It is currently Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:29 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7986
Clarky wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Greenman wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:

So while we all saw that he moved before the lights went out, there is clearly a tolerance built in to the sensor and his movement did not exceed it.



EXCEPT that there is NOTHING in the rules about any such "tolerance" - it is only in the imagination of the stewards !

Unless, of course, if you can find some indication of such a thing in the rules.

Making up rules seems very odd.

.

No the rules say it will be judged by the sensor, we know from the stewards comments that the sensor has a built in tolerance.

Vettel did not exceed the tolerance and therefore per the sensor no false start was recorded.

To many grey areas within the written rules. This particular rule can be written as simple as they come.

Any driver judged to have moved before the lights go out will receive a penalty.

That simple.

Yeah, could be, but currently it isn't.

I'd prefer a system with no tolerance which flags a false start to the stewards and then they make a call as to whether to penalise based on whether an advantage was gained.

Looking at the Kimi one he messed up his start by going too early and lost a lot of places, I dont see the point in penalising that when he's already effectively penalised himself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 10057
Laughing at the "James, it's Valtteri" message from Bottas on the cooldown lap :lol:

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2356
Exediron wrote:
Lost in all these other controversies...

How is it possible that Albon can absolutely plow into the side of Norris with a move that wasn't even close to being on and not receive so much as the vaunted warning flag? Why does Leclerc get a penalty for contact with Verstappen and Albon doesn't get one for taking Norris out?


Yes, that's hard to see.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7986
One thing I noticed that really annoyed me this weekend was the focus on the top guys doing nothing while ignoring genuine action lower down the field.

Di Resta pointed out that 4-5 cars were all within a few tenths of eachother and we were watching Vettel drive around all on his own. Cutting away to replays of the overtakes in that battle.

One thing F1 could do to improve the show right now is actually, you know, show it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1407
mikeyg123 wrote:
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
DFWdude wrote:
"Wolf said it himself, Hamilton wasn’t allowed to win this race so they needed him out the way and the easiest way to achieve that was pitting him. "

I'd like to understand why Hamilton was designated NOT to win this race (or any race).

The new graphics package showed Hamilton's medium tires were at 70% just before he was called in to box. At that point, he was 8 seconds in the lead over Bottas. He was holding Bottas at bay, and Vettel was not a factor to pass Bottas.

Hamilton could have coasted to the win, yet was called in, which placed him behind Vettel with no chance to get by given the short DRS zone on the front straight.

Did Hamilton do something to anger the team, or was this silliness just a PC bone to throw at Bottas? It stinks. Let them race. This business of the teams orchestrating results is BS.

These graphics are so inaccurate. When Hamilton was apparently at 70% of whatever that means, Hamilton said "the tires are dropping off". It was right as he pulled in that he said this. I really doubt that he will have made it to the end without struggling.


Trouble is without context we don't know what dropping off means... To me it means they have past their peak and are just starting to lose performance. 70% would be about right for that.

Looking at how the fields race panned out it seems pretty clear Hamilton would have comfortably beaten Vettel had he not pitted. I wouldn't even say Bottas catching was a sure thing.


Yes, in the first stint, Vettels tyres began dropping off on lap 8-9and he didn’t pit until lap 17. He lost about 1 second gradually over those 8-9 laps.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 8314
Location: Mumbai, India
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
One thing I noticed that really annoyed me this weekend was the focus on the top guys doing nothing while ignoring genuine action lower down the field.

Di Resta pointed out that 4-5 cars were all within a few tenths of eachother and we were watching Vettel drive around all on his own. Cutting away to replays of the overtakes in that battle.

One thing F1 could do to improve the show right now is actually, you know, show it.


This happened in Singapore & Sochi as well. Rarely do we see duels at the front like how we see in the midfield. At the front, it's all about strategy & preserving tyres whereas, in the midfield, all the drivers toll it out just to gain 1 position!

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34284
Johnson wrote:
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Yes that’s much better rather than saying I just think. I’ll pass judgement when I see the times but Hamiltons times never dropped suddenly on the mediums and I didn’t notice that on Bottas watching the live timing.

The question I would put to Wolf is, where did Hamilton finish? Yes, 3rd behind Vettel. So they pitted him to defend against Vettel and finished behind him anyway.

I just re-watched that part of the race and Hamilton was 17.5 ahead with 10 laps to. The last 2 laps of the stint he extended the gap to Vettel, where is the drop off?

The fact they said they won’t allow this strategy- why did they tell Bottas during the race (just after his first stop) that Hamilton is one stopping and you need to pass him on track then? Lots of BS from Mercedes there. Doesn’t add up. Hamilton wasn’t going to be allowed to win (based on Wolfs quotes) and the easiest way to manage that was pitting him, whether he needed it or not. It saved using tea, orders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0G4-Vp2TS0

From this video, the team radio heard was "OK Lewis so, pushing hard now." - Hamilton: "What do you think I've been doing this fast (or similar) God Knows how many laps. Tyres are dropping off."

