planetf1.com

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote: To be fair, Bottas was asked by his team to back off Hamilton. https://www.racefans.net/2019/05/27/ham ... to-vettel/

"Stay positive on delta,” Bottas was told. “We are stacking.” Mercedes told Bottas to build a “very safe delta” and counted him up from being half a second behind Hamilton to three seconds back. Even so, he was told: “More safe, please.” When Bottas arrived in the pits he had a clean entry: Hamilton had already gone."

It wasn't exactly him that decided to back up the rest. But the stewards will have had access to what mercedes said as well as Verstappen complaining so i think it is pretty clear they were fine with what he did so I don't think what Bottas was told to do here was wrong. The stewerds may sometimes miss things, but I doubt they will ignore it when there are clear messages giving all the evidence they need. It wasn't enough to even get noted as i mentioned earlier.

Well I think you have far greater faith in the stewards than I do and I also think it was unsporting for Merc/Bottas to do what they did. That's absolutely not what a SC is for and if it's not illegal it should be IMO. There's also no logic in saying that the lead driver has to stay within 10 car lengths of the SC but everybody else can do as they please. The intent if not the letter of the law was broken.

In any event Bottas ensured that the cars behind him would be glued to his tail which in turn meant it was always going to be a mad scramble to see who came out ahead. I think there's some culpability there. I don't think Max should have squeezed so much but OTOH he was clearly ahead so Bottas should have ceded the place. All together that's why I think it should have been treated as a racing incident

Agreed, Mercedes having Bottas backing everyone up because his own pit stop was compromised by double stacking was not very tasteful, and because of the yellow flags no one could have passed him either.

Max on the other hand should have gotten penalty for causing a collision, it feels to me as if they are pampering him and that RB would have ran a riot if they were hit by two infractions, unsafe release and causing an accident. So I do not know how they were thinking. Is it a case of Max should have let space or that Bottas should have ceded? Was Bottas far enough alongside him? From the picture in the link above it seems that this is the case (his front wing alongside, blah blah), but is this even valid for the pit lane? I am not sure!

There is a school of thought that with the unsafe release penalties being so lax it's worth taking the risk.

I haven't heard of that, but frankly if the penalties are not a deterrent then something is wrong with the system

Well it comes under the directive of soft punishments so as not to deter racing.

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:

Zoue wrote: I don't really have an awful lot of sympathy for Bottas tbh as I think he was asking for a close call by bunching everybody up coming into the pits. I see it as a racing incident myself and I don't agree a penalty was warranted.

To be fair, Bottas was asked by his team to back off Hamilton. https://www.racefans.net/2019/05/27/ham ... to-vettel/

"Stay positive on delta,” Bottas was told. “We are stacking.” Mercedes told Bottas to build a “very safe delta” and counted him up from being half a second behind Hamilton to three seconds back. Even so, he was told: “More safe, please.” When Bottas arrived in the pits he had a clean entry: Hamilton had already gone."

It wasn't exactly him that decided to back up the rest. But the stewards will have had access to what mercedes said as well as Verstappen complaining so i think it is pretty clear they were fine with what he did so I don't think what Bottas was told to do here was wrong. The stewerds may sometimes miss things, but I doubt they will ignore it when there are clear messages giving all the evidence they need. It wasn't enough to even get noted as i mentioned earlier.

Well I think you have far greater faith in the stewards than I do and I also think it was unsporting for Merc/Bottas to do what they did. That's absolutely not what a SC is for and if it's not illegal it should be IMO. There's also no logic in saying that the lead driver has to stay within 10 car lengths of the SC but everybody else can do as they please. The intent if not the letter of the law was broken.

In any event Bottas ensured that the cars behind him would be glued to his tail which in turn meant it was always going to be a mad scramble to see who came out ahead. I think there's some culpability there. I don't think Max should have squeezed so much but OTOH he was clearly ahead so Bottas should have ceded the place. All together that's why I think it should have been treated as a racing incident

The ten car lengths applies to everyone, but only once they have caught up with the safety car. As Hamilton had not yet caught the safety car, there was no regulation covering the following distance:

All competing cars must reduce speed and form up in line behind the safety car no more than
ten car lengths apart.

To be honest, I don't really have a problem with what Bottas did. Had he not backed off, Vettel and Max would have got past him through no fault of his own. Having to do back to back stops with enough space already disadvantaged him, as seen by Max getting out slightly ahead of him, had he not backed them off he would have just lost the places.

If we were to start introducing a rule against this, then all what would happen is that a team with a 1-2 track position at Monaco would simply order their drivers to run 5 seconds apart on track until after the pit stops, to allow for a double stack pitstop in the event of a safety car. That would then mean there would be zero fighting for the lead. The drivers would comply, as well, because they know there is a near zero chance of overtaking, but a high chance of a safety car.

If a team wants to double stack their drivers, they shouldn't hold the rest of the field "hostage" in order to avoid losing a place frankly. It's a situation that they created.

If he hadn't have pitted then he would have also fallen to fourth place. They weren't double stacking because they felt like it on a whim. It was double stack with a gap or lose second place with any other action. They weren't holding the field hostage either, Bottas was legitimately in second place, Max and Vettel wouldn't have 'earned' their pass on Bottas if he had kept within 10 car lengths of Hamilton, they would have inherited it due to the Safety Car.

And as I pointed out, if you outlaw what Bottas did, you will just have the teams space their drivers apart at Monaco by about 5 to 10 seconds. Bottas knows he won't be able to pass Hamilton on track, he knows a safety car is a near certainty at Monaco and it is in his favour to protect against the double stack when the Safety Car inevitable happens as opposed to follow Hamilton on the near zero possibility he gets an opportunity pass.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:
To be fair, Bottas was asked by his team to back off Hamilton. https://www.racefans.net/2019/05/27/ham ... to-vettel/

"Stay positive on delta,” Bottas was told. “We are stacking.” Mercedes told Bottas to build a “very safe delta” and counted him up from being half a second behind Hamilton to three seconds back. Even so, he was told: “More safe, please.” When Bottas arrived in the pits he had a clean entry: Hamilton had already gone."

It wasn't exactly him that decided to back up the rest. But the stewards will have had access to what mercedes said as well as Verstappen complaining so i think it is pretty clear they were fine with what he did so I don't think what Bottas was told to do here was wrong. The stewerds may sometimes miss things, but I doubt they will ignore it when there are clear messages giving all the evidence they need. It wasn't enough to even get noted as i mentioned earlier.

Well I think you have far greater faith in the stewards than I do and I also think it was unsporting for Merc/Bottas to do what they did. That's absolutely not what a SC is for and if it's not illegal it should be IMO. There's also no logic in saying that the lead driver has to stay within 10 car lengths of the SC but everybody else can do as they please. The intent if not the letter of the law was broken.

In any event Bottas ensured that the cars behind him would be glued to his tail which in turn meant it was always going to be a mad scramble to see who came out ahead. I think there's some culpability there. I don't think Max should have squeezed so much but OTOH he was clearly ahead so Bottas should have ceded the place. All together that's why I think it should have been treated as a racing incident

The ten car lengths applies to everyone, but only once they have caught up with the safety car. As Hamilton had not yet caught the safety car, there was no regulation covering the following distance:

All competing cars must reduce speed and form up in line behind the safety car no more than
ten car lengths apart.

To be honest, I don't really have a problem with what Bottas did. Had he not backed off, Vettel and Max would have got past him through no fault of his own. Having to do back to back stops with enough space already disadvantaged him, as seen by Max getting out slightly ahead of him, had he not backed them off he would have just lost the places.

If we were to start introducing a rule against this, then all what would happen is that a team with a 1-2 track position at Monaco would simply order their drivers to run 5 seconds apart on track until after the pit stops, to allow for a double stack pitstop in the event of a safety car. That would then mean there would be zero fighting for the lead. The drivers would comply, as well, because they know there is a near zero chance of overtaking, but a high chance of a safety car.

If a team wants to double stack their drivers, they shouldn't hold the rest of the field "hostage" in order to avoid losing a place frankly. It's a situation that they created.

If he hadn't have pitted then he would have also fallen to fourth place. They weren't double stacking because they felt like it on a whim. It was double stack with a gap or lose second place with any other action. They weren't holding the field hostage either, Bottas was legitimately in second place, Max and Vettel wouldn't have 'earned' their pass on Bottas if he had kept within 10 car lengths of Hamilton, they would have inherited it due to the Safety Car.

And as I pointed out, if you outlaw what Bottas did, you will just have the teams space their drivers apart at Monaco by about 5 to 10 seconds. Bottas knows he won't be able to pass Hamilton on track, he knows a safety car is a near certainty at Monaco and it is in his favour to protect against the double stack when the Safety Car inevitable happens as opposed to follow Hamilton on the near zero possibility he gets an opportunity pass.

Actually had he stayed out he'd have been leading after the safety car and could actually have won the race.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote: To be fair, Bottas was asked by his team to back off Hamilton. https://www.racefans.net/2019/05/27/ham ... to-vettel/

"Stay positive on delta,” Bottas was told. “We are stacking.” Mercedes told Bottas to build a “very safe delta” and counted him up from being half a second behind Hamilton to three seconds back. Even so, he was told: “More safe, please.” When Bottas arrived in the pits he had a clean entry: Hamilton had already gone."

