planetf1.com

Zoue wrote:

f1madman wrote:

Zoue wrote:Max for me, easily. The Merc’s monster traction meant he could get close enough where it mattered but otherwise he put immense pressure in Lewis and the engine made the difference in the end

I don't know anyone could vote for max when he almost took out both Mercedes in the race.

Because he was one of the only ones actually racing, as opposed to simply driving around in circles.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

f1madman wrote:

Zoue wrote:Max for me, easily. The Merc’s monster traction meant he could get close enough where it mattered but otherwise he put immense pressure in Lewis and the engine made the difference in the end

I don't know anyone could vote for max when he almost took out both Mercedes in the race.

Because he was one of the only ones actually racing, as opposed to simply driving around in circles.

Banger racing is good for that kind of racing, there was a time when F1 drivers got crticised for that kind of racing, I'm thinking of Perez 2013.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

F1Oz wrote:Hamilton wining about tyres when his car was superb and we know that he'd have had to make a major mistake to be overtaken - a joke - just did what was needed and seriously not driver of the day

others who did well because of pitstops - also questionable.

Max CLEARLY unsafe release and then ALSO hit Bottas multiple times - causing Bottas to have a puncture and pit again - he SHOULD have got a drive through penalty which would have dropped him to 13th ish - Marko talking about bias is IRONIC - as the BIAS supporting verstappen is unbelievable - at best he should have got the penalty of Giovenassi - seeing the latter got 10 secs for a minor collision that damaged nobody and wasn't an unsafe release - WHY won't the authorities penalise Max appropriately - it may have been more the team's fault -this time - but Max should ALSO have got a penalty for the ridiculous hit on Hamilton late when he hit Hamilton turning in with NO CHANCE of making the corner and clearly a more significant racing incident than Giovenassi - so should have been another 10 sec penalty at minimum or at least grid spot penalties in the next race - yes Marko - WHY is the FIA not penalising Max when it should? Even 4th is a gift to Max and does not deserve any sort of driver of the day

Ricciardo qualified above average, great start - and if they'd kept him out - would probably have finished 5th/6th at worst - and after losing ridiculous time with Norris slowing everyone down - pulled 38 secs on Grosjean in a superior car despite G having the same tyres but 30 laps younger - and did a fantastic last lap on tyres over 50 laps old (the same that Hamilton complained about despite NOT having to follow cars for most of his stint and damage them more) - and pinched 9th place (no doubt with G told to push things up the last laps regardless.

So Dan Ric - IMO clearly best driver of the day given his probably no better than 9th car (less two with issues) and who would have done better without the poor pitstop - none of the other contenders did that

I'm kind of half tongue in cheek here but I'm having a little chuckle about your post complaining about bias when you're one of the only votes for a driver who happens to be Australian!

Curious what you think of Sainz's overtake at the beginning and what you think Ricciardo did better than him overall?

Why shouldn't Ricciardo be considered DoTD, he was running best of the rest until Renault did for him with strategy?

I didn't say he shouldn't be considered, I was asking what he did specifically that was better than e.g. Sainz?

He was beating Sainz fair and square before Renault did for him with strategy, I voted for Sainz but I can fully understand someone voting for Ricciardo and that being far from biased.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

f1madman wrote:

Zoue wrote:Max for me, easily. The Merc’s monster traction meant he could get close enough where it mattered but otherwise he put immense pressure in Lewis and the engine made the difference in the end

I don't know anyone could vote for max when he almost took out both Mercedes in the race.

Because he was one of the only ones actually racing, as opposed to simply driving around in circles.

Banger racing is good for that kind of racing, there was a time when F1 drivers got crticised for that kind of racing, I'm thinking of Perez 2013.

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?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:You looking to turn this back on Hamilton?

Any driver can go for a dive bomb.

What? Have you even read the posts you've been responding to?

Fair enough posts get hidden now, but I'm not the one looking to champion Hamilton just questioning your take on Verstappen's dive bomb.

I think the only reason you're upset about it is because it was against Hamilton, tbh. Max tried a move and it didn't pay off. As I said at least he tried and as others have pointed out if he hadn't then it would have been a pretty boring race.