I thought i remembered him saying similar to this. And I wasn't exactly wrong. This is what made me doubt that he would be able to keep Vettel behind right to the end. And given how fast Vettel was on the straights, i don't think A Ferrari getting by will have been that hard. I'm not sure if Mercedes expected Hamilton to be able to re pass Vettel, but it was worth doing what they did if Hamilton thought his tyres were dropping off. As he likely will have been got by Vettel. But then he could have waited for that anyway and still pitted for fastest lap. So i guess it still seems a bit strange.

But I do think my views are valid. Quite a lot of what I though seems to be the case from what Toto and Hamilton has said.


Put it this way...

If Bottas was in a Ferrari today and running 8 seconds behind Hamilton in a Mercedes. Exact same scenario otherwise. Do you really think Mercedes pit Hamilton for a second stop and put him 3rd? No chance I’d say.

Wolf said it himself, Hamilton wasn’t allowed to win this race so they needed him out the way and the easiest way to achieve that was pitting him. That’s the main reason Hamilton was pitted because I don’t think Bottas would have been able to pass him and they didn’t what to issue the team order. Or if Bottas was able to pass it would have been risky at least. Pitting Hamilton solved all there headaches.

It was telling when Hamilton said just before his 2nd stop “tell me what I need to do to win this race” and he was met with silence.

It will be interesting to look over the times post race. The numbers don’t lie. It would also be interesting to know when Lewis switched from 1 to 2 stops.

Yes I was going to venture this at some point, Hamilton was never given the script.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34284
DFWdude wrote:
"Wolf said it himself, Hamilton wasn’t allowed to win this race so they needed him out the way and the easiest way to achieve that was pitting him. "

I'd like to understand why Hamilton was designated NOT to win this race (or any race).

The new graphics package showed Hamilton's medium tires were at 70% just before he was called in to box. At that point, he was 8 seconds in the lead over Bottas. He was holding Bottas at bay, and Vettel was not a factor to pass Bottas.

Hamilton could have coasted to the win, yet was called in, which placed him behind Vettel with no chance to get by given the short DRS zone on the front straight.

Did Hamilton do something to anger the team, or was this silliness just a PC bone to throw at Bottas? It stinks. Let them race. This business of the teams orchestrating results is BS.

I think the win was given to Bottas as pay back, let's not forget Sochi last year, the only thing is that they neglected to tell Hamilton their plan, as a Hamilton fan I regret crawling out of bed to watch the race.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34284
Greenman wrote:
.

According to a post on another board ;

"rule (36.13) is that on any driver who "a) Moved before the start signal is given, such judgement being made by an FIA approved and supplied transponder fitted to each car", ....a penalty is applied."

Vettel moved before the start signal was given. Therefore he was due a penalty. But the stewards came up with a novel explanation that "Vettel wasn't moving as the lights went out". That's not what the rule says. The stewards literally invented a new rule to get Ferrari off the hook.

What use are stewards ?

.

Since Canada they've been reluctant to penalise Ferrari for anything, let's not also forget the unsafe pit lane release of Leclerc, normally that's a slam dunk penalty but instead a fine was issued to the team. Afterwards all the teams questioned the decision of the stewards to which they replied they made a mistake and it won't happen again.

Then of course there is Monza were they found a reason not to disqualify Vettel's lap in Q3, again the rules states that the car has to be in contact with the track so they went to an overhead picture which showed that the silhouette of the tyre was overhanging the track in order not to penalise Vettel.

In MotoGP they have similar rules, if you move slightly whilst the start procedure is in motion then it's a jump start, if the tyre is not in contact with the track then you have exceeded track limits, no overhead shots to see if the bike itself is overhanging the track, hard and fast rules which seemingly in F1 can be worked around if required.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34284
SmoothRide wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
With 10 laps to go, Lewis was 7.5 seconds in front of Valteri. He had a bunch of lapped cars to get through in that moment but then Valteri would eventually have to go through that traffic himself. I honestly think it's very unlikely that Valteri would have won the race had Lewis stayed out. Closing down that gap and getting through all that traffic would have taken a lot of life out of Valteri's soft tires. Ultimately, I think the one-stop strategy was just the better strategy. The Medium tire was just the better tire for the race. I think that, if Valteri did manage to catch Lewis, it would have been with just a lap or two left to go and without the necessary tire advantage to make an overtake.