It wasn't exactly him that decided to back up the rest. But the stewards will have had access to what mercedes said as well as Verstappen complaining so i think it is pretty clear they were fine with what he did so I don't think what Bottas was told to do here was wrong. The stewerds may sometimes miss things, but I doubt they will ignore it when there are clear messages giving all the evidence they need. It wasn't enough to even get noted as i mentioned earlier.

Well I think you have far greater faith in the stewards than I do and I also think it was unsporting for Merc/Bottas to do what they did. That's absolutely not what a SC is for and if it's not illegal it should be IMO. There's also no logic in saying that the lead driver has to stay within 10 car lengths of the SC but everybody else can do as they please. The intent if not the letter of the law was broken.

In any event Bottas ensured that the cars behind him would be glued to his tail which in turn meant it was always going to be a mad scramble to see who came out ahead. I think there's some culpability there. I don't think Max should have squeezed so much but OTOH he was clearly ahead so Bottas should have ceded the place. All together that's why I think it should have been treated as a racing incident

The ten car lengths applies to everyone, but only once they have caught up with the safety car. As Hamilton had not yet caught the safety car, there was no regulation covering the following distance:

All competing cars must reduce speed and form up in line behind the safety car no more than
ten car lengths apart.

To be honest, I don't really have a problem with what Bottas did. Had he not backed off, Vettel and Max would have got past him through no fault of his own. Having to do back to back stops with enough space already disadvantaged him, as seen by Max getting out slightly ahead of him, had he not backed them off he would have just lost the places.

If we were to start introducing a rule against this, then all what would happen is that a team with a 1-2 track position at Monaco would simply order their drivers to run 5 seconds apart on track until after the pit stops, to allow for a double stack pitstop in the event of a safety car. That would then mean there would be zero fighting for the lead. The drivers would comply, as well, because they know there is a near zero chance of overtaking, but a high chance of a safety car.

If a team wants to double stack their drivers, they shouldn't hold the rest of the field "hostage" in order to avoid losing a place frankly. It's a situation that they created.

If he hadn't have pitted then he would have also fallen to fourth place. They weren't double stacking because they felt like it on a whim. It was double stack with a gap or lose second place with any other action. They weren't holding the field hostage either, Bottas was legitimately in second place, Max and Vettel wouldn't have 'earned' their pass on Bottas if he had kept within 10 car lengths of Hamilton, they would have inherited it due to the Safety Car.

And as I pointed out, if you outlaw what Bottas did, you will just have the teams space their drivers apart at Monaco by about 5 to 10 seconds. Bottas knows he won't be able to pass Hamilton on track, he knows a safety car is a near certainty at Monaco and it is in his favour to protect against the double stack when the Safety Car inevitable happens as opposed to follow Hamilton on the near zero possibility he gets an opportunity pass.

Good point they just create an extra window in which to operate within, they have SC windows, VSC windows then for Monaco they have the extra double stack window.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Zoue wrote: Well I think you have far greater faith in the stewards than I do and I also think it was unsporting for Merc/Bottas to do what they did. That's absolutely not what a SC is for and if it's not illegal it should be IMO. There's also no logic in saying that the lead driver has to stay within 10 car lengths of the SC but everybody else can do as they please. The intent if not the letter of the law was broken.

In any event Bottas ensured that the cars behind him would be glued to his tail which in turn meant it was always going to be a mad scramble to see who came out ahead. I think there's some culpability there. I don't think Max should have squeezed so much but OTOH he was clearly ahead so Bottas should have ceded the place. All together that's why I think it should have been treated as a racing incident

The ten car lengths applies to everyone, but only once they have caught up with the safety car. As Hamilton had not yet caught the safety car, there was no regulation covering the following distance:

All competing cars must reduce speed and form up in line behind the safety car no more than
ten car lengths apart.

To be honest, I don't really have a problem with what Bottas did. Had he not backed off, Vettel and Max would have got past him through no fault of his own. Having to do back to back stops with enough space already disadvantaged him, as seen by Max getting out slightly ahead of him, had he not backed them off he would have just lost the places.

If we were to start introducing a rule against this, then all what would happen is that a team with a 1-2 track position at Monaco would simply order their drivers to run 5 seconds apart on track until after the pit stops, to allow for a double stack pitstop in the event of a safety car. That would then mean there would be zero fighting for the lead. The drivers would comply, as well, because they know there is a near zero chance of overtaking, but a high chance of a safety car.

If a team wants to double stack their drivers, they shouldn't hold the rest of the field "hostage" in order to avoid losing a place frankly. It's a situation that they created.

If he hadn't have pitted then he would have also fallen to fourth place. They weren't double stacking because they felt like it on a whim. It was double stack with a gap or lose second place with any other action. They weren't holding the field hostage either, Bottas was legitimately in second place, Max and Vettel wouldn't have 'earned' their pass on Bottas if he had kept within 10 car lengths of Hamilton, they would have inherited it due to the Safety Car.

And as I pointed out, if you outlaw what Bottas did, you will just have the teams space their drivers apart at Monaco by about 5 to 10 seconds. Bottas knows he won't be able to pass Hamilton on track, he knows a safety car is a near certainty at Monaco and it is in his favour to protect against the double stack when the Safety Car inevitable happens as opposed to follow Hamilton on the near zero possibility he gets an opportunity pass.

Actually had he stayed out he'd have been leading after the safety car and could actually have won the race.

That also applies to Verstappen and Vettel.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Zoue wrote: Well I think you have far greater faith in the stewards than I do and I also think it was unsporting for Merc/Bottas to do what they did. That's absolutely not what a SC is for and if it's not illegal it should be IMO. There's also no logic in saying that the lead driver has to stay within 10 car lengths of the SC but everybody else can do as they please. The intent if not the letter of the law was broken.

In any event Bottas ensured that the cars behind him would be glued to his tail which in turn meant it was always going to be a mad scramble to see who came out ahead. I think there's some culpability there. I don't think Max should have squeezed so much but OTOH he was clearly ahead so Bottas should have ceded the place. All together that's why I think it should have been treated as a racing incident

The ten car lengths applies to everyone, but only once they have caught up with the safety car. As Hamilton had not yet caught the safety car, there was no regulation covering the following distance:

All competing cars must reduce speed and form up in line behind the safety car no more than
ten car lengths apart.

To be honest, I don't really have a problem with what Bottas did. Had he not backed off, Vettel and Max would have got past him through no fault of his own. Having to do back to back stops with enough space already disadvantaged him, as seen by Max getting out slightly ahead of him, had he not backed them off he would have just lost the places.

If we were to start introducing a rule against this, then all what would happen is that a team with a 1-2 track position at Monaco would simply order their drivers to run 5 seconds apart on track until after the pit stops, to allow for a double stack pitstop in the event of a safety car. That would then mean there would be zero fighting for the lead. The drivers would comply, as well, because they know there is a near zero chance of overtaking, but a high chance of a safety car.

If a team wants to double stack their drivers, they shouldn't hold the rest of the field "hostage" in order to avoid losing a place frankly. It's a situation that they created.

If he hadn't have pitted then he would have also fallen to fourth place. They weren't double stacking because they felt like it on a whim. It was double stack with a gap or lose second place with any other action. They weren't holding the field hostage either, Bottas was legitimately in second place, Max and Vettel wouldn't have 'earned' their pass on Bottas if he had kept within 10 car lengths of Hamilton, they would have inherited it due to the Safety Car.

And as I pointed out, if you outlaw what Bottas did, you will just have the teams space their drivers apart at Monaco by about 5 to 10 seconds. Bottas knows he won't be able to pass Hamilton on track, he knows a safety car is a near certainty at Monaco and it is in his favour to protect against the double stack when the Safety Car inevitable happens as opposed to follow Hamilton on the near zero possibility he gets an opportunity pass.

Actually had he stayed out he'd have been leading after the safety car and could actually have won the race.

I'd be very surprised if that was the case because otherwise why did Mercedes immediately pit them, or more to the point, why didn't Red Bull keep Max out for one extra lap? If it was advantageous to do an extra lap then Ferrari should have told Vettel "if the others pit, stay out" because he had nothing to lose being at the back of the front running pack.

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:
To be fair, Bottas was asked by his team to back off Hamilton. https://www.racefans.net/2019/05/27/ham ... to-vettel/

"Stay positive on delta,” Bottas was told. “We are stacking.” Mercedes told Bottas to build a “very safe delta” and counted him up from being half a second behind Hamilton to three seconds back. Even so, he was told: “More safe, please.” When Bottas arrived in the pits he had a clean entry: Hamilton had already gone."

It wasn't exactly him that decided to back up the rest. But the stewards will have had access to what mercedes said as well as Verstappen complaining so i think it is pretty clear they were fine with what he did so I don't think what Bottas was told to do here was wrong. The stewerds may sometimes miss things, but I doubt they will ignore it when there are clear messages giving all the evidence they need. It wasn't enough to even get noted as i mentioned earlier.

