planetf1.com

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Zoue wrote:I think it's pretty obvious why the thread was created, yes

So, where exactly is a conspiracy theory in the OP and the article?

Aside from the fact that the OP has a pretty well known grudge against team orders, I don't see one. Leclerc was told to wait two laps, according to his own words. That's all the OP is saying, and it's not much of a theory when it's based on the statement of the driver involved.

That said, stirring things up does not require a conspiracy theory, and I believe there is some reason to believe the OP was looking to put Ferrari fans on the defensive in regard to team orders.

Any idea why Leclerc was asked to hold station.

If Ferrari had any sense they would impose team orders...the other way round!

mikeyg123 wrote:Any idea why Leclerc was asked to hold station.

See if Vettel responds to Leclerc's pace? Respect Vettel's place as the #1 driver? I feel like telling Leclerc to hold fits with what the team communicated preseason. Vettel is the priority, but they'll be allowed to race. If Vettel is managing the race and Leclerc catches him up, I think it's fair to give Vettel a chance to up the pace. If/when he doesn't, then send the faster car on through.

Option or Prime wrote:If Ferrari had any sense they would impose team orders...the other way round!

I think that's easier to say from home when you're not paying a 4x WDC tens of millions a year. If extra points are available by letting Leclerc through, that's different, but neither of these first two races have had that as a factor.

mikeyg123 wrote:Any idea why Leclerc was asked to hold station.

Probably because they were afraid the cars would crash into each other. Every element of Ferrari decision making smacks of conservatism to the point of paranoia, such as not pitting one of their cars to go for the extra point in Australia.

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Any idea why Leclerc was asked to hold station.

Probably because they were afraid the cars would crash into each other. Every element of Ferrari decision making smacks of conservatism to the point of paranoia, such as not pitting one of their cars to go for the extra point in Australia.

Yeah I think they wanted to wait and either ask Seb to speed up or ask him to move over. I dont think they wanted them to go wheel to wheel.

Exediron wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Zoue wrote:I think it's pretty obvious why the thread was created, yes

So, where exactly is a conspiracy theory in the OP and the article?

Aside from the fact that the OP has a pretty well known grudge against team orders, I don't see one. Leclerc was told to wait two laps, according to his own words. That's all the OP is saying, and it's not much of a theory when it's based on the statement of the driver involved.

That said, stirring things up does not require a conspiracy theory, and I believe there is some reason to believe the OP was looking to put Ferrari fans on the defensive in regard to team orders.

From what I've seen every team uses team orders from time to time, this came up long after the race so I thought it a point of interest, Mercedes used team orders last year, I don't understand why certain people get so triggered?

mikeyg123 wrote:Any idea why Leclerc was asked to hold station.

I've been thinking about this myself, to ask him to wait 2 laps I wonder if they wanted to see what pace Hamilton was running at, if they were pulling away then may be they tell Leclerc to hold station, if Hamilton was catching which I believe he was then maybe they tell Leclerc he can pass but do it safely?

I also thought about them giving an order to Vettel to let Leclerc by but I can't see they would be wanting to tell Vettel to do that so I've ruled that out.

In respect to Leclerc why didn't he wait, I can only think he didn't want to hear the order to hold station?

j man wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:Who knows, maybe he wanted advice on how to get past or the team to tell Vettel to move aside or perhaps an alternative strategy. That's beside the point; he didn't ask so maybe you should alter the OP since it's probably an outright lie?

pokerman wrote:https://www.racefans.net/2019/04/01/lec ... nd-vettel/

I heard Leclerc ask if he could pass Vettel but we never heard a reply, Leclerc went and passed Vettel anyway.

So you want to try and destroy the thread on semantics, the reply was wait 2 laps more so I would say it's quite obvious what was being asked?

The messages normally come to us with a delay, could it be that he passed after two laps as instructed, but the message was relayed to us later?

Not according to the man himself:

In two laps, Leclerc cut Vettel's two-second lead in half, then went on the radio to tell his team, as if they hadn't noticed: "Guys, I'm much faster."

"I was just letting them know," Leclerc said after the race. "I had an answer, and they said: 'Stay like this for two laps.' But I had an opportunity on the next lap."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/47768567


I'm struggling to understand why this is so contentious.

Ah thank you, I missed that. Nothing contentious, just wondering if that may have been the case

ReservoirDog wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Where exactly is a conspiracy theory in the OP and the article?

Given the rubbish that's been spouted pre-race about Ferrari not letting Leclerc race, all this does is pour fuel on the fire. It's a simple radio message that doesn't need its own thread. Ferrari told him to wait for a couple of laps, big deal. It's not unusual for teams to do that in similar circumstances. They're always nervous about team mates fighting each other

So, you agree there is no conspiracy theory in the OP and the referenced article. Good.

Don't presume to speak for me. You're not qualified.

I think the thread was created to stir things up. So yes, in that respect it's conspiracy 101

Paolo_Lasardi can't speak for you, he's not qualified. But you "think" why the OP created this thread, and you can speak for him, and call him a conspiracy theorist. Not to mention, facts can now be conspiracy theories.

Logic took a much-needed break today, I see.

There's a difference to "I think" and to "you agree". One is open for debate, the other sounds more definite. It's easy to see really.

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Any idea why Leclerc was asked to hold station.

I've been thinking about this myself, to ask him to wait 2 laps I wonder if they wanted to see what pace Hamilton was running at, if they were pulling away then may be they tell Leclerc to hold station, if Hamilton was catching which I believe he was then maybe they tell Leclerc he can pass but do it safely?

I also thought about them giving an order to Vettel to let Leclerc by but I can't see they would be wanting to tell Vettel to do that so I've ruled that out.

In respect to Leclerc why didn't he wait, I can only think he didn't want to hear the order to hold station?

waiting 2 laps was simply about the team giving the order to ask Vettel to let him through after 2 laps. It was nothing about hold station. The reasons don't matter as much. It basically was not an order to ask Leclerc not to overtake Vettel.

trento wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Any idea why Leclerc was asked to hold station.

I've been thinking about this myself, to ask him to wait 2 laps I wonder if they wanted to see what pace Hamilton was running at, if they were pulling away then may be they tell Leclerc to hold station, if Hamilton was catching which I believe he was then maybe they tell Leclerc he can pass but do it safely?

I also thought about them giving an order to Vettel to let Leclerc by but I can't see they would be wanting to tell Vettel to do that so I've ruled that out.

In respect to Leclerc why didn't he wait, I can only think he didn't want to hear the order to hold station?

waiting 2 laps was simply about the team giving the order to ask Vettel to let him through after 2 laps. It was nothing about hold station. The reasons don't matter as much. It basically was not an order to ask Leclerc not to overtake Vettel.

I'm not sure that you actually know that?

Exediron wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:Any idea why Leclerc was asked to hold station.

Probably because they were afraid the cars would crash into each other. Every element of Ferrari decision making smacks of conservatism to the point of paranoia, such as not pitting one of their cars to go for the extra point in Australia.

New team boss and a car with the potential to beat Mercedes. With those ingredients, AS LONG AS THE TEAM DOES NOT SCREW UP, they should come away with a lot of points. It is a conservative decision, but a safe one.

Not a conspiracy but some good information imho.

Ferrari were trying to favour Vettel, and Leclerc ignored the order.

Why wait 2 laps? To see if Vettel could speed up? To see if Leclerc's tyres went off slightly sitting behind Vettel.
Who knows.
However what he has done is showed his pace, and if the results keep coming, Ferrari might have to ask Vettel to play 2nd fiddle to Leclerc this year.