It's quite clear that Hamilton would have won the race if it not for team orders. I think it had a lot to do with the fact that Vatltteri said after Singapore, where he was told to slow down, that Mercedes would do the same thing if situations were reversed. They did that here and nothing was lost. Both championships are still in the bag.

If this was done because of Singapore then it's ridiculous, Singapore was a race were more damage was done to Hamilton than Bottas, Hamilton went from 2nd to 4th whilst Bottas remained in 5th, and let's not even consider that Hamilton could have won the race if not for more ineptitude from Vowles.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34284
Exediron wrote:
Lost in all these other controversies...

How is it possible that Albon can absolutely plow into the side of Norris with a move that wasn't even close to being on and not receive so much as the vaunted warning flag? Why does Leclerc get a penalty for contact with Verstappen and Albon doesn't get one for taking Norris out?

It baffles me as well considering that Norris' car was then severely damaged but at the time Leclerc was being reviewed after the race so they could hardly issue Albon with a slam dunk penalty.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 1399
Location: Kansas
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Lost in all these other controversies...

How is it possible that Albon can absolutely plow into the side of Norris with a move that wasn't even close to being on and not receive so much as the vaunted warning flag? Why does Leclerc get a penalty for contact with Verstappen and Albon doesn't get one for taking Norris out?

It baffles me as well considering that Norris' car was then severely damaged but at the time Leclerc was being reviewed after the race so they could hardly issue Albon with a slam dunk penalty.

:thumbup: :nod:

_________________
Mission WinLater


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34284
mikeyg123 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Lost in all these other controversies...

How is it possible that Albon can absolutely plow into the side of Norris with a move that wasn't even close to being on and not receive so much as the vaunted warning flag? Why does Leclerc get a penalty for contact with Verstappen and Albon doesn't get one for taking Norris out?


He didn't plough into the side of Norris. They banged front wheels. I don't think it was that bad. He beat Norris to the apex and made the corner so it was definitely on. It just looked bad because it was late.

Norris' car was damaged and it basically put him out of the race.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 17014
pokerman wrote:
SmoothRide wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
With 10 laps to go, Lewis was 7.5 seconds in front of Valteri. He had a bunch of lapped cars to get through in that moment but then Valteri would eventually have to go through that traffic himself. I honestly think it's very unlikely that Valteri would have won the race had Lewis stayed out. Closing down that gap and getting through all that traffic would have taken a lot of life out of Valteri's soft tires. Ultimately, I think the one-stop strategy was just the better strategy. The Medium tire was just the better tire for the race. I think that, if Valteri did manage to catch Lewis, it would have been with just a lap or two left to go and without the necessary tire advantage to make an overtake.


It's quite clear that Hamilton would have won the race if it not for team orders. I think it had a lot to do with the fact that Vatltteri said after Singapore, where he was told to slow down, that Mercedes would do the same thing if situations were reversed. They did that here and nothing was lost. Both championships are still in the bag.

If this was done because of Singapore then it's ridiculous, Singapore was a race were more damage was done to Hamilton than Bottas, Hamilton went from 2nd to 4th whilst Bottas remained in 5th, and let's not even consider that Hamilton could have won the race if not for more ineptitude from Vowles.


I think it was done for the same reason as Singapore rather than because of it. Bottas was not allowed a strategical advantage there and Hamilton wasn't here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34284
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
SmoothRide wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
With 10 laps to go, Lewis was 7.5 seconds in front of Valteri. He had a bunch of lapped cars to get through in that moment but then Valteri would eventually have to go through that traffic himself. I honestly think it's very unlikely that Valteri would have won the race had Lewis stayed out. Closing down that gap and getting through all that traffic would have taken a lot of life out of Valteri's soft tires. Ultimately, I think the one-stop strategy was just the better strategy. The Medium tire was just the better tire for the race. I think that, if Valteri did manage to catch Lewis, it would have been with just a lap or two left to go and without the necessary tire advantage to make an overtake.


It's quite clear that Hamilton would have won the race if it not for team orders. I think it had a lot to do with the fact that Vatltteri said after Singapore, where he was told to slow down, that Mercedes would do the same thing if situations were reversed. They did that here and nothing was lost. Both championships are still in the bag.

If this was done because of Singapore then it's ridiculous, Singapore was a race were more damage was done to Hamilton than Bottas, Hamilton went from 2nd to 4th whilst Bottas remained in 5th, and let's not even consider that Hamilton could have won the race if not for more ineptitude from Vowles.


I think it was done for the same reason as Singapore rather than because of it. Bottas was not allowed a strategical advantage there and Hamilton wasn't here.