Well I think you have far greater faith in the stewards than I do and I also think it was unsporting for Merc/Bottas to do what they did. That's absolutely not what a SC is for and if it's not illegal it should be IMO. There's also no logic in saying that the lead driver has to stay within 10 car lengths of the SC but everybody else can do as they please. The intent if not the letter of the law was broken.

In any event Bottas ensured that the cars behind him would be glued to his tail which in turn meant it was always going to be a mad scramble to see who came out ahead. I think there's some culpability there. I don't think Max should have squeezed so much but OTOH he was clearly ahead so Bottas should have ceded the place. All together that's why I think it should have been treated as a racing incident

The ten car lengths applies to everyone, but only once they have caught up with the safety car. As Hamilton had not yet caught the safety car, there was no regulation covering the following distance:

All competing cars must reduce speed and form up in line behind the safety car no more than
ten car lengths apart.

To be honest, I don't really have a problem with what Bottas did. Had he not backed off, Vettel and Max would have got past him through no fault of his own. Having to do back to back stops with enough space already disadvantaged him, as seen by Max getting out slightly ahead of him, had he not backed them off he would have just lost the places.

If we were to start introducing a rule against this, then all what would happen is that a team with a 1-2 track position at Monaco would simply order their drivers to run 5 seconds apart on track until after the pit stops, to allow for a double stack pitstop in the event of a safety car. That would then mean there would be zero fighting for the lead. The drivers would comply, as well, because they know there is a near zero chance of overtaking, but a high chance of a safety car.

If a team wants to double stack their drivers, they shouldn't hold the rest of the field "hostage" in order to avoid losing a place frankly. It's a situation that they created.

However they didn't break any rules.

I didn't say they did, although it was bad taste

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

TheGiantHogweed wrote:
To be fair, Bottas was asked by his team to back off Hamilton. https://www.racefans.net/2019/05/27/ham ... to-vettel/

"Stay positive on delta,” Bottas was told. “We are stacking.” Mercedes told Bottas to build a “very safe delta” and counted him up from being half a second behind Hamilton to three seconds back. Even so, he was told: “More safe, please.” When Bottas arrived in the pits he had a clean entry: Hamilton had already gone."

It wasn't exactly him that decided to back up the rest. But the stewards will have had access to what mercedes said as well as Verstappen complaining so i think it is pretty clear they were fine with what he did so I don't think what Bottas was told to do here was wrong. The stewerds may sometimes miss things, but I doubt they will ignore it when there are clear messages giving all the evidence they need. It wasn't enough to even get noted as i mentioned earlier.

Well I think you have far greater faith in the stewards than I do and I also think it was unsporting for Merc/Bottas to do what they did. That's absolutely not what a SC is for and if it's not illegal it should be IMO. There's also no logic in saying that the lead driver has to stay within 10 car lengths of the SC but everybody else can do as they please. The intent if not the letter of the law was broken.

In any event Bottas ensured that the cars behind him would be glued to his tail which in turn meant it was always going to be a mad scramble to see who came out ahead. I think there's some culpability there. I don't think Max should have squeezed so much but OTOH he was clearly ahead so Bottas should have ceded the place. All together that's why I think it should have been treated as a racing incident

The ten car lengths applies to everyone, but only once they have caught up with the safety car. As Hamilton had not yet caught the safety car, there was no regulation covering the following distance:

All competing cars must reduce speed and form up in line behind the safety car no more than
ten car lengths apart.

To be honest, I don't really have a problem with what Bottas did. Had he not backed off, Vettel and Max would have got past him through no fault of his own. Having to do back to back stops with enough space already disadvantaged him, as seen by Max getting out slightly ahead of him, had he not backed them off he would have just lost the places.

If we were to start introducing a rule against this, then all what would happen is that a team with a 1-2 track position at Monaco would simply order their drivers to run 5 seconds apart on track until after the pit stops, to allow for a double stack pitstop in the event of a safety car. That would then mean there would be zero fighting for the lead. The drivers would comply, as well, because they know there is a near zero chance of overtaking, but a high chance of a safety car.

If a team wants to double stack their drivers, they shouldn't hold the rest of the field "hostage" in order to avoid losing a place frankly. It's a situation that they created.

If he hadn't have pitted then he would have also fallen to fourth place. They weren't double stacking because they felt like it on a whim. It was double stack with a gap or lose second place with any other action. They weren't holding the field hostage either, Bottas was legitimately in second place, Max and Vettel wouldn't have 'earned' their pass on Bottas if he had kept within 10 car lengths of Hamilton, they would have inherited it due to the Safety Car.

And as I pointed out, if you outlaw what Bottas did, you will just have the teams space their drivers apart at Monaco by about 5 to 10 seconds. Bottas knows he won't be able to pass Hamilton on track, he knows a safety car is a near certainty at Monaco and it is in his favour to protect against the double stack when the Safety Car inevitable happens as opposed to follow Hamilton on the near zero possibility he gets an opportunity pass.

They could play the scenario you mentioned, but I would expect the outcry to be huge, it would be like the worst team order ever. Guarantee that the guy at the front will never lose the win.

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Zoue wrote: Well I think you have far greater faith in the stewards than I do and I also think it was unsporting for Merc/Bottas to do what they did. That's absolutely not what a SC is for and if it's not illegal it should be IMO. There's also no logic in saying that the lead driver has to stay within 10 car lengths of the SC but everybody else can do as they please. The intent if not the letter of the law was broken.

In any event Bottas ensured that the cars behind him would be glued to his tail which in turn meant it was always going to be a mad scramble to see who came out ahead. I think there's some culpability there. I don't think Max should have squeezed so much but OTOH he was clearly ahead so Bottas should have ceded the place. All together that's why I think it should have been treated as a racing incident

The ten car lengths applies to everyone, but only once they have caught up with the safety car. As Hamilton had not yet caught the safety car, there was no regulation covering the following distance:

All competing cars must reduce speed and form up in line behind the safety car no more than
ten car lengths apart.

To be honest, I don't really have a problem with what Bottas did. Had he not backed off, Vettel and Max would have got past him through no fault of his own. Having to do back to back stops with enough space already disadvantaged him, as seen by Max getting out slightly ahead of him, had he not backed them off he would have just lost the places.

If we were to start introducing a rule against this, then all what would happen is that a team with a 1-2 track position at Monaco would simply order their drivers to run 5 seconds apart on track until after the pit stops, to allow for a double stack pitstop in the event of a safety car. That would then mean there would be zero fighting for the lead. The drivers would comply, as well, because they know there is a near zero chance of overtaking, but a high chance of a safety car.

If a team wants to double stack their drivers, they shouldn't hold the rest of the field "hostage" in order to avoid losing a place frankly. It's a situation that they created.

If he hadn't have pitted then he would have also fallen to fourth place. They weren't double stacking because they felt like it on a whim. It was double stack with a gap or lose second place with any other action. They weren't holding the field hostage either, Bottas was legitimately in second place, Max and Vettel wouldn't have 'earned' their pass on Bottas if he had kept within 10 car lengths of Hamilton, they would have inherited it due to the Safety Car.

And as I pointed out, if you outlaw what Bottas did, you will just have the teams space their drivers apart at Monaco by about 5 to 10 seconds. Bottas knows he won't be able to pass Hamilton on track, he knows a safety car is a near certainty at Monaco and it is in his favour to protect against the double stack when the Safety Car inevitable happens as opposed to follow Hamilton on the near zero possibility he gets an opportunity pass.

They could play the scenario you mentioned, but I would expect the outcry to be huge, it would be like the worst team order ever. Guarantee that the guy at the front will never lose the win.

OK....

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote: The ten car lengths applies to everyone, but only once they have caught up with the safety car. As Hamilton had not yet caught the safety car, there was no regulation covering the following distance:

To be honest, I don't really have a problem with what Bottas did. Had he not backed off, Vettel and Max would have got past him through no fault of his own. Having to do back to back stops with enough space already disadvantaged him, as seen by Max getting out slightly ahead of him, had he not backed them off he would have just lost the places.

If we were to start introducing a rule against this, then all what would happen is that a team with a 1-2 track position at Monaco would simply order their drivers to run 5 seconds apart on track until after the pit stops, to allow for a double stack pitstop in the event of a safety car. That would then mean there would be zero fighting for the lead. The drivers would comply, as well, because they know there is a near zero chance of overtaking, but a high chance of a safety car.

If a team wants to double stack their drivers, they shouldn't hold the rest of the field "hostage" in order to avoid losing a place frankly. It's a situation that they created.

If he hadn't have pitted then he would have also fallen to fourth place. They weren't double stacking because they felt like it on a whim. It was double stack with a gap or lose second place with any other action. They weren't holding the field hostage either, Bottas was legitimately in second place, Max and Vettel wouldn't have 'earned' their pass on Bottas if he had kept within 10 car lengths of Hamilton, they would have inherited it due to the Safety Car.