In fact I'd say that this race demonstrates why number of overtakes shouldn't be the holy grail in determining good racing. Max didn't succeed, but the tension that built up around the possibility that he might was what made the race interesting. Vettel and Bottas had more technically perfect drives but you wouldn't exactly say either of them were racing, as such. They were just completing laps. I'd rather have had the Max/Lewis scenario than one where Max powers past unopposed with the benefit of DRS.

I only highlighted your reasoning, how about getting 2 penalty points on your license for what the stewards stated as causing an avoidable accident in the pit lane were he damaged his opponents car, ordinarily that would exempt him from the vote?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

f1madman wrote:
I don't know anyone could vote for max when he almost took out both Mercedes in the race.

Because he was one of the only ones actually racing, as opposed to simply driving around in circles.

Banger racing is good for that kind of racing, there was a time when F1 drivers got crticised for that kind of racing, I'm thinking of Perez 2013.

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.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: Why shouldn't Ricciardo be considered DoTD, he was running best of the rest until Renault did for him with strategy?

I didn't say he shouldn't be considered, I was asking what he did specifically that was better than e.g. Sainz?

He was beating Sainz fair and square before Renault did for him with strategy, I voted for Sainz but I can fully understand someone voting for Ricciardo and that being far from biased.

well I did say I was half joking...

He was beating Sainz because he started ahead of Sainz and at Monaco track position is king: doesn't necessarily mean he was driving any better, though. Vettel was ahead of both of them but I wouldn't give him the vote on that basis.

Would you say his overtake on KM at the start was better than Sainz's double overtake around the outside?

I don't think Ricciardo drove bad, BTW, but my comment was a bit in jest on the irony of a poster complaining about bias when it could be said that bias possibly played some part in the choice of DotD

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: Why shouldn't Ricciardo be considered DoTD, he was running best of the rest until Renault did for him with strategy?

I didn't say he shouldn't be considered, I was asking what he did specifically that was better than e.g. Sainz?

He was beating Sainz fair and square before Renault did for him with strategy, I voted for Sainz but I can fully understand someone voting for Ricciardo and that being far from biased.

well I did say I was half joking...

He was beating Sainz because he started ahead of Sainz and at Monaco track position is king: doesn't necessarily mean he was driving any better, though. Vettel was ahead of both of them but I wouldn't give him the vote on that basis.

Would you say his overtake on KM at the start was better than Sainz's double overtake around the outside?

I don't think Ricciardo drove bad, BTW, but my comment was a bit in jest on the irony of a poster complaining about bias when it could be said that bias possibly played some part in the choice of DotD

Like I said I voted for Sainz myself and let's not get into the semantics of what are seen as biased reasoning.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: I didn't say he shouldn't be considered, I was asking what he did specifically that was better than e.g. Sainz?

He was beating Sainz fair and square before Renault did for him with strategy, I voted for Sainz but I can fully understand someone voting for Ricciardo and that being far from biased.

well I did say I was half joking...

He was beating Sainz because he started ahead of Sainz and at Monaco track position is king: doesn't necessarily mean he was driving any better, though. Vettel was ahead of both of them but I wouldn't give him the vote on that basis.

Would you say his overtake on KM at the start was better than Sainz's double overtake around the outside?

I don't think Ricciardo drove bad, BTW, but my comment was a bit in jest on the irony of a poster complaining about bias when it could be said that bias possibly played some part in the choice of DotD

Like I said I voted for Sainz myself and let's not get into the semantics of what are seen as biased reasoning.

Given that the entire point of the post was about biased reasoning, it's a bit hard not to, wouldn't you say?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: What? Have you even read the posts you've been responding to?

Fair enough posts get hidden now, but I'm not the one looking to champion Hamilton just questioning your take on Verstappen's dive bomb.

I think the only reason you're upset about it is because it was against Hamilton, tbh. Max tried a move and it didn't pay off. As I said at least he tried and as others have pointed out if he hadn't then it would have been a pretty boring race.

In fact I'd say that this race demonstrates why number of overtakes shouldn't be the holy grail in determining good racing. Max didn't succeed, but the tension that built up around the possibility that he might was what made the race interesting. Vettel and Bottas had more technically perfect drives but you wouldn't exactly say either of them were racing, as such. They were just completing laps. I'd rather have had the Max/Lewis scenario than one where Max powers past unopposed with the benefit of DRS.