However in this case it cost Mercedes a 1-2 finish, I thought 1-2 finishes are more important than 1-3 finishes, this is what Ferrari sold to Leclerc in Singapore and is how Mercedes supposedly operate.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 17014
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
SmoothRide wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
With 10 laps to go, Lewis was 7.5 seconds in front of Valteri. He had a bunch of lapped cars to get through in that moment but then Valteri would eventually have to go through that traffic himself. I honestly think it's very unlikely that Valteri would have won the race had Lewis stayed out. Closing down that gap and getting through all that traffic would have taken a lot of life out of Valteri's soft tires. Ultimately, I think the one-stop strategy was just the better strategy. The Medium tire was just the better tire for the race. I think that, if Valteri did manage to catch Lewis, it would have been with just a lap or two left to go and without the necessary tire advantage to make an overtake.


It's quite clear that Hamilton would have won the race if it not for team orders. I think it had a lot to do with the fact that Vatltteri said after Singapore, where he was told to slow down, that Mercedes would do the same thing if situations were reversed. They did that here and nothing was lost. Both championships are still in the bag.

If this was done because of Singapore then it's ridiculous, Singapore was a race were more damage was done to Hamilton than Bottas, Hamilton went from 2nd to 4th whilst Bottas remained in 5th, and let's not even consider that Hamilton could have won the race if not for more ineptitude from Vowles.


I think it was done for the same reason as Singapore rather than because of it. Bottas was not allowed a strategical advantage there and Hamilton wasn't here.

However in this case it cost Mercedes a 1-2 finish, I thought 1-2 finishes are more important than 1-3 finishes, this is what Ferrari sold to Leclerc in Singapore and is how Mercedes supposedly operate.


I'm not saying it was the correct decision.

That being said swap the drivers and I don't think you'd be complaining a bit and if you swap the drivers but Bottas does stay out you'd be the first to scream bloody murder about it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 10057
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
SmoothRide wrote:

It's quite clear that Hamilton would have won the race if it not for team orders. I think it had a lot to do with the fact that Vatltteri said after Singapore, where he was told to slow down, that Mercedes would do the same thing if situations were reversed. They did that here and nothing was lost. Both championships are still in the bag.

If this was done because of Singapore then it's ridiculous, Singapore was a race were more damage was done to Hamilton than Bottas, Hamilton went from 2nd to 4th whilst Bottas remained in 5th, and let's not even consider that Hamilton could have won the race if not for more ineptitude from Vowles.


I think it was done for the same reason as Singapore rather than because of it. Bottas was not allowed a strategical advantage there and Hamilton wasn't here.

However in this case it cost Mercedes a 1-2 finish, I thought 1-2 finishes are more important than 1-3 finishes, this is what Ferrari sold to Leclerc in Singapore and is how Mercedes supposedly operate.


I'm not saying it was the correct decision.

That being said swap the drivers and I don't think you'd be complaining a bit and if you swap the drivers but Bottas does stay out you'd be the first to scream bloody murder about it.

Indeed and also with Hamilton two-stopping they were guaranteed the race victory with the second driver either second or third. Had Lewis been on a one stopper isn't it possible Vettel might have snatched the victory?

Besides, don't a team like Mercedes have 100+ guys in Brackley with sophisticated computer models running every scenario just for strategy calls like these? Doubtful personal emotions or favours come at play very often.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1407
How could Vettel have snatched victory? That isn’t possible under any scenario. He was slow compared to the Mercedes. He also always pitted before them so he couldn’t even fluke a VSC win. As soon as he lost the lead he was out of contention. Bottas dropped him in the first stint and it was game over from then on.

Remove Bottas from the equation, does anybody genuinely think if Hamilton was leading by 18 seconds with 10 laps to go and Vettel wasn’t even catching him that Mercedes would sacrifice the lead and track position? Zero chance, given that the tyres were predicted to last 35 laps and he needed to take them 30 laps and he had taken the softs 25 laps (once qualifying is included) and they only dropped off slightly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 3569
I dont know why Mercedes didn't go for the undercut with Hamilton on Vettel. Hamilton was taking alot of time out of Vettel who's tyres was going off and by lap 14 was a second behind, that's when you go for the undercut, even if Ferarri do react and pit Vettel instead then your making a Ferrari which isnt good on its tyres pit earlier than they want to. Then Mercedes reacted way to late to pit Hamilton letting him lose way too much time to Bottas and Vettel, going from being 7 tenths to 10 seconds behind, that is just not good enough. I just dont think Vowles can think outside the box with 2 cars.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place
2018: 12th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016, 3rd China 2018, 3rd Japan 2018, 2nd Mexico 2018


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 1407
Vettel pitted the first lap the window opened up, because Albon pitted the lap before there was now a gap to pit into. If Hamilton had tried to pit before he would have come out right behind Albon.