And as I pointed out, if you outlaw what Bottas did, you will just have the teams space their drivers apart at Monaco by about 5 to 10 seconds. Bottas knows he won't be able to pass Hamilton on track, he knows a safety car is a near certainty at Monaco and it is in his favour to protect against the double stack when the Safety Car inevitable happens as opposed to follow Hamilton on the near zero possibility he gets an opportunity pass.

They could play the scenario you mentioned, but I would expect the outcry to be huge, it would be like the worst team order ever. Guarantee that the guy at the front will never lose the win.

OK....

Ah, sarcasm, the answer to every question... Great

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:
If a team wants to double stack their drivers, they shouldn't hold the rest of the field "hostage" in order to avoid losing a place frankly. It's a situation that they created.

If he hadn't have pitted then he would have also fallen to fourth place. They weren't double stacking because they felt like it on a whim. It was double stack with a gap or lose second place with any other action. They weren't holding the field hostage either, Bottas was legitimately in second place, Max and Vettel wouldn't have 'earned' their pass on Bottas if he had kept within 10 car lengths of Hamilton, they would have inherited it due to the Safety Car.

And as I pointed out, if you outlaw what Bottas did, you will just have the teams space their drivers apart at Monaco by about 5 to 10 seconds. Bottas knows he won't be able to pass Hamilton on track, he knows a safety car is a near certainty at Monaco and it is in his favour to protect against the double stack when the Safety Car inevitable happens as opposed to follow Hamilton on the near zero possibility he gets an opportunity pass.

They could play the scenario you mentioned, but I would expect the outcry to be huge, it would be like the worst team order ever. Guarantee that the guy at the front will never lose the win.

OK....

Ah, sarcasm, the answer to every question... Great

I'm not being sarcastic. Are you genuinely suggesting that such a team order, a tactical order to preserve a 1-2, something that Mercedes gave in Abu Dhabi in 2016, would be worse than Austria 2002, or Germany 2010? It would also not be an order not to fight, they would be free to fight after the pit stop. It would be followed willingly and with the agreement of the driver - in fact if Bottas was told he would NOT be allowed to back up the drivers before entering the pitlane he would almost certainly do it of his own volition without any order or instruction from Mercedes. Bottas would know that if he has to double stack behind a safety car he will definitely lose his place, but will almost certainly never be able to pass Hamilton on track.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote: The ten car lengths applies to everyone, but only once they have caught up with the safety car. As Hamilton had not yet caught the safety car, there was no regulation covering the following distance:

To be honest, I don't really have a problem with what Bottas did. Had he not backed off, Vettel and Max would have got past him through no fault of his own. Having to do back to back stops with enough space already disadvantaged him, as seen by Max getting out slightly ahead of him, had he not backed them off he would have just lost the places.

If we were to start introducing a rule against this, then all what would happen is that a team with a 1-2 track position at Monaco would simply order their drivers to run 5 seconds apart on track until after the pit stops, to allow for a double stack pitstop in the event of a safety car. That would then mean there would be zero fighting for the lead. The drivers would comply, as well, because they know there is a near zero chance of overtaking, but a high chance of a safety car.

If a team wants to double stack their drivers, they shouldn't hold the rest of the field "hostage" in order to avoid losing a place frankly. It's a situation that they created.

If he hadn't have pitted then he would have also fallen to fourth place. They weren't double stacking because they felt like it on a whim. It was double stack with a gap or lose second place with any other action. They weren't holding the field hostage either, Bottas was legitimately in second place, Max and Vettel wouldn't have 'earned' their pass on Bottas if he had kept within 10 car lengths of Hamilton, they would have inherited it due to the Safety Car.

And as I pointed out, if you outlaw what Bottas did, you will just have the teams space their drivers apart at Monaco by about 5 to 10 seconds. Bottas knows he won't be able to pass Hamilton on track, he knows a safety car is a near certainty at Monaco and it is in his favour to protect against the double stack when the Safety Car inevitable happens as opposed to follow Hamilton on the near zero possibility he gets an opportunity pass.

Actually had he stayed out he'd have been leading after the safety car and could actually have won the race.

I'd be very surprised if that was the case because otherwise why did Mercedes immediately pit them, or more to the point, why didn't Red Bull keep Max out for one extra lap? If it was advantageous to do an extra lap then Ferrari should have told Vettel "if the others pit, stay out" because he had nothing to lose being at the back of the front running pack.

Well nobody would know it would pay off until they saw how slowly Hamilton had to go. What I mean is Bottas could've built a gap to Hamilton.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote: If he hadn't have pitted then he would have also fallen to fourth place. They weren't double stacking because they felt like it on a whim. It was double stack with a gap or lose second place with any other action. They weren't holding the field hostage either, Bottas was legitimately in second place, Max and Vettel wouldn't have 'earned' their pass on Bottas if he had kept within 10 car lengths of Hamilton, they would have inherited it due to the Safety Car.

And as I pointed out, if you outlaw what Bottas did, you will just have the teams space their drivers apart at Monaco by about 5 to 10 seconds. Bottas knows he won't be able to pass Hamilton on track, he knows a safety car is a near certainty at Monaco and it is in his favour to protect against the double stack when the Safety Car inevitable happens as opposed to follow Hamilton on the near zero possibility he gets an opportunity pass.

They could play the scenario you mentioned, but I would expect the outcry to be huge, it would be like the worst team order ever. Guarantee that the guy at the front will never lose the win.

OK....

Ah, sarcasm, the answer to every question... Great

I'm not being sarcastic. Are you genuinely suggesting that such a team order, a tactical order to preserve a 1-2, something that Mercedes gave in Abu Dhabi in 2016, would be worse than Austria 2002, or Germany 2010? It would also not be an order not to fight, they would be free to fight after the pit stop. It would be followed willingly and with the agreement of the driver - in fact if Bottas was told he would NOT be allowed to back up the drivers before entering the pitlane he would almost certainly do it of his own volition without any order or instruction from Mercedes. Bottas would know that if he has to double stack behind a safety car he will definitely lose his place, but will almost certainly never be able to pass Hamilton on track.

It came across like that. Anyway, what you describe above sounds a bit different to what you said before, that the teams would have their drivers spaced apart by 5 to 10 seconds to cover for any pit stops (which sounds very much as an order), now you mention that they would fight but only after the SC pitstop. Did you also mean in your first post that they would be able to fight after a pit stop? Because it sounds like they are only instructed to keep this distance, if there is no SC then they'd never have a chance to fight for the lead. And that's what I object.

And finally yes, I think a team order that would be given even before the race starts, and would dictate that the car that is second by turn 3 has to maintain position of 5 secs behind and never ever challenge the other car, it would be frankly appalling, no chance for the second driver to challenge (though in Monaco this is possibly a blessing). Germany 2010 was a different thing, TO's were not allowed, so you are comparing different things there.

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:
They could play the scenario you mentioned, but I would expect the outcry to be huge, it would be like the worst team order ever. Guarantee that the guy at the front will never lose the win.

OK....

Ah, sarcasm, the answer to every question... Great

I'm not being sarcastic. Are you genuinely suggesting that such a team order, a tactical order to preserve a 1-2, something that Mercedes gave in Abu Dhabi in 2016, would be worse than Austria 2002, or Germany 2010? It would also not be an order not to fight, they would be free to fight after the pit stop. It would be followed willingly and with the agreement of the driver - in fact if Bottas was told he would NOT be allowed to back up the drivers before entering the pitlane he would almost certainly do it of his own volition without any order or instruction from Mercedes. Bottas would know that if he has to double stack behind a safety car he will definitely lose his place, but will almost certainly never be able to pass Hamilton on track.

It came across like that. Anyway, what you describe above sounds a bit different to what you said before, that the teams would have their drivers spaced apart by 5 to 10 seconds to cover for any pit stops (which sounds very much as an order), now you mention that they would fight but only after the SC pitstop. Did you also mean in your first post that they would be able to fight after a pit stop? Because it sounds like they are only instructed to keep this distance, if there is no SC then they'd never have a chance to fight for the lead. And that's what I object.

And finally yes, I think a team order that would be given even before the race starts, and would dictate that the car that is second by turn 3 has to maintain position of 5 secs behind and never ever challenge the other car, it would be frankly appalling, no chance for the second driver to challenge (though in Monaco this is possibly a blessing). Germany 2010 was a different thing, TO's were not allowed, so you are comparing different things there.

The thing that has got lost in all of this is that it's not a team order. Bottas is not being instructed not to fight Hamilton, they are adopting a strategy to protect the second place. Overtaking an equal car at Monaco is impossible, sitting on Hamliton's gearbox is not going to achieve anything. At the moment, the rules allow for a car to create a space for the double stack behind the safety car (and this is something that has happened in multiple races in the past, so I don't understand why it is suddenly a controversy now) - however, if the rules were changed to say that the cars CAN'T do this, then the most selfish strategy for a driver in second place who is behind his team mate in first place, looking out purely for his own self interest, is to sit 10 seconds behind his team mate until after his pitstop.