I only highlighted your reasoning, how about getting 2 penalty points on your license for what the stewards stated as causing an avoidable accident in the pit lane were he damaged his opponents car, ordinarily that would exempt him from the vote?

Would you show me that rule, please? I may have missed it.

If DotD is for drivers who make no mistakes, then Vettel might have a strong case. Didn't put a wheel wrong all race. But IMHO all he did was cruise all afternoon and for me DotD has to mean something more.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: He was beating Sainz fair and square before Renault did for him with strategy, I voted for Sainz but I can fully understand someone voting for Ricciardo and that being far from biased.

well I did say I was half joking...

He was beating Sainz because he started ahead of Sainz and at Monaco track position is king: doesn't necessarily mean he was driving any better, though. Vettel was ahead of both of them but I wouldn't give him the vote on that basis.

Would you say his overtake on KM at the start was better than Sainz's double overtake around the outside?

I don't think Ricciardo drove bad, BTW, but my comment was a bit in jest on the irony of a poster complaining about bias when it could be said that bias possibly played some part in the choice of DotD

Like I said I voted for Sainz myself and let's not get into the semantics of what are seen as biased reasoning.

Given that the entire point of the post was about biased reasoning, it's a bit hard not to, wouldn't you say?

You think your posting style is unbiased, fair enough?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: Fair enough posts get hidden now, but I'm not the one looking to champion Hamilton just questioning your take on Verstappen's dive bomb.

I think the only reason you're upset about it is because it was against Hamilton, tbh. Max tried a move and it didn't pay off. As I said at least he tried and as others have pointed out if he hadn't then it would have been a pretty boring race.

In fact I'd say that this race demonstrates why number of overtakes shouldn't be the holy grail in determining good racing. Max didn't succeed, but the tension that built up around the possibility that he might was what made the race interesting. Vettel and Bottas had more technically perfect drives but you wouldn't exactly say either of them were racing, as such. They were just completing laps. I'd rather have had the Max/Lewis scenario than one where Max powers past unopposed with the benefit of DRS.

I only highlighted your reasoning, how about getting 2 penalty points on your license for what the stewards stated as causing an avoidable accident in the pit lane were he damaged his opponents car, ordinarily that would exempt him from the vote?

Would you show me that rule, please? I may have missed it.

If DotD is for drivers who make no mistakes, then Vettel might have a strong case. Didn't put a wheel wrong all race. But IMHO all he did was cruise all afternoon and for me DotD has to mean something more.

So we will forgive a driver for a small mistake whilst trying to pressure the car in front?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: Because he was one of the only ones actually racing, as opposed to simply driving around in circles.

Banger racing is good for that kind of racing, there was a time when F1 drivers got crticised for that kind of racing, I'm thinking of Perez 2013.

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.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: Banger racing is good for that kind of racing, there was a time when F1 drivers got crticised for that kind of racing, I'm thinking of Perez 2013.

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.

The two incidents are separate though and I don't know the rules well enough to know if Bottas broke one but seeing how neither Red Bull of Ferrari didn't protest him then I guess not?

So Bottas deserved to have his car damaged because you believed he did wrong himself, we are the stage of defending unsafe pit lane releases were a car gets damaged to defend a position that you wish to take?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: I think the only reason you're upset about it is because it was against Hamilton, tbh. Max tried a move and it didn't pay off. As I said at least he tried and as others have pointed out if he hadn't then it would have been a pretty boring race.

In fact I'd say that this race demonstrates why number of overtakes shouldn't be the holy grail in determining good racing. Max didn't succeed, but the tension that built up around the possibility that he might was what made the race interesting. Vettel and Bottas had more technically perfect drives but you wouldn't exactly say either of them were racing, as such. They were just completing laps. I'd rather have had the Max/Lewis scenario than one where Max powers past unopposed with the benefit of DRS.

I only highlighted your reasoning, how about getting 2 penalty points on your license for what the stewards stated as causing an avoidable accident in the pit lane were he damaged his opponents car, ordinarily that would exempt him from the vote?

Would you show me that rule, please? I may have missed it.

If DotD is for drivers who make no mistakes, then Vettel might have a strong case. Didn't put a wheel wrong all race. But IMHO all he did was cruise all afternoon and for me DotD has to mean something more.