For the 2nd stint, Mercedes were literally coming out to pit Hamilton to undercut Vettel (Hamilton was 2.8 seconds behind I believe) but Ferrari covered that by pitting Vettel himself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:21 pm
Posts: 2723
Covalent wrote:
Indeed and also with Hamilton two-stopping they were guaranteed the race victory with the second driver either second or third. Had Lewis been on a one stopper isn't it possible Vettel might have snatched the victory?

Besides, don't a team like Mercedes have 100+ guys in Brackley with sophisticated computer models running every scenario just for strategy calls like these? Doubtful personal emotions or favours come at play very often.

They were not at threat for the win in any way shape or form regardless of what strat Hamilton was on, and regardless of emotions and favoured drivers etc. Mercedes strategy was absolutely bonkers, no question. It made absolutely no sense whatsoever. If the other way around the decision would have still be as baffling as it is now and instead of the Hamilton fans being mad, there would be another set of fans just as mad saying Merc did it on purpose to gift Hamilton the win and blah blah, 6of one half a dozen of the other on that front

Discussing whether did it intentionally to stop Hamilton winning is another story which I don't necessarily actually buy into because this is not the first time they have had complete strategical failure, and this decision almost cost them sealing the WCC in japan - vowles is a joke. Keeping Hamilton out on a one stopper - the worst scenario is 1-3 and obviously the much superior option to pitting which cements that worst case scenario immediately. It bares the question - why the hell would you do that? Such an obviously bad decision will always throw up conspiracy, and if you think there are not decisions made like this to influence results from the team then you are deluded, it happens all the time in the history of F1


Last edited by FormulaFun on Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:28 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:15 am
Posts: 2337
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
SmoothRide wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
With 10 laps to go, Lewis was 7.5 seconds in front of Valteri. He had a bunch of lapped cars to get through in that moment but then Valteri would eventually have to go through that traffic himself. I honestly think it's very unlikely that Valteri would have won the race had Lewis stayed out. Closing down that gap and getting through all that traffic would have taken a lot of life out of Valteri's soft tires. Ultimately, I think the one-stop strategy was just the better strategy. The Medium tire was just the better tire for the race. I think that, if Valteri did manage to catch Lewis, it would have been with just a lap or two left to go and without the necessary tire advantage to make an overtake.


It's quite clear that Hamilton would have won the race if it not for team orders. I think it had a lot to do with the fact that Vatltteri said after Singapore, where he was told to slow down, that Mercedes would do the same thing if situations were reversed. They did that here and nothing was lost. Both championships are still in the bag.

If this was done because of Singapore then it's ridiculous, Singapore was a race were more damage was done to Hamilton than Bottas, Hamilton went from 2nd to 4th whilst Bottas remained in 5th, and let's not even consider that Hamilton could have won the race if not for more ineptitude from Vowles.


I think it was done for the same reason as Singapore rather than because of it. Bottas was not allowed a strategical advantage there and Hamilton wasn't here.

However in this case it cost Mercedes a 1-2 finish, I thought 1-2 finishes are more important than 1-3 finishes, this is what Ferrari sold to Leclerc in Singapore and is how Mercedes supposedly operate.

Does anyone think that Mercedes expected that Hamilton would get by Vettel though? It certainly looked like Hamilton would get this done. People often say Bottas takes too much time to get past other drivers despite him having the advantage. Such as Canada and being behind Ricciardo. (yes I know the car is not as quick, but they had similar tyre life. And yet Hamilton had a simply massive advantage over Vettel at this stage and he could not pass. If Bottas is expected to make his way up the field and pass cars that may be slower, but have the same tyre performance, then maybe they expected hamilton to be able to pass vettel here. I can understand why it is difficult and often not really possible, but i somehow think Mercedes will have expected Hamilton to be able to pass Vettel. If he was nearly as quick or quicker earlier on, then surely they thought it should be worth the risk. Plus it would give him an almost guaranteed fastest lap.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 3569
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
SmoothRide wrote:

It's quite clear that Hamilton would have won the race if it not for team orders. I think it had a lot to do with the fact that Vatltteri said after Singapore, where he was told to slow down, that Mercedes would do the same thing if situations were reversed. They did that here and nothing was lost. Both championships are still in the bag.

If this was done because of Singapore then it's ridiculous, Singapore was a race were more damage was done to Hamilton than Bottas, Hamilton went from 2nd to 4th whilst Bottas remained in 5th, and let's not even consider that Hamilton could have won the race if not for more ineptitude from Vowles.


I think it was done for the same reason as Singapore rather than because of it. Bottas was not allowed a strategical advantage there and Hamilton wasn't here.

However in this case it cost Mercedes a 1-2 finish, I thought 1-2 finishes are more important than 1-3 finishes, this is what Ferrari sold to Leclerc in Singapore and is how Mercedes supposedly operate.