In short, if it had been a rule that Bottas couldn't back off the cars like he did in the race, he would have sat 10 seconds behind Hamilton to make sure he didn't get caught out by the double stack, all by his own decision. A safety car at Monaco is a near certainty, and having to wait in the case of a double stack means that the driver is certain to lose places if he has to queue. This isn't about ordering Bottas not to overtake, it is about Bottas doing the best thing for himself.

mikeyg123 wrote:
Actually had he stayed out he'd have been leading after the safety car and could actually have won the race.

He would have tumbled down the order, as he would have caught the SC at the pitlane exit, which means he would have been travelling far slower than the others.

Rockie wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
Actually had he stayed out he'd have been leading after the safety car and could actually have won the race.

He would have tumbled down the order, as he would have caught the SC at the pitlane exit, which means he would have been travelling far slower than the others.

You misunderstand. Stay out and continue to stay out after the safety car and build a gap to Hamilton.

That was the best strategy in the midfield.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Rockie wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
Actually had he stayed out he'd have been leading after the safety car and could actually have won the race.

He would have tumbled down the order, as he would have caught the SC at the pitlane exit, which means he would have been travelling far slower than the others.

You misunderstand. Stay out and continue to stay out after the safety car and build a gap to Hamilton.

That was the best strategy in the midfield.

Except that it isn't. Firstly, he probably didn't have the tyre life to build a 25 second gap. Secondly, even if he did, the reason that Vettel and Verstappen didn't do it is because they would have assumed that Hamilton was going on to the hard tyres. Therefore, if they were intending to leave Bottas out, then Mercedes would have put Hamilton onto the hard tyre instead, meaning the advantage would not have existed. The only way that it could work out favourably for Bottas is if Mercedes sacrificed Hamilton to give Bottas the win (ie, put Hamilton on crap tyres and then enable Bottas to build up a pit window.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Rockie wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
Actually had he stayed out he'd have been leading after the safety car and could actually have won the race.

He would have tumbled down the order, as he would have caught the SC at the pitlane exit, which means he would have been travelling far slower than the others.

You misunderstand. Stay out and continue to stay out after the safety car and build a gap to Hamilton.

That was the best strategy in the midfield.

Except that it isn't. Firstly, he probably didn't have the tyre life to build a 25 second gap. Secondly, even if he did, the reason that Vettel and Verstappen didn't do it is because they would have assumed that Hamilton was going on to the hard tyres. Therefore, if they were intending to leave Bottas out, then Mercedes would have put Hamilton onto the hard tyre instead, meaning the advantage would not have existed. The only way that it could work out favourably for Bottas is if Mercedes sacrificed Hamilton to give Bottas the win (ie, put Hamilton on crap tyres and then enable Bottas to build up a pit window.

Why did Merc make the mistake of the medium tyres? Why wouldn't they make that mistake if they left Bottas out?

mikeyg123 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Rockie wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
Actually had he stayed out he'd have been leading after the safety car and could actually have won the race.

He would have tumbled down the order, as he would have caught the SC at the pitlane exit, which means he would have been travelling far slower than the others.

You misunderstand. Stay out and continue to stay out after the safety car and build a gap to Hamilton.

That was the best strategy in the midfield.

Except that it isn't. Firstly, he probably didn't have the tyre life to build a 25 second gap. Secondly, even if he did, the reason that Vettel and Verstappen didn't do it is because they would have assumed that Hamilton was going on to the hard tyres. Therefore, if they were intending to leave Bottas out, then Mercedes would have put Hamilton onto the hard tyre instead, meaning the advantage would not have existed. The only way that it could work out favourably for Bottas is if Mercedes sacrificed Hamilton to give Bottas the win (ie, put Hamilton on crap tyres and then enable Bottas to build up a pit window.

Why did Merc make the mistake of the medium tyres? Why wouldn't they make that mistake if they left Bottas out?

You are suggesting a logically impossible scenario to arise. There are only two possible scenarios:

Possibility 1: Mercedes think that putting Hamilton on the medium tyre is the correct call

If they think this, then in this situation, they would think that leaving Bottas out would ruin his race completely. So they wouldn't do it.

Possibility 2: Mercedes think that putting Hamilton on the medium tyre is the wrong call

Mercedes would have put Hamilton on the hard tyre.

What would never happen is:

Possibility 3: Mercedes think that going on the medium is the right call, but leave Bottas out, thinking it would ruin his race, but then find out the medium tyre is a stupid decision and should have put him on the hard before they have pitted him.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote: If a team wants to double stack their drivers, they shouldn't hold the rest of the field "hostage" in order to avoid losing a place frankly. It's a situation that they created.

If he hadn't have pitted then he would have also fallen to fourth place. They weren't double stacking because they felt like it on a whim. It was double stack with a gap or lose second place with any other action. They weren't holding the field hostage either, Bottas was legitimately in second place, Max and Vettel wouldn't have 'earned' their pass on Bottas if he had kept within 10 car lengths of Hamilton, they would have inherited it due to the Safety Car.

And as I pointed out, if you outlaw what Bottas did, you will just have the teams space their drivers apart at Monaco by about 5 to 10 seconds. Bottas knows he won't be able to pass Hamilton on track, he knows a safety car is a near certainty at Monaco and it is in his favour to protect against the double stack when the Safety Car inevitable happens as opposed to follow Hamilton on the near zero possibility he gets an opportunity pass.

Actually had he stayed out he'd have been leading after the safety car and could actually have won the race.

I'd be very surprised if that was the case because otherwise why did Mercedes immediately pit them, or more to the point, why didn't Red Bull keep Max out for one extra lap? If it was advantageous to do an extra lap then Ferrari should have told Vettel "if the others pit, stay out" because he had nothing to lose being at the back of the front running pack.

I read that as going long on the softs to get an over cut on Hamilton who was driving quite slowly on the mediums.

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Zoue wrote: Well I think you have far greater faith in the stewards than I do and I also think it was unsporting for Merc/Bottas to do what they did. That's absolutely not what a SC is for and if it's not illegal it should be IMO. There's also no logic in saying that the lead driver has to stay within 10 car lengths of the SC but everybody else can do as they please. The intent if not the letter of the law was broken.

In any event Bottas ensured that the cars behind him would be glued to his tail which in turn meant it was always going to be a mad scramble to see who came out ahead. I think there's some culpability there. I don't think Max should have squeezed so much but OTOH he was clearly ahead so Bottas should have ceded the place. All together that's why I think it should have been treated as a racing incident

The ten car lengths applies to everyone, but only once they have caught up with the safety car. As Hamilton had not yet caught the safety car, there was no regulation covering the following distance:

All competing cars must reduce speed and form up in line behind the safety car no more than
ten car lengths apart.

To be honest, I don't really have a problem with what Bottas did. Had he not backed off, Vettel and Max would have got past him through no fault of his own. Having to do back to back stops with enough space already disadvantaged him, as seen by Max getting out slightly ahead of him, had he not backed them off he would have just lost the places.

If we were to start introducing a rule against this, then all what would happen is that a team with a 1-2 track position at Monaco would simply order their drivers to run 5 seconds apart on track until after the pit stops, to allow for a double stack pitstop in the event of a safety car. That would then mean there would be zero fighting for the lead. The drivers would comply, as well, because they know there is a near zero chance of overtaking, but a high chance of a safety car.

If a team wants to double stack their drivers, they shouldn't hold the rest of the field "hostage" in order to avoid losing a place frankly. It's a situation that they created.

If he hadn't have pitted then he would have also fallen to fourth place. They weren't double stacking because they felt like it on a whim. It was double stack with a gap or lose second place with any other action. They weren't holding the field hostage either, Bottas was legitimately in second place, Max and Vettel wouldn't have 'earned' their pass on Bottas if he had kept within 10 car lengths of Hamilton, they would have inherited it due to the Safety Car.

And as I pointed out, if you outlaw what Bottas did, you will just have the teams space their drivers apart at Monaco by about 5 to 10 seconds. Bottas knows he won't be able to pass Hamilton on track, he knows a safety car is a near certainty at Monaco and it is in his favour to protect against the double stack when the Safety Car inevitable happens as opposed to follow Hamilton on the near zero possibility he gets an opportunity pass.

They could play the scenario you mentioned, but I would expect the outcry to be huge, it would be like the worst team order ever. Guarantee that the guy at the front will never lose the win.

You think Bottas ever had the chance of winning?

Worse team order ever, not even close?

pokerman wrote:

Covalent wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: What sort? He made one move against Hamilton in dozens of laps of pushing him hard, so now we disregard the entire rest of his performance and just reduce it to that?

He crashed with another car in the pit lane as well, I venture that he really should have received a drive through penalty for that and should never have been in a position to challenge for the win in the first place, and I have argued against these 5 second penalties in the past that leave the victim worse off than the assailant.

I don't really have an awful lot of sympathy for Bottas tbh as I think he was asking for a close call by bunching everybody up coming into the pits. I see it as a racing incident myself and I don't agree a penalty was warranted.

I haven´t read up on the aftermath of the GP, but wasn´t the unsafe release the team´s fault and not Max´s?

