16 down to 3 seconds laps. We were kind of robbed of an epic.

I would have loved to have seen a damp track fight between Seb and Lewis. Those conditions generally sort the men from the boys.

Well it kind of already did, Vettel crashed.

Exediron wrote:Speaking of Kimi's team radio, does anyone know what he said when Magnussen blocked him? I heard it as 'that leper blocked me', but I'd love to know if that's what he really said!

I thought he just said backmarker?

Merc haven’t learned anything from their strategy flaps. They got lucky today with a 1-2. Bottas stop was a shambles as well. Decision making is so haphazard. Bono’s radio transmission perfectly summing it up...

Seb was bullet proof - the rain was the worst thing that happened to him. Don’t think Lewis would have caught Seb but it would of been close. I think Seb was actually pulling away from Kimi quite easily when the track became slippy. Lewis was great today - the first stint was mega. Actually reminded me of his win 10 years back at Hockenheim when Macca made a bad strategy call and he had to pit from the lead after a safety car - he came out 4th or 5th and went on to overtake and win that day as well.

Kimi's radio transmission:
Jock Clear: So Kimi this is Jock. You are aware we need to look after tyres. Both cars need to look after tyres and you two are on different strategies. Your track strategies are slightly different and we’d like you not to hold up Seb. Thank you.
Kimi Raikkonen: I’m not sure what you mean. What do you want me to do?
Jock Clear: Losing as little time as possible, obviously, but when you can Seb is capable of going quicker but, er, he’s hurting his tyres and you are as well, we need to look after them.
Kimi Raikkonen: So you want me to let him go? Just tell me.




One of the announcers said, "2018 version of Fernando is faster than you" to Felipe Massa.

I have to wonder how much that chunk of front wing that Sebastian lost on lap 47 contributed to his losing traction and crashing. It couldn't have helped.

Mort Canard wrote:Kimi's radio transmission:
Jock Clear: So Kimi this is Jock. You are aware we need to look after tyres. Both cars need to look after tyres and you two are on different strategies. Your track strategies are slightly different and we’d like you not to hold up Seb. Thank you.
Kimi Raikkonen: I’m not sure what you mean. What do you want me to do?
Jock Clear: Losing as little time as possible, obviously, but when you can Seb is capable of going quicker but, er, he’s hurting his tyres and you are as well, we need to look after them.
Kimi Raikkonen: So you want me to let him go? Just tell me.




One of the announcers said, "2018 version of Fernando is faster than you" to Felipe Massa.

Ferrari called Kimi early simply to make sure he came ahead of Hamilton and finish ahead of him. But ironically Kimi was ahead of Vettel as well. So in a way it backfired lol. I thought Ferrari expected Vettel to overtake him on fresh tyres sooner or later. But Vettel constantly complaining about tyres forced them to tell Kimi on radio. Vettel just to prove he can go faster in fresh tyres was probably pushing too hard and once it rained he should have settle down. But I guess he was feeling little guilty and did not want to slow. I think that is what made him crash in the end. Had Vettel keep trying I should think he would have overtaken Kimi the way it is supposed to be done. There was no way Kimi tyres were going to last especially once it started to rain.

What was with the horn sounding with every light coming on at the start of the race? I was half expecting a high pitch one when they all went out, ala Mario Cart.

Thebusinessmuppet wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Greenman wrote:.

I don't think Hamilton should even have got a reprimand, HOWEVER, how is the fact that the incident happened under the safety car a "mitigating factor" ? Surely under a safety car means that everyone should be concentrating on driving very carefully and fully in accordance with the rules ?????

However, I do think that clip of the radio message was HILARIOUS !



.

I believe every driver should always concentrate on driving within the rules. Which is why I'm very surprised Hamilton gets off without even a penalty.

My only explanation is that the stewards did not want to create a maelstrom of ducks in penalizing Hamilton and taking away his win. The negative fallout would have been intense and this forum would have went into a meltdown.

Sadly this precisely why they have such a problems in first place. I said it few days or week ago after Kimi penalty, that they need consistency while applying penalties. Because with consistency nobody can say they favour or target anyone. When they start tinkering they shouldn't be surprised that a lot of people are unhappy and will be unhappy. There aren't any issues when driver is having grid penalty due to gearbox change for example because it's the same for everyone. What Hamilton did was as clear as gearbox change. He crossed line while entering pit lane and wasn't forced to do it in any way. It's not complicated, yet we have double standards because he won the race.

Exediron wrote:Speaking of Kimi's team radio, does anyone know what he said when Magnussen blocked him? I heard it as 'that leper blocked me', but I'd love to know if that's what he really said!