Does anyone think that Mercedes expected that Hamilton would get by Vettel though? It certainly looked like Hamilton would get this done. People often say Bottas takes too much time to get past other drivers despite him having the advantage. Such as Canada and being behind Ricciardo. (yes I know the car is not as quick, but they had similar tyre life. And yet Hamilton had a simply massive advantage over Vettel at this stage and he could not pass. If Bottas is expected to make his way up the field and pass cars that may be slower, but have the same tyre performance, then maybe they expected hamilton to be able to pass vettel here. I can understand why it is difficult and often not really possible, but i somehow think Mercedes will have expected Hamilton to be able to pass Vettel. If he was nearly as quick or quicker earlier on, then surely they thought it should be worth the risk. Plus it would give him an almost guaranteed fastest lap.


I didn't think Hamilton would pass at all, it's a horrible track for overtaking at the front, straights are not long enough and turn 1 has no hard braking zone. Mercedes pit Hamilton to keep team harmony and not have anything like Ferrari have experienced over the radio the last few grand prixs specially on a day they wanted to wrap up the title.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2016: 24th place
2017: 4th place
2018: 12th place

Wins: Spain 2016, Canada 2017, Malaysia 2017
Podiums: 2nd Germany 2016, 3rd Mexico 2016, 3rd China 2018, 3rd Japan 2018, 2nd Mexico 2018


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 6977
F1_Ernie wrote:
I didn't think Hamilton would pass at all, it's a horrible track for overtaking at the front, straights are not long enough and turn 1 has no hard braking zone. Mercedes pit Hamilton to keep team harmony and not have anything like Ferrari have experienced over the radio the last few grand prixs specially on a day they wanted to wrap up the title.

I'm not sure why anyone would have expected Hamilton to get by. We already saw at Monza that the Mercedes cannot overtake the Ferrari under any normal circumstance. They are giving up way too much straight line speed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 am
Posts: 827
People slated Vettel for trying to pass Max on the inside of Spoon Curve last year when he spun, (saying that ''he was going for a gap that was always going to close'' or ''that isn't a passing place at that corner'', but this year we saw at least two or three overtakes into that corner meaning that it is an overtaking spot if the driver you are passing gives you space...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:01 am 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 8280
F1 Racer wrote:
People slated Vettel for trying to pass Max on the inside of Spoon Curve last year when he spun, (saying that ''he was going for a gap that was always going to close'' or ''that isn't a passing place at that corner'', but this year we saw at least two or three overtakes into that corner meaning that it is an overtaking spot if the driver you are passing gives you space...

I think Max and "giving space" is a very arbitrary thing sometimes!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 11:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34284
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
SmoothRide wrote:
It's quite clear that Hamilton would have won the race if it not for team orders. I think it had a lot to do with the fact that Vatltteri said after Singapore, where he was told to slow down, that Mercedes would do the same thing if situations were reversed. They did that here and nothing was lost. Both championships are still in the bag.

If this was done because of Singapore then it's ridiculous, Singapore was a race were more damage was done to Hamilton than Bottas, Hamilton went from 2nd to 4th whilst Bottas remained in 5th, and let's not even consider that Hamilton could have won the race if not for more ineptitude from Vowles.


I think it was done for the same reason as Singapore rather than because of it. Bottas was not allowed a strategical advantage there and Hamilton wasn't here.

However in this case it cost Mercedes a 1-2 finish, I thought 1-2 finishes are more important than 1-3 finishes, this is what Ferrari sold to Leclerc in Singapore and is how Mercedes supposedly operate.


I'm not saying it was the correct decision.

That being said swap the drivers and I don't think you'd be complaining a bit and if you swap the drivers but Bottas does stay out you'd be the first to scream bloody murder about it.

Obviously I'm batting for Hamilton, he seemed to be left out on the Kimi strategy on old tyres and losing ground, it's one thing if Bottas was actually quicker, another thing when Hamilton is giving a poor unfathomable strategy.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 11:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34284
Covalent wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
If this was done because of Singapore then it's ridiculous, Singapore was a race were more damage was done to Hamilton than Bottas, Hamilton went from 2nd to 4th whilst Bottas remained in 5th, and let's not even consider that Hamilton could have won the race if not for more ineptitude from Vowles.


I think it was done for the same reason as Singapore rather than because of it. Bottas was not allowed a strategical advantage there and Hamilton wasn't here.

However in this case it cost Mercedes a 1-2 finish, I thought 1-2 finishes are more important than 1-3 finishes, this is what Ferrari sold to Leclerc in Singapore and is how Mercedes supposedly operate.


I'm not saying it was the correct decision.