It was the fault of the team but the stewards also concluded that Verstappen could have avoided the contact, also did not Vettel say that Verstappen looked like he intentionally put the squeeze on Bottas in an attempt to make Bottas concede position?

Ah if that's the case then shame on him...

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote: The ten car lengths applies to everyone, but only once they have caught up with the safety car. As Hamilton had not yet caught the safety car, there was no regulation covering the following distance:

To be honest, I don't really have a problem with what Bottas did. Had he not backed off, Vettel and Max would have got past him through no fault of his own. Having to do back to back stops with enough space already disadvantaged him, as seen by Max getting out slightly ahead of him, had he not backed them off he would have just lost the places.

If we were to start introducing a rule against this, then all what would happen is that a team with a 1-2 track position at Monaco would simply order their drivers to run 5 seconds apart on track until after the pit stops, to allow for a double stack pitstop in the event of a safety car. That would then mean there would be zero fighting for the lead. The drivers would comply, as well, because they know there is a near zero chance of overtaking, but a high chance of a safety car.

If a team wants to double stack their drivers, they shouldn't hold the rest of the field "hostage" in order to avoid losing a place frankly. It's a situation that they created.

If he hadn't have pitted then he would have also fallen to fourth place. They weren't double stacking because they felt like it on a whim. It was double stack with a gap or lose second place with any other action. They weren't holding the field hostage either, Bottas was legitimately in second place, Max and Vettel wouldn't have 'earned' their pass on Bottas if he had kept within 10 car lengths of Hamilton, they would have inherited it due to the Safety Car.

And as I pointed out, if you outlaw what Bottas did, you will just have the teams space their drivers apart at Monaco by about 5 to 10 seconds. Bottas knows he won't be able to pass Hamilton on track, he knows a safety car is a near certainty at Monaco and it is in his favour to protect against the double stack when the Safety Car inevitable happens as opposed to follow Hamilton on the near zero possibility he gets an opportunity pass.

They could play the scenario you mentioned, but I would expect the outcry to be huge, it would be like the worst team order ever. Guarantee that the guy at the front will never lose the win.

You think Bottas ever had the chance of winning?

Worse team order ever, not even close?

Bottas could have a chance of winning by getting to the first corner first for example.

And yes, I would consider it an incredibly bad team order since people do not like me calling it "worst". It would have been premeditated from the start of the race, not a situation like Austria or Germany that just evolved during the race.

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:
If a team wants to double stack their drivers, they shouldn't hold the rest of the field "hostage" in order to avoid losing a place frankly. It's a situation that they created.

If he hadn't have pitted then he would have also fallen to fourth place. They weren't double stacking because they felt like it on a whim. It was double stack with a gap or lose second place with any other action. They weren't holding the field hostage either, Bottas was legitimately in second place, Max and Vettel wouldn't have 'earned' their pass on Bottas if he had kept within 10 car lengths of Hamilton, they would have inherited it due to the Safety Car.

And as I pointed out, if you outlaw what Bottas did, you will just have the teams space their drivers apart at Monaco by about 5 to 10 seconds. Bottas knows he won't be able to pass Hamilton on track, he knows a safety car is a near certainty at Monaco and it is in his favour to protect against the double stack when the Safety Car inevitable happens as opposed to follow Hamilton on the near zero possibility he gets an opportunity pass.

They could play the scenario you mentioned, but I would expect the outcry to be huge, it would be like the worst team order ever. Guarantee that the guy at the front will never lose the win.

You think Bottas ever had the chance of winning?

Worse team order ever, not even close?

Bottas could have a chance of winning by getting to the first corner first for example.

And yes, I would consider it an incredibly bad team order since people do not like me calling it "worst". It would have been premeditated from the start of the race, not a situation like Austria or Germany that just evolved during the race.

Again. It is not a team order. Only you are calling it that. It is a strategy that Bottas (or Hamilton) would be free to disregard if they wanted, but they never would because they know that double stacking is a highly probably scenario and they will need to protect against losing places if they are not allowed to back the pack up during their in lap.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote: If he hadn't have pitted then he would have also fallen to fourth place. They weren't double stacking because they felt like it on a whim. It was double stack with a gap or lose second place with any other action. They weren't holding the field hostage either, Bottas was legitimately in second place, Max and Vettel wouldn't have 'earned' their pass on Bottas if he had kept within 10 car lengths of Hamilton, they would have inherited it due to the Safety Car.

And as I pointed out, if you outlaw what Bottas did, you will just have the teams space their drivers apart at Monaco by about 5 to 10 seconds. Bottas knows he won't be able to pass Hamilton on track, he knows a safety car is a near certainty at Monaco and it is in his favour to protect against the double stack when the Safety Car inevitable happens as opposed to follow Hamilton on the near zero possibility he gets an opportunity pass.

They could play the scenario you mentioned, but I would expect the outcry to be huge, it would be like the worst team order ever. Guarantee that the guy at the front will never lose the win.

You think Bottas ever had the chance of winning?

Worse team order ever, not even close?

Bottas could have a chance of winning by getting to the first corner first for example.

And yes, I would consider it an incredibly bad team order since people do not like me calling it "worst". It would have been premeditated from the start of the race, not a situation like Austria or Germany that just evolved during the race.

Again. It is not a team order. Only you are calling it that. It is a strategy that Bottas (or Hamilton) would be free to disregard if they wanted, but they never would because they know that double stacking is a highly probably scenario and they will need to protect against losing places if they are not allowed to back the pack up during their in lap.

Jesus, of course only I called it that, it's a hypothetical scenario that you made/came up with and not a real situation that happened!!!! I called it a team order which seemed to have hurt your feelings... You can call it strategy or even "John" for all I care. In my mind it rings like a team order, is that ok with you? You don't have to agree but I am allowed to have my opinion thank you very much.

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:
They could play the scenario you mentioned, but I would expect the outcry to be huge, it would be like the worst team order ever. Guarantee that the guy at the front will never lose the win.

You think Bottas ever had the chance of winning?

Worse team order ever, not even close?

Bottas could have a chance of winning by getting to the first corner first for example.

And yes, I would consider it an incredibly bad team order since people do not like me calling it "worst". It would have been premeditated from the start of the race, not a situation like Austria or Germany that just evolved during the race.

Again. It is not a team order. Only you are calling it that. It is a strategy that Bottas (or Hamilton) would be free to disregard if they wanted, but they never would because they know that double stacking is a highly probably scenario and they will need to protect against losing places if they are not allowed to back the pack up during their in lap.

Jesus, of course only I called it that, it's a hypothetical scenario that you made/came up with and not a real situation that happened!!!! I called it a team order which seemed to have hurt your feelings... You can call it strategy or even "John" for all I care. In my mind it rings like a team order, is that ok with you? You don't have to agree but I am allowed to have my opinion thank you very much.

Of course you are allowed to have your own opinion on whatever you want. But ultimately when that's what it comes down to then there is no longer a debate or discussion.

But if you are going to start throwing out statements like "This would be one of the worst team orders ever" on a public discussion forum, you should expect to have your opinion challenged.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote: You think Bottas ever had the chance of winning?

Worse team order ever, not even close?

Bottas could have a chance of winning by getting to the first corner first for example.

And yes, I would consider it an incredibly bad team order since people do not like me calling it "worst". It would have been premeditated from the start of the race, not a situation like Austria or Germany that just evolved during the race.

Again. It is not a team order. Only you are calling it that. It is a strategy that Bottas (or Hamilton) would be free to disregard if they wanted, but they never would because they know that double stacking is a highly probably scenario and they will need to protect against losing places if they are not allowed to back the pack up during their in lap.

Jesus, of course only I called it that, it's a hypothetical scenario that you made/came up with and not a real situation that happened!!!! I called it a team order which seemed to have hurt your feelings... You can call it strategy or even "John" for all I care. In my mind it rings like a team order, is that ok with you? You don't have to agree but I am allowed to have my opinion thank you very much.

Of course you are allowed to have your own opinion on whatever you want. But ultimately when that's what it comes down to then there is no longer a debate or discussion.

But if you are going to start throwing out statements like "This would be one of the worst team orders ever" on a public discussion forum, you should expect to have your opinion challenged.

You are right on that, it is a public discussion forum. You do not seem to like being challenged though, but hey, no worries.

I explained why I would regard it a bad order, when you prohibit the two team mates to race from before the race even starts. As I said before (and you conveniently brushed off), your original post mentioned that "they would have their drivers spaced", which you later changed to Bottas doing it for himself, I am not going to repeat the whole thing. I mentioned which part I objected but you seem to have an issue with the terminology...

So I'll help us both have a nicer weekend and I'll not call it TO from now on. Will this make you happier?

Siao7 wrote: Bottas could have a chance of winning by getting to the first corner first for example.

And yes, I would consider it an incredibly bad team order since people do not like me calling it "worst". It would have been premeditated from the start of the race, not a situation like Austria or Germany that just evolved during the race.

Do you undertsand that you can not pass at Monaco and the 5 second gap would be to maintian Bottas' 2nd position to safeguard dropping to 4th place if there happened to be a SC, yet you think this would be in affect a negative team order against Bottas, if the roles were reversed then Hamilton would sit 5 seconds behind Bottas, I can't believe some of the things I'm reading in this thread.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote: You think Bottas ever had the chance of winning?