I think he said that lapper blocked me.

He was trying to pass Magnussen who was lapped.

Engine Penalties are black and white thats why stewards don’t get involved.
When it comes to collisions - exceeding track limits and crossing lines - that’s where they do their work .

In this case they looked at :
Mitigating circumstances- The Changeable weather and mis communication from the team ?
Did Hamilton gain an advantage? No it happened under the safety car and he may have lost time driving over the grass ?
Did he compromise another car on track ? No

A 5 second penalty would have penalised him - not the team (who would still have had a one-two)
So common sense did prevail here in my opinion

Comparing the two 'team orders' Vettel damaged his fresher tyres because that were too hot behind Kimi, he stayed there for several laps had a little Seb weep and got let through reluctantly.
Bottas on fresher tyres climbed all over Hamilton till told to drop back which he did almost immediately.

Not perfect comparisons but doesn't this seem to indicate that SV is losing his touch, he does seem to make definitive race ending mistakes nowadays.

Xink wrote:Engine Penalties are black and white thats why stewards don’t get involved.
When it comes to collisions - exceeding track limits and crossing lines - that’s where they do their work .

In this case they looked at :
Mitigating circumstances- The Changeable weather and mis communication from the team ?
Did Hamilton gain an advantage? No it happened under the safety car and he may have lost time driving over the grass ?
Did he compromise another car on track ? No

A 5 second penalty would have penalised him - not the team (who would still have had a one-two)
So common sense did prevail here in my opinion

Miscommunication isn't mitigating circumstance, in fact it should be penalised because any miscommunication like that can be dangerous. Frankly I don't really care what penalty he was given and I kinda agree with reprimand. What I want is just want some consistency. Stewards are dragging themselves in controversy by thinking too much about potential penalties. Why should be any potential advantage or loss taken into account? Even if the driver is fighting for WDC or win, he still shouldn't be treated differently. By not being consistent stewards create the controversy ever time driver like Vettel or Hamilton is being penalised. I agree some collisions are not easy, but regulations should be as clear as possible when it comes to penalties. Especially such a easy things like crossing the line or speeding in pitlane etc. We should know in advance what penalty will be. for such a simple mistakes like crossing lines. If penalising doesn't make any sense, the rule should be scrapped. They also need to communicate better with fans.

dizlexik wrote:

Thebusinessmuppet wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Greenman wrote:.

I don't think Hamilton should even have got a reprimand, HOWEVER, how is the fact that the incident happened under the safety car a "mitigating factor" ? Surely under a safety car means that everyone should be concentrating on driving very carefully and fully in accordance with the rules ?????

However, I do think that clip of the radio message was HILARIOUS !



.

I believe every driver should always concentrate on driving within the rules. Which is why I'm very surprised Hamilton gets off without even a penalty.

My only explanation is that the stewards did not want to create a maelstrom of ducks in penalizing Hamilton and taking away his win. The negative fallout would have been intense and this forum would have went into a meltdown.

Sadly this precisely why they have such a problems in first place. I said it few days or week ago after Kimi penalty, that they need consistency while applying penalties. Because with consistency nobody can say they favour or target anyone. When they start tinkering they shouldn't be surprised that a lot of people are unhappy and will be unhappy. There aren't any issues when driver is having grid penalty due to gearbox change for example because it's the same for everyone. What Hamilton did was as clear as gearbox change. He crossed line while entering pit lane and wasn't forced to do it in any way. It's not complicated, yet we have double standards because he won the race.

Incorrect. Changing a gearbox is covered by the regulations and thus receives a penalty. There is no regulation about crossing the white lines on either put entry or pit exit (and I just read through them to be sure) - in some races, there is a directive by race control not to cross some (either on pit entry, pit exit, or both) but this is on a case by case basis, and is only some when the exit or entry is on the racing line.

There was no such directive in this case. The only regulation that Hamilton infringed was regarding track limits. Given that it was under a safety car and no overtaking was allowed, he was near no other cars and not defending a position, giving anything other then a reprimand would have been crazy.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

dizlexik wrote:

Thebusinessmuppet wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Greenman wrote:.

I don't think Hamilton should even have got a reprimand, HOWEVER, how is the fact that the incident happened under the safety car a "mitigating factor" ? Surely under a safety car means that everyone should be concentrating on driving very carefully and fully in accordance with the rules ?????

However, I do think that clip of the radio message was HILARIOUS !



.

I believe every driver should always concentrate on driving within the rules. Which is why I'm very surprised Hamilton gets off without even a penalty.