So we will forgive a driver for a small mistake whilst trying to pressure the car in front?

I don't recall ever disqualifying someone for DotD on the basis of one small mistake. It all depends on what else they did during a race

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman 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.

The two incidents are separate though and I don't know the rules well enough to know if Bottas broke one but seeing how neither Red Bull of Ferrari didn't protest him then I guess not?

So Bottas deserved to have his car damaged because you believed he did wrong himself, we are the stage of defending unsafe pit lane releases were a car gets damaged to defend a position that you wish to take?

Bunching the cars up surely makes a close call in the pit lane inevitable?

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: 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.

The two incidents are separate though and I don't know the rules well enough to know if Bottas broke one but seeing how neither Red Bull of Ferrari didn't protest him then I guess not?

So Bottas deserved to have his car damaged because you believed he did wrong himself, we are the stage of defending unsafe pit lane releases were a car gets damaged to defend a position that you wish to take?

Bunching the cars up surely makes a close call in the pit lane inevitable?

Yeah you have to wonder about the legality of it, but in respect to this thread the stewards judged Verstappen himself to be responsible for the collision with Bottas.

Going on from there why apart from on here is there not a big thing being said by the teams or in the paddock about what Bottas did, it seems the people who complain don't really know the rules perhaps?

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman 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.

The two incidents are separate though and I don't know the rules well enough to know if Bottas broke one but seeing how neither Red Bull of Ferrari didn't protest him then I guess not?

So Bottas deserved to have his car damaged because you believed he did wrong himself, we are the stage of defending unsafe pit lane releases were a car gets damaged to defend a position that you wish to take?

Bunching the cars up surely makes a close call in the pit lane inevitable?

Yeah you have to wonder about the legality of it, but in respect to this thread the stewards judged Verstappen himself to be responsible for the collision with Bottas.

Going on from there why apart from on here is there not a big thing being said by the teams or in the paddock about what Bottas did, it seems the people who complain don't really know the rules perhaps?

I think we have all disagreed with the stewards at one time or another?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: Banger racing is good for that kind of racing, there was a time when F1 drivers got crticised for that kind of racing, I'm thinking of Perez 2013.

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.

The two incidents are separate though and I don't know the rules well enough to know if Bottas broke one but seeing how neither Red Bull of Ferrari didn't protest him then I guess not?

So Bottas deserved to have his car damaged because you believed he did wrong himself, we are the stage of defending unsafe pit lane releases were a car gets damaged to defend a position that you wish to take?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman 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.

The two incidents are separate though and I don't know the rules well enough to know if Bottas broke one but seeing how neither Red Bull of Ferrari didn't protest him then I guess not?

So Bottas deserved to have his car damaged because you believed he did wrong himself, we are the stage of defending unsafe pit lane releases were a car gets damaged to defend a position that you wish to take?

it wasn't judged to be an unsafe release

Zoue wrote:

pokerman 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.

The two incidents are separate though and I don't know the rules well enough to know if Bottas broke one but seeing how neither Red Bull of Ferrari didn't protest him then I guess not?

So Bottas deserved to have his car damaged because you believed he did wrong himself, we are the stage of defending unsafe pit lane releases were a car gets damaged to defend a position that you wish to take?

it wasn't judged to be an unsafe release

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote: The two incidents are separate though and I don't know the rules well enough to know if Bottas broke one but seeing how neither Red Bull of Ferrari didn't protest him then I guess not?

So Bottas deserved to have his car damaged because you believed he did wrong himself, we are the stage of defending unsafe pit lane releases were a car gets damaged to defend a position that you wish to take?

Bunching the cars up surely makes a close call in the pit lane inevitable?

Yeah you have to wonder about the legality of it, but in respect to this thread the stewards judged Verstappen himself to be responsible for the collision with Bottas.

Going on from there why apart from on here is there not a big thing being said by the teams or in the paddock about what Bottas did, it seems the people who complain don't really know the rules perhaps?

I think we have all disagreed with the stewards at one time or another?

I'm surprised you are still wanting to run with this mikey?

Zoue wrote:

mcdo wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:I'm kind of half tongue in cheek here but I'm having a little chuckle about your post complaining about bias when you're one of the only votes for a driver who happens to be Australian!