Worse team order ever, not even close?

Bottas could have a chance of winning by getting to the first corner first for example.

And yes, I would consider it an incredibly bad team order since people do not like me calling it "worst". It would have been premeditated from the start of the race, not a situation like Austria or Germany that just evolved during the race.

Again. It is not a team order. Only you are calling it that. It is a strategy that Bottas (or Hamilton) would be free to disregard if they wanted, but they never would because they know that double stacking is a highly probably scenario and they will need to protect against losing places if they are not allowed to back the pack up during their in lap.

Jesus, of course only I called it that, it's a hypothetical scenario that you made/came up with and not a real situation that happened!!!! I called it a team order which seemed to have hurt your feelings... You can call it strategy or even "John" for all I care. In my mind it rings like a team order, is that ok with you? You don't have to agree but I am allowed to have my opinion thank you very much.

Of course you are allowed to have your own opinion on whatever you want. But ultimately when that's what it comes down to then there is no longer a debate or discussion.

But if you are going to start throwing out statements like "This would be one of the worst team orders ever" on a public discussion forum, you should expect to have your opinion challenged.

You know reading some of these posts this thread has really opened my eyes.

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote: If he hadn't have pitted then he would have also fallen to fourth place. They weren't double stacking because they felt like it on a whim. It was double stack with a gap or lose second place with any other action. They weren't holding the field hostage either, Bottas was legitimately in second place, Max and Vettel wouldn't have 'earned' their pass on Bottas if he had kept within 10 car lengths of Hamilton, they would have inherited it due to the Safety Car.

And as I pointed out, if you outlaw what Bottas did, you will just have the teams space their drivers apart at Monaco by about 5 to 10 seconds. Bottas knows he won't be able to pass Hamilton on track, he knows a safety car is a near certainty at Monaco and it is in his favour to protect against the double stack when the Safety Car inevitable happens as opposed to follow Hamilton on the near zero possibility he gets an opportunity pass.

They could play the scenario you mentioned, but I would expect the outcry to be huge, it would be like the worst team order ever. Guarantee that the guy at the front will never lose the win.

You think Bottas ever had the chance of winning?

Worse team order ever, not even close?

Bottas could have a chance of winning by getting to the first corner first for example.

And yes, I would consider it an incredibly bad team order since people do not like me calling it "worst". It would have been premeditated from the start of the race, not a situation like Austria or Germany that just evolved during the race.

Do you undertsand that you can not pass at Monaco and the 5 second gap would be to maintian Bottas' 2nd position to safeguard dropping to 4th place if there happened to be a SC, yet you think this would be in affect a negative team order against Bottas, if the roles were reversed then Hamilton would sit 5 seconds behind Bottas, I can't believe some of the things I'm reading in this thread.

Can I please reserve the right to dislike that strategy? Is that ok with some people in here? Because it feels like I have to agree with you and Alien suddenly. And stop making it about Hamilton yet again please, I do not care who would be in what position, it is the strategy that I do not like.

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote: Bottas could have a chance of winning by getting to the first corner first for example.

And yes, I would consider it an incredibly bad team order since people do not like me calling it "worst". It would have been premeditated from the start of the race, not a situation like Austria or Germany that just evolved during the race.

Again. It is not a team order. Only you are calling it that. It is a strategy that Bottas (or Hamilton) would be free to disregard if they wanted, but they never would because they know that double stacking is a highly probably scenario and they will need to protect against losing places if they are not allowed to back the pack up during their in lap.

Jesus, of course only I called it that, it's a hypothetical scenario that you made/came up with and not a real situation that happened!!!! I called it a team order which seemed to have hurt your feelings... You can call it strategy or even "John" for all I care. In my mind it rings like a team order, is that ok with you? You don't have to agree but I am allowed to have my opinion thank you very much.

Of course you are allowed to have your own opinion on whatever you want. But ultimately when that's what it comes down to then there is no longer a debate or discussion.

But if you are going to start throwing out statements like "This would be one of the worst team orders ever" on a public discussion forum, you should expect to have your opinion challenged.

You are right on that, it is a public discussion forum. You do not seem to like being challenged though, but hey, no worries.

I explained why I would regard it a bad order, when you prohibit the two team mates to race from before the race even starts. As I said before (and you conveniently brushed off), your original post mentioned that "they would have their drivers spaced", which you later changed to Bottas doing it for himself, I am not going to repeat the whole thing. I mentioned which part I objected but you seem to have an issue with the terminology...

So I'll help us both have a nicer weekend and I'll not call it TO from now on. Will this make you happier?

Who said this?

pokerman wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:
Bottas could have a chance of winning by getting to the first corner first for example.

And yes, I would consider it an incredibly bad team order since people do not like me calling it "worst". It would have been premeditated from the start of the race, not a situation like Austria or Germany that just evolved during the race.

Again. It is not a team order. Only you are calling it that. It is a strategy that Bottas (or Hamilton) would be free to disregard if they wanted, but they never would because they know that double stacking is a highly probably scenario and they will need to protect against losing places if they are not allowed to back the pack up during their in lap.

Jesus, of course only I called it that, it's a hypothetical scenario that you made/came up with and not a real situation that happened!!!! I called it a team order which seemed to have hurt your feelings... You can call it strategy or even "John" for all I care. In my mind it rings like a team order, is that ok with you? You don't have to agree but I am allowed to have my opinion thank you very much.

Of course you are allowed to have your own opinion on whatever you want. But ultimately when that's what it comes down to then there is no longer a debate or discussion.

But if you are going to start throwing out statements like "This would be one of the worst team orders ever" on a public discussion forum, you should expect to have your opinion challenged.

You know reading some of these posts this thread has really opened my eyes.

You finally get it, people have different opinions. It's a good start.

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote: Again. It is not a team order. Only you are calling it that. It is a strategy that Bottas (or Hamilton) would be free to disregard if they wanted, but they never would because they know that double stacking is a highly probably scenario and they will need to protect against losing places if they are not allowed to back the pack up during their in lap.

Jesus, of course only I called it that, it's a hypothetical scenario that you made/came up with and not a real situation that happened!!!! I called it a team order which seemed to have hurt your feelings... You can call it strategy or even "John" for all I care. In my mind it rings like a team order, is that ok with you? You don't have to agree but I am allowed to have my opinion thank you very much.

Of course you are allowed to have your own opinion on whatever you want. But ultimately when that's what it comes down to then there is no longer a debate or discussion.

But if you are going to start throwing out statements like "This would be one of the worst team orders ever" on a public discussion forum, you should expect to have your opinion challenged.

You know reading some of these posts this thread has really opened my eyes.

You finally get it, people have different opinions. It's a good start.

Can you answer what I highlighted in blue?

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:Again. It is not a team order. Only you are calling it that. It is a strategy that Bottas (or Hamilton) would be free to disregard if they wanted, but they never would because they know that double stacking is a highly probably scenario and they will need to protect against losing places if they are not allowed to back the pack up during their in lap.

Jesus, of course only I called it that, it's a hypothetical scenario that you made/came up with and not a real situation that happened!!!! I called it a team order which seemed to have hurt your feelings... You can call it strategy or even "John" for all I care. In my mind it rings like a team order, is that ok with you? You don't have to agree but I am allowed to have my opinion thank you very much.

Of course you are allowed to have your own opinion on whatever you want. But ultimately when that's what it comes down to then there is no longer a debate or discussion.

But if you are going to start throwing out statements like "This would be one of the worst team orders ever" on a public discussion forum, you should expect to have your opinion challenged.

You are right on that, it is a public discussion forum. You do not seem to like being challenged though, but hey, no worries.

I explained why I would regard it a bad order, when you prohibit the two team mates to race from before the race even starts. As I said before (and you conveniently brushed off), your original post mentioned that "they would have their drivers spaced", which you later changed to Bottas doing it for himself, I am not going to repeat the whole thing. I mentioned which part I objected but you seem to have an issue with the terminology...

So I'll help us both have a nicer weekend and I'll not call it TO from now on. Will this make you happier?

Who said this?

I believe that it was implied during the discussion about Bottas dropping back from Hamilton when the SC signs came out and was along the lines of: if cars are not allowed to drop back under SC conditions, leading team-mates at Monaco would probably maintain a 5-second gap in anticipation of a SC and having to double-pit. The implication (from my view) is that this would be discussed before the race.

tootsie323 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:
Jesus, of course only I called it that, it's a hypothetical scenario that you made/came up with and not a real situation that happened!!!! I called it a team order which seemed to have hurt your feelings... You can call it strategy or even "John" for all I care. In my mind it rings like a team order, is that ok with you? You don't have to agree but I am allowed to have my opinion thank you very much.

Of course you are allowed to have your own opinion on whatever you want. But ultimately when that's what it comes down to then there is no longer a debate or discussion.

But if you are going to start throwing out statements like "This would be one of the worst team orders ever" on a public discussion forum, you should expect to have your opinion challenged.