My only explanation is that the stewards did not want to create a maelstrom of ducks in penalizing Hamilton and taking away his win. The negative fallout would have been intense and this forum would have went into a meltdown.

Sadly this precisely why they have such a problems in first place. I said it few days or week ago after Kimi penalty, that they need consistency while applying penalties. Because with consistency nobody can say they favour or target anyone. When they start tinkering they shouldn't be surprised that a lot of people are unhappy and will be unhappy. There aren't any issues when driver is having grid penalty due to gearbox change for example because it's the same for everyone. What Hamilton did was as clear as gearbox change. He crossed line while entering pit lane and wasn't forced to do it in any way. It's not complicated, yet we have double standards because he won the race.

Incorrect. Changing a gearbox is covered by the regulations and thus receives a penalty. There is no regulation about crossing the white lines on either put entry or pit exit (and I just read through them to be sure) - in some races, there is a directive by race control not to cross some (either on pit entry, pit exit, or both) but this is on a case by case basis, and is only some when the exit or entry is on the racing line.

There was no such directive in this case. The only regulation that Hamilton infringed was regarding track limits. Given that it was under a safety car and no overtaking was allowed, he was near no other cars and not defending a position, giving anything other then a reprimand would have been crazy.

I don't disagree with reprimand given to Hamilton. This was issue when Kimi was given just 5 seconds in 2016 and now when Hamilton was just given reprimand. So far everyone is just guessing what isn't helpful at all and destroys the sport. Stewards needs to do better job explaining the penalties to fans or/and just be more consistent.

To be clear why I mention fans. I do it because that sport exist in present form solely because of fans.

Raikkonen got the penalty in 2016 because he contravened a specific race directors event note in place for that weekend. No such directive was in place for this race (to my knowledge)

I think its a bit unfair to blame Mercedes for this confusion on strategy. This was a near impossible situation to be able to react to.

- Vettel went into the barrier whilst 10 seconds ahead of Bottas. 12 ahead of Hamilton

- It became apparent a SC might come out about 2 seconds later at which point Bottas was about 13-14 seconds from the pit entry.

- Vettel went off because the rain had increased in that part of the track and whilst the track was still better for slicks the rain had picked up.

- Mercedes decided, we pit the first car. That is a relatively simple decision even if you have just 13 seconds to make it. But what tyres to fit was very tricky.

- The decision to what to do with the second car is much trickier. So if Bottas pits and Kimi also pits is it best to leave Hamilton out? What if Kimi stays out?

- The decision is even harder because it wasn't a SC where a midfielder had just gone out. It was the leader and they just inherited the lead. If you a P2 you are happy to take a risk to try to win (exactly what Mercedes did with Bottas at Silverstone) when you are the leader your approach changes.

- With regards to Bottas, it was better to bring him into the box and have him sit there for 30 seconds to decide which tyres than do what Kimi did. Drive around at SC speeds for a lap and then pit. Hence Bottas still being ahead after both stopped. Bottas was going to rejoin in 2nd place if his pit stop was 3 seconds or 30 seconds. So it was actually smart by Mercedes to take there time to decide on the tyres.

The actual SC was called when Bottas was probably about 3-5 seconds from the pit entry. Its near impossible to make a decision and relay all information in this small 14 second time frame. They would literally have had to make the decision in 2-3 seconds and then coherently relay it to race engineers and then drivers. The Hamilton decision was too complex to analyse in this short time. If the track was dry you can say, they should know what to do immediately as they should be monitoring constantly what to do if a SC is called. But with the track half wet and half dry - no chance.

I think those gunning for a harsher penalty should think about it the other way. Would you still be happy with a 5 second penalty if he'd rejoined the track recklessly and caused a crash or heaven forbid injury/fatality? There has to be an element of punishment fitting the crime or every regulation breach would need a specific and non variable penalty assigned to it.

Just because some would have liked to have seen Lewis stacked behind Valtteri and losing positions doesn't mean the processes have to be modified.

Invade wrote:

I am not a Hamilton fan at all but a time penalty would have been stupid.

He broke some rules but didnt get an advantage. Slap some points on his license and fine the team, but altering the race results when he did nothing to gain an advantage would be wrong

Johnson wrote:I think its a bit unfair to blame Mercedes for this confusion on strategy. This was a near impossible situation to be able to react to.

- Vettel went into the barrier whilst 10 seconds ahead of Bottas. 12 ahead of Hamilton

- It became apparent a SC might come out about 2 seconds later at which point Bottas was about 13-14 seconds from the pit entry.

- Vettel went off because the rain had increased in that part of the track and whilst the track was still better for slicks the rain had picked up.