That being said swap the drivers and I don't think you'd be complaining a bit and if you swap the drivers but Bottas does stay out you'd be the first to scream bloody murder about it.

Indeed and also with Hamilton two-stopping they were guaranteed the race victory with the second driver either second or third. Had Lewis been on a one stopper isn't it possible Vettel might have snatched the victory?

Besides, don't a team like Mercedes have 100+ guys in Brackley with sophisticated computer models running every scenario just for strategy calls like these? Doubtful personal emotions or favours come at play very often.

Vettel was slower and losing ground even to Hamilton whilst Bottas was that bit quicker again, I don't understand how Vettel wins the race.

Apparently quite unusually Wolf went on the radio asking Hamilton not to get upset because it's a day to celebrate for Mercedes winning the WCC, they didn't do the best for Hamilton but then again they don't always do the best for Bottas.

Personally I'm annoyed because of sleep lost in order to watch the race live and then not actually watching Hamilton able to compete fully in the race because of doing what's considered best for the team although I would question finishing 1-3 when 1-2 looked to be on the table.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34284
Johnson wrote:
How could Vettel have snatched victory? That isn’t possible under any scenario. He was slow compared to the Mercedes. He also always pitted before them so he couldn’t even fluke a VSC win. As soon as he lost the lead he was out of contention. Bottas dropped him in the first stint and it was game over from then on.

Remove Bottas from the equation, does anybody genuinely think if Hamilton was leading by 18 seconds with 10 laps to go and Vettel wasn’t even catching him that Mercedes would sacrifice the lead and track position? Zero chance, given that the tyres were predicted to last 35 laps and he needed to take them 30 laps and he had taken the softs 25 laps (once qualifying is included) and they only dropped off slightly.

Indeed Hamilton was moved out of the way for Bottas to win the race, not that Bottas wasn't owed a win.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34284
F1_Ernie wrote:
I dont know why Mercedes didn't go for the undercut with Hamilton on Vettel. Hamilton was taking alot of time out of Vettel who's tyres was going off and by lap 14 was a second behind, that's when you go for the undercut, even if Ferarri do react and pit Vettel instead then your making a Ferrari which isnt good on its tyres pit earlier than they want to. Then Mercedes reacted way to late to pit Hamilton letting him lose way too much time to Bottas and Vettel, going from being 7 tenths to 10 seconds behind, that is just not good enough. I just dont think Vowles can think outside the box with 2 cars.

In regards to Vowles I have a foreboding that he may cost Hamilton the title next year, his mistakes this year have been numerous.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34284
FormulaFun wrote:
Covalent wrote:
Indeed and also with Hamilton two-stopping they were guaranteed the race victory with the second driver either second or third. Had Lewis been on a one stopper isn't it possible Vettel might have snatched the victory?

Besides, don't a team like Mercedes have 100+ guys in Brackley with sophisticated computer models running every scenario just for strategy calls like these? Doubtful personal emotions or favours come at play very often.

They were not at threat for the win in any way shape or form regardless of what strat Hamilton was on, and regardless of emotions and favoured drivers etc. Mercedes strategy was absolutely bonkers, no question. It made absolutely no sense whatsoever. If the other way around the decision would have still be as baffling as it is now and instead of the Hamilton fans being mad, there would be another set of fans just as mad saying Merc did it on purpose to gift Hamilton the win and blah blah, 6of one half a dozen of the other on that front

Discussing whether did it intentionally to stop Hamilton winning is another story which I don't necessarily actually buy into because this is not the first time they have had complete strategical failure, and this decision almost cost them sealing the WCC in japan - vowles is a joke. Keeping Hamilton out on a one stopper - the worst scenario is 1-3 and obviously the much superior option to pitting which cements that worst case scenario immediately. It bares the question - why the hell would you do that? Such an obviously bad decision will always throw up conspiracy, and if you think there are not decisions made like this to influence results from the team then you are deluded, it happens all the time in the history of F1

Indeed was there not a certain outrage in Singapore because Bottas was told to slow down so he wouldn't pass Hamilton, this actually was Vowles papering over another tactical error and trying to stop things becoming even worse for Hamilton.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34284
TheGiantHogweed wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
SmoothRide wrote:
It's quite clear that Hamilton would have won the race if it not for team orders. I think it had a lot to do with the fact that Vatltteri said after Singapore, where he was told to slow down, that Mercedes would do the same thing if situations were reversed. They did that here and nothing was lost. Both championships are still in the bag.

If this was done because of Singapore then it's ridiculous, Singapore was a race were more damage was done to Hamilton than Bottas, Hamilton went from 2nd to 4th whilst Bottas remained in 5th, and let's not even consider that Hamilton could have won the race if not for more ineptitude from Vowles.