You are right on that, it is a public discussion forum. You do not seem to like being challenged though, but hey, no worries.

I explained why I would regard it a bad order, when you prohibit the two team mates to race from before the race even starts. As I said before (and you conveniently brushed off), your original post mentioned that "they would have their drivers spaced", which you later changed to Bottas doing it for himself, I am not going to repeat the whole thing. I mentioned which part I objected but you seem to have an issue with the terminology...

So I'll help us both have a nicer weekend and I'll not call it TO from now on. Will this make you happier?

Who said this?

I believe that it was implied during the discussion about Bottas dropping back from Hamilton when the SC signs came out and was along the lines of: if cars are not allowed to drop back under SC conditions, leading team-mates at Monaco would probably maintain a 5-second gap in anticipation of a SC and having to double-pit. The implication (from my view) is that this would be discussed before the race.

Thank you, I feel like I have to spell everything sometimes

tootsie323 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote: Jesus, of course only I called it that, it's a hypothetical scenario that you made/came up with and not a real situation that happened!!!! I called it a team order which seemed to have hurt your feelings... You can call it strategy or even "John" for all I care. In my mind it rings like a team order, is that ok with you? You don't have to agree but I am allowed to have my opinion thank you very much.

Of course you are allowed to have your own opinion on whatever you want. But ultimately when that's what it comes down to then there is no longer a debate or discussion.

But if you are going to start throwing out statements like "This would be one of the worst team orders ever" on a public discussion forum, you should expect to have your opinion challenged.

You are right on that, it is a public discussion forum. You do not seem to like being challenged though, but hey, no worries.

I explained why I would regard it a bad order, when you prohibit the two team mates to race from before the race even starts. As I said before (and you conveniently brushed off), your original post mentioned that "they would have their drivers spaced", which you later changed to Bottas doing it for himself, I am not going to repeat the whole thing. I mentioned which part I objected but you seem to have an issue with the terminology...

So I'll help us both have a nicer weekend and I'll not call it TO from now on. Will this make you happier?

Who said this?

I believe that it was implied during the discussion about Bottas dropping back from Hamilton when the SC signs came out and was along the lines of: if cars are not allowed to drop back under SC conditions, leading team-mates at Monaco would probably maintain a 5-second gap in anticipation of a SC and having to double-pit. The implication (from my view) is that this would be discussed before the race.

I understand that but saying before the race implies at race start as well, how do we know that pole man doesn't fluff the start?

Going on from that you cannot pass at Monaco but it's being suggested in this case that Bottas would be given a team order from preventing him from trying to pass Hamilton.

Siao7 wrote:

tootsie323 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote: Of course you are allowed to have your own opinion on whatever you want. But ultimately when that's what it comes down to then there is no longer a debate or discussion.

But if you are going to start throwing out statements like "This would be one of the worst team orders ever" on a public discussion forum, you should expect to have your opinion challenged.

You are right on that, it is a public discussion forum. You do not seem to like being challenged though, but hey, no worries.

I explained why I would regard it a bad order, when you prohibit the two team mates to race from before the race even starts. As I said before (and you conveniently brushed off), your original post mentioned that "they would have their drivers spaced", which you later changed to Bottas doing it for himself, I am not going to repeat the whole thing. I mentioned which part I objected but you seem to have an issue with the terminology...

So I'll help us both have a nicer weekend and I'll not call it TO from now on. Will this make you happier?

Who said this?

I believe that it was implied during the discussion about Bottas dropping back from Hamilton when the SC signs came out and was along the lines of: if cars are not allowed to drop back under SC conditions, leading team-mates at Monaco would probably maintain a 5-second gap in anticipation of a SC and having to double-pit. The implication (from my view) is that this would be discussed before the race.

Thank you, I feel like I have to spell everything sometimes

But teams discuss ALL OF THEIR STRATEGIES BEFORE A RACE. This is in no way any different whatsoever to any other predetermined strategy, such as when they are going to pit, dropping back to preserve tyres, the order they will use the tyre compounds, when to do sprint laps, how much of a gap to pull out to be safe from an undercut... the teams have hours and hours of discussions before each race where they discuss what they will do in each eventuality. IF it was made illegal to back up the pack to protect against a safety car double stack, then this would become an extra dimension of the strategy call. One of the many many many many possible predetermined strategies the teams already discuss before a race.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

tootsie323 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:
You are right on that, it is a public discussion forum. You do not seem to like being challenged though, but hey, no worries.

I explained why I would regard it a bad order, when you prohibit the two team mates to race from before the race even starts. As I said before (and you conveniently brushed off), your original post mentioned that "they would have their drivers spaced", which you later changed to Bottas doing it for himself, I am not going to repeat the whole thing. I mentioned which part I objected but you seem to have an issue with the terminology...

So I'll help us both have a nicer weekend and I'll not call it TO from now on. Will this make you happier?

Who said this?

I believe that it was implied during the discussion about Bottas dropping back from Hamilton when the SC signs came out and was along the lines of: if cars are not allowed to drop back under SC conditions, leading team-mates at Monaco would probably maintain a 5-second gap in anticipation of a SC and having to double-pit. The implication (from my view) is that this would be discussed before the race.

Thank you, I feel like I have to spell everything sometimes

But teams discuss ALL OF THEIR STRATEGIES BEFORE A RACE. This is in no way any different whatsoever to any other predetermined strategy, such as when they are going to pit, dropping back to preserve tyres, the order they will use the tyre compounds, when to do sprint laps, how much of a gap to pull out to be safe from an undercut... the teams have hours and hours of discussions before each race where they discuss what they will do in each eventuality. IF it was made illegal to back up the pack to protect against a safety car double stack, then this would become an extra dimension of the strategy call. One of the many many many many possible predetermined strategies the teams already discuss before a race.

Agreed. Strategy it would be. Let's leave it at that.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

tootsie323 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:
You are right on that, it is a public discussion forum. You do not seem to like being challenged though, but hey, no worries.

I explained why I would regard it a bad order, when you prohibit the two team mates to race from before the race even starts. As I said before (and you conveniently brushed off), your original post mentioned that "they would have their drivers spaced", which you later changed to Bottas doing it for himself, I am not going to repeat the whole thing. I mentioned which part I objected but you seem to have an issue with the terminology...

So I'll help us both have a nicer weekend and I'll not call it TO from now on. Will this make you happier?

Who said this?

I believe that it was implied during the discussion about Bottas dropping back from Hamilton when the SC signs came out and was along the lines of: if cars are not allowed to drop back under SC conditions, leading team-mates at Monaco would probably maintain a 5-second gap in anticipation of a SC and having to double-pit. The implication (from my view) is that this would be discussed before the race.

Thank you, I feel like I have to spell everything sometimes

But teams discuss ALL OF THEIR STRATEGIES BEFORE A RACE. This is in no way any different whatsoever to any other predetermined strategy, such as when they are going to pit, dropping back to preserve tyres, the order they will use the tyre compounds, when to do sprint laps, how much of a gap to pull out to be safe from an undercut... the teams have hours and hours of discussions before each race where they discuss what they will do in each eventuality. IF it was made illegal to back up the pack to protect against a safety car double stack, then this would become an extra dimension of the strategy call. One of the many many many many possible predetermined strategies the teams already discuss before a race.

I'm not convinced of that. Monaco presented a unique set of circumstances and it's almost impossible to overtake there. A driver deliberately hanging back on many other circuits would be inviting an overtake from the opposition and it only works if a) you're counting on a SC and b) the driver behind has resigned themselves to playing a support role after the first corner. I don't see it.

It's not like teams routinely double stack anyway. I doubt it would become a major strategic focus all of a sudden

Zoue wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

tootsie323 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Who said this?

I believe that it was implied during the discussion about Bottas dropping back from Hamilton when the SC signs came out and was along the lines of: if cars are not allowed to drop back under SC conditions, leading team-mates at Monaco would probably maintain a 5-second gap in anticipation of a SC and having to double-pit. The implication (from my view) is that this would be discussed before the race.

Thank you, I feel like I have to spell everything sometimes

But teams discuss ALL OF THEIR STRATEGIES BEFORE A RACE. This is in no way any different whatsoever to any other predetermined strategy, such as when they are going to pit, dropping back to preserve tyres, the order they will use the tyre compounds, when to do sprint laps, how much of a gap to pull out to be safe from an undercut... the teams have hours and hours of discussions before each race where they discuss what they will do in each eventuality. IF it was made illegal to back up the pack to protect against a safety car double stack, then this would become an extra dimension of the strategy call. One of the many many many many possible predetermined strategies the teams already discuss before a race.

I'm not convinced of that. Monaco presented a unique set of circumstances and it's almost impossible to overtake there. A driver deliberately hanging back on many other circuits would be inviting an overtake from the opposition and it only works if a) you're counting on a SC and b) the driver behind has resigned themselves to playing a support role after the first corner. I don't see it.

It's not like teams routinely double stack anyway. I doubt it would become a major strategic focus all of a sudden

I'm talking about specifically at Monaco as that would be the only track at which this problem would present itself.