- Mercedes decided, we pit the first car. That is a relatively simple decision even if you have just 13 seconds to make it. But what tyres to fit was very tricky.

- The decision to what to do with the second car is much trickier. So if Bottas pits and Kimi also pits is it best to leave Hamilton out? What if Kimi stays out?

- The decision is even harder because it wasn't a SC where a midfielder had just gone out. It was the leader and they just inherited the lead. If you a P2 you are happy to take a risk to try to win (exactly what Mercedes did with Bottas at Silverstone) when you are the leader your approach changes.

- With regards to Bottas, it was better to bring him into the box and have him sit there for 30 seconds to decide which tyres than do what Kimi did. Drive around at SC speeds for a lap and then pit. Hence Bottas still being ahead after both stopped. Bottas was going to rejoin in 2nd place if his pit stop was 3 seconds or 30 seconds. So it was actually smart by Mercedes to take there time to decide on the tyres.

The actual SC was called when Bottas was probably about 3-5 seconds from the pit entry. Its near impossible to make a decision and relay all information in this small 14 second time frame. They would literally have had to make the decision in 2-3 seconds and then coherently relay it to race engineers and then drivers. The Hamilton decision was too complex to analyse in this short time. If the track was dry you can say, they should know what to do immediately as they should be monitoring constantly what to do if a SC is called. But with the track half wet and half dry - no chance.

I think you might be being a bit too generous. It' their job at the end of the day. Red Bull had about that much time in China to react to the SC and managed to ready tyres for both cars, stack them and communicate everything between themselves and their drivers clearly and concisely. Mercedes have been guilty of several strategic clangers this season, and there is definitely a vulnerability there. I acknowledge all the above were factors, these race engineers should know in their gut what to do at any given time - especially which tyre to be on. But they are only human so we can give them the BOTD this time and chalk it up seeing their rival in the barriers - that's sure to set the pulse racing when you know there is a chance to deal a significant points blow.

It has been mentioned several times by other forum posters, but the single strategist approach at Mercedes will inevitably create this sort of confusion and panic because 1 person has to think twice as fast for 2 cars. I doubt it's the last time we'll discuss before the season is out.

Exediron wrote:

sidders wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Something that gets overlooked. Hamilton has won just about every race that inters or wets have been used in since the start of 2014.

That's true but worth pointing out that includes Monaco 2016 and there are also some other caveats such as Ricciardo being faster in the wet part of USA 2015 but falling away in the dry.

Impressive stat bit I do think it's a mix of Hamilton being a top driver and things falling into place outside of his control. I wouldn't necessarily take Hamilton over Verstappen, Alonso, Ricciardo or Vettel if I had a choice of one with a guaranteed wet race.

I would take Hamilton over any driver if the weather was guaranteed full wet. The wetter the conditions, the more he pulls away. Max seems to possibly have that same level of potential in the wet but you must be kidding with Alonso and Ricciardo. Neither is a wet weather specialist (especially not Daniel). Vettel has had some really strong results in the wet but with Lewis there are times where he is on a different planet. Qualifying at Monza last year and of course the fabled win at Silverstone in 2008 both come to mind.

Yep agree with this. I think I read an Andrew Benson article after last year's Singapore GP stating that Lewis did lap times that weren't possible according to Mercedes simulation. Not saying he would have won if Vettel hadn't crashed but just shows how good he is in the wet

I agree, but I'd also add Hulk to the list. He consistently has something extra when it's wet (although his real area of expertise is a mixed track, much like Button's was).

I would say
1. Hamilton
2. Verstappen
3. Alonso, Vettel (until yesterday...), Hulkenberg or Stroll

Maybe add Ocon in there too

I don't think any other drivers come alive in the wet like those guys often do

Invade wrote:

Great snapshot. The one I'm most surprised by is Vettel not getting a penalty for crossing the pit exit line Monaco. That has been a major no-no since the 90's. And in Monaco of all places!

Invade wrote:

This snapshot is basically an apples vs oranges.

What was done in all listed above is different to what Hamilton did on Sunday.

Rockie wrote:

Invade wrote:

This snapshot is basically an apples vs oranges.

What was done in all listed above is different to what Hamilton did on Sunday.

How so?

Lojik wrote:

Rockie wrote:

Invade wrote:

This snapshot is basically an apples vs oranges.

What was done in all listed above is different to what Hamilton did on Sunday.

How so?

All the other drives were racing and crossed the line accidentally, none of them actually committed to pit lane entry and decided to bail out.

Rockie wrote:

Lojik wrote:

Rockie wrote:

Invade wrote:

This snapshot is basically an apples vs oranges.