I think it was done for the same reason as Singapore rather than because of it. Bottas was not allowed a strategical advantage there and Hamilton wasn't here.

However in this case it cost Mercedes a 1-2 finish, I thought 1-2 finishes are more important than 1-3 finishes, this is what Ferrari sold to Leclerc in Singapore and is how Mercedes supposedly operate.

Does anyone think that Mercedes expected that Hamilton would get by Vettel though? It certainly looked like Hamilton would get this done. People often say Bottas takes too much time to get past other drivers despite him having the advantage. Such as Canada and being behind Ricciardo. (yes I know the car is not as quick, but they had similar tyre life. And yet Hamilton had a simply massive advantage over Vettel at this stage and he could not pass. If Bottas is expected to make his way up the field and pass cars that may be slower, but have the same tyre performance, then maybe they expected hamilton to be able to pass vettel here. I can understand why it is difficult and often not really possible, but i somehow think Mercedes will have expected Hamilton to be able to pass Vettel. If he was nearly as quick or quicker earlier on, then surely they thought it should be worth the risk. Plus it would give him an almost guaranteed fastest lap.

Suzuka is not a track known for being able to pass on, it's more a track were position is King, you don't give away track position.

Nominally with 10 laps to go which driver would actually pit for tyres with an 8 second lead and only losing 6 tenths the lap before he pitted. In regards to Vettel he was 18 seconds in front and was 2 tenths quicker the lap before he pitted, that doesn't make any clear sense.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34284
F1 Racer wrote:
People slated Vettel for trying to pass Max on the inside of Spoon Curve last year when he spun, (saying that ''he was going for a gap that was always going to close'' or ''that isn't a passing place at that corner'', but this year we saw at least two or three overtakes into that corner meaning that it is an overtaking spot if the driver you are passing gives you space...

You mean Leclerc passing midfield/backmarker cars, let's also not forget that some of these cars had Ferrari engines.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:06 pm
Posts: 246
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
One thing I noticed that really annoyed me this weekend was the focus on the top guys doing nothing while ignoring genuine action lower down the field.

Di Resta pointed out that 4-5 cars were all within a few tenths of eachother and we were watching Vettel drive around all on his own. Cutting away to replays of the overtakes in that battle.

One thing F1 could do to improve the show right now is actually, you know, show it.


Indeed, this has been a pain point for me for many races. Often we'll see 20 laps of two cars behind each other with not much happening, meanwhile there's tons of action a bit further back that we just get a short replay of if anything at all. At least this time around Hamilton was very close for quite a number of laps.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 17014
Why is it that whilst the leaders can't stay within a second of each other the midfield are able to stay close and race?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34284
mikeyg123 wrote:
Why is it that whilst the leaders can't stay within a second of each other the midfield are able to stay close and race?

More downforce, more turbulence?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 17014
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Why is it that whilst the leaders can't stay within a second of each other the midfield are able to stay close and race?

More downforce, more turbulence?


I don't know. Even at ultra low downforce Monza Bottas had a hell of a job getting within a second of Leclerc and Hamilton was losing 3-5 tenths every single lap just through the parabolica.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34284
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Why is it that whilst the leaders can't stay within a second of each other the midfield are able to stay close and race?

More downforce, more turbulence?


I don't know. Even at ultra low downforce Monza Bottas had a hell of a job getting within a second of Leclerc and Hamilton was losing 3-5 tenths every single lap just through the parabolica.

Wasn't Hamilton able to sit within DRS range of Leclerc at Monza?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 17014
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Why is it that whilst the leaders can't stay within a second of each other the midfield are able to stay close and race?

More downforce, more turbulence?


I don't know. Even at ultra low downforce Monza Bottas had a hell of a job getting within a second of Leclerc and Hamilton was losing 3-5 tenths every single lap just through the parabolica.

Wasn't Hamilton able to sit within DRS range of Leclerc at Monza?


He could stay in with the aid of two huge DRS zones but as I say was losing a bundle of time through the parabolica. He certainly wasn't able to follow like the midfield cars were through the essess in Suzuka.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 34284
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Why is it that whilst the leaders can't stay within a second of each other the midfield are able to stay close and race?

More downforce, more turbulence?


I don't know. Even at ultra low downforce Monza Bottas had a hell of a job getting within a second of Leclerc and Hamilton was losing 3-5 tenths every single lap just through the parabolica.

Wasn't Hamilton able to sit within DRS range of Leclerc at Monza?


He could stay in with the aid of two huge DRS zones but as I say was losing a bundle of time through the parabolica. He certainly wasn't able to follow like the midfield cars were through the essess in Suzuka.

But you have to get within a second to get the benefit of the DRS in the first place.

In respect to Mercedes traditionally they've had a poor car when following other cars, not sure about this year's car?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group