Curious what you think of Sainz's overtake at the beginning and what you think Ricciardo did better than him overall?

Why shouldn't Ricciardo be considered DoTD, he was running best of the rest until Renault did for him with strategy?

I didn't say he shouldn't be considered, I was asking what he did specifically that was better than e.g. Sainz?

Nabbed Magnussen off the line. And towards the end of the race he got a hurry on and rapidly closed the gap to Grosjean, knowing that Grosjean was due a 5 sec penalty

Dan and KMag pitted together. Dan finished the race 9th, KMag 14th (12th on the road). He had a really good race

Think Sainz's double pass on Albon and Kvyat was better personally. And he finished best of the rest which was pretty special.

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: 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.

The two incidents are separate though and I don't know the rules well enough to know if Bottas broke one but seeing how neither Red Bull of Ferrari didn't protest him then I guess not?

So Bottas deserved to have his car damaged because you believed he did wrong himself, we are the stage of defending unsafe pit lane releases were a car gets damaged to defend a position that you wish to take?

it wasn't judged to be an unsafe release

I don't do that often, but I will disagree with you here Zoue. The transcript from the FIA shows that the penalty was for unsafe release, see in this page:

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/f1-auto ... as-Ferrari

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: 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.

The two incidents are separate though and I don't know the rules well enough to know if Bottas broke one but seeing how neither Red Bull of Ferrari didn't protest him then I guess not?

So Bottas deserved to have his car damaged because you believed he did wrong himself, we are the stage of defending unsafe pit lane releases were a car gets damaged to defend a position that you wish to take?

it wasn't judged to be an unsafe release

So the fault was set fair and square at the feet of Verstappen hence the endorsement on his license?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: Because he was one of the only ones actually racing, as opposed to simply driving around in circles.

Banger racing is good for that kind of racing, there was a time when F1 drivers got crticised for that kind of racing, I'm thinking of Perez 2013.

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.

Covalent wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: Banger racing is good for that kind of racing, there was a time when F1 drivers got crticised for that kind of racing, I'm thinking of Perez 2013.

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?

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.

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.

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman 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.

The two incidents are separate though and I don't know the rules well enough to know if Bottas broke one but seeing how neither Red Bull of Ferrari didn't protest him then I guess not?

So Bottas deserved to have his car damaged because you believed he did wrong himself, we are the stage of defending unsafe pit lane releases were a car gets damaged to defend a position that you wish to take?

it wasn't judged to be an unsafe release

I don't do that often, but I will disagree with you here Zoue. The transcript from the FIA shows that the penalty was for unsafe release, see in this page:

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/f1-auto ... as-Ferrari

Ah I stand corrected, thanks. I could have sworn I read reports that the penalty was specifically for max hitting Bottas and not actually for the release itself. My bad

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

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

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

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote: Bunching the cars up surely makes a close call in the pit lane inevitable?

Yeah you have to wonder about the legality of it, but in respect to this thread the stewards judged Verstappen himself to be responsible for the collision with Bottas.

Going on from there why apart from on here is there not a big thing being said by the teams or in the paddock about what Bottas did, it seems the people who complain don't really know the rules perhaps?

I think we have all disagreed with the stewards at one time or another?

I'm surprised you are still wanting to run with this mikey?

I don't know what you're getting at? Am I wrong? Have you always agreed with every stewarding decision? I know I haven't.

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman 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.

The two incidents are separate though and I don't know the rules well enough to know if Bottas broke one but seeing how neither Red Bull of Ferrari didn't protest him then I guess not?

So Bottas deserved to have his car damaged because you believed he did wrong himself, we are the stage of defending unsafe pit lane releases were a car gets damaged to defend a position that you wish to take?

it wasn't judged to be an unsafe release

I don't do that often, but I will disagree with you here Zoue. The transcript from the FIA shows that the penalty was for unsafe release, see in this page:

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/f1-auto ... as-Ferrari

Ah I stand corrected, thanks. I could have sworn I read reports that the penalty was specifically for max hitting Bottas and not actually for the release itself. My bad

Covalent wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: Banger racing is good for that kind of racing, there was a time when F1 drivers got crticised for that kind of racing, I'm thinking of Perez 2013.

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?

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

Siao7 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

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!

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.

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 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

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.

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.