What was done in all listed above is different to what Hamilton did on Sunday.

How so?

All the other drives were racing and crossed the line accidentally, none of them actually committed to pit lane entry and decided to bail out.

Have you checked?

Rockie wrote:

Invade wrote:

This snapshot is basically an apples vs oranges.

What was done in all listed above is different to what Hamilton did on Sunday.

OK, I'll bite. How so?

gregs51 wrote:

Johnson wrote:I think its a bit unfair to blame Mercedes for this confusion on strategy. This was a near impossible situation to be able to react to.

- Vettel went into the barrier whilst 10 seconds ahead of Bottas. 12 ahead of Hamilton

- It became apparent a SC might come out about 2 seconds later at which point Bottas was about 13-14 seconds from the pit entry.

- Vettel went off because the rain had increased in that part of the track and whilst the track was still better for slicks the rain had picked up.

- Mercedes decided, we pit the first car. That is a relatively simple decision even if you have just 13 seconds to make it. But what tyres to fit was very tricky.

- The decision to what to do with the second car is much trickier. So if Bottas pits and Kimi also pits is it best to leave Hamilton out? What if Kimi stays out?

- The decision is even harder because it wasn't a SC where a midfielder had just gone out. It was the leader and they just inherited the lead. If you a P2 you are happy to take a risk to try to win (exactly what Mercedes did with Bottas at Silverstone) when you are the leader your approach changes.

- With regards to Bottas, it was better to bring him into the box and have him sit there for 30 seconds to decide which tyres than do what Kimi did. Drive around at SC speeds for a lap and then pit. Hence Bottas still being ahead after both stopped. Bottas was going to rejoin in 2nd place if his pit stop was 3 seconds or 30 seconds. So it was actually smart by Mercedes to take there time to decide on the tyres.

The actual SC was called when Bottas was probably about 3-5 seconds from the pit entry. Its near impossible to make a decision and relay all information in this small 14 second time frame. They would literally have had to make the decision in 2-3 seconds and then coherently relay it to race engineers and then drivers. The Hamilton decision was too complex to analyse in this short time. If the track was dry you can say, they should know what to do immediately as they should be monitoring constantly what to do if a SC is called. But with the track half wet and half dry - no chance.

I think you might be being a bit too generous. It' their job at the end of the day. Red Bull had about that much time in China to react to the SC and managed to ready tyres for both cars, stack them and communicate everything between themselves and their drivers clearly and concisely. Mercedes have been guilty of several strategic clangers this season, and there is definitely a vulnerability there. I acknowledge all the above were factors, these race engineers should know in their gut what to do at any given time - especially which tyre to be on. But they are only human so we can give them the BOTD this time and chalk it up seeing their rival in the barriers - that's sure to set the pulse racing when you know there is a chance to deal a significant points blow.

It has been mentioned several times by other forum posters, but the single strategist approach at Mercedes will inevitably create this sort of confusion and panic because 1 person has to think twice as fast for 2 cars. I doubt it's the last time we'll discuss before the season is out.

China was not comapatable as the time frame was over 1 lap.
- it was dry
- Red Bull had nothing to lose running 3rd and 6th
- the debris was on track for well over a minute before the SC was called and the feeling was this will likely be a SC so they had ages to decide. They also got lucky in that the lead 2 had past entry by the time it was called.

Mercedes have made blunders this year, but this was not one of them.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Rockie wrote:
All the other drives were racing and crossed the line accidentally, none of them actually committed to pit lane entry and decided to bail out.

Have you checked?

Just from memory.

Sky had Cyril Abiteboul as their pit wall person for this race

I’m sorry Cyril, you spoke that fast I didn’t understand a single word of it

Rockie wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Rockie wrote:
All the other drives were racing and crossed the line accidentally, none of them actually committed to pit lane entry and decided to bail out.

Have you checked?

Just from memory.

So we didn’t have a precedent then? At least in recent history. Now we do.

The only similar incident I recall is Kimi at the European Gp in 2007, also in the wet. No penalty. It was driver error though.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bEiiSvlJUlY

Johnson wrote:

Rockie wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Rockie wrote:
All the other drives were racing and crossed the line accidentally, none of them actually committed to pit lane entry and decided to bail out.

Have you checked?

Just from memory.

So we didn’t have a precedent then? At least in recent history. Now we do.

The only similar incident I recall is Kimi at the European Gp in 2007, also in the wet. No penalty.

Kimi actually slid out, he didn't intentionally bail out of stopping costing him another lap on tyres not suitable for condition.

Ok, this should go without saying but if you're not 100% sure of something, please don't state it as a fact.