planetf1.com

You know the drill!

We will tally the performance of these teams at a future date, but until then it's all about those predictions. Will Mercedes be challenged?

Its a shame we didn't keep the 2019 thread running, it died because of the massive lead that Mercedes had leading up to the summer break, who would have thought of the Red Bull/Ferrari comeback in the second half of the season?

If it's true that Mercedes started 2020 development early due to running away with the title then it will no doubt be more of the same - albeit maybe not quite as easy.

How much development focus will anyone want to pump into a 2020 spec car, with such massive change in 2021 coming - where the rewards for early focus could potentially be huge.

pokerman wrote:Its a shame we didn't keep the 2019 thread running, it died because of the massive lead that Mercedes had leading up to the summer break, who would have thought of the Red Bull/Ferrari comeback in the second half of the season?

Not sure about the comeback, Mercedes had 9 wins in the first half, 6 in the second. They were not threatened for a second frankly

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:Its a shame we didn't keep the 2019 thread running, it died because of the massive lead that Mercedes had leading up to the summer break, who would have thought of the Red Bull/Ferrari comeback in the second half of the season?

Not sure about the comeback, Mercedes had 9 wins in the first half, 6 in the second. They were not threatened for a second frankly

They didn't have the best car for all of those wins, though.

Exediron wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:Its a shame we didn't keep the 2019 thread running, it died because of the massive lead that Mercedes had leading up to the summer break, who would have thought of the Red Bull/Ferrari comeback in the second half of the season?

Not sure about the comeback, Mercedes had 9 wins in the first half, 6 in the second. They were not threatened for a second frankly

They didn't have the best car for all of those wins, though.

No, I agree, but I didn't say that. Mercedes is such a well oiled machine that even in the back-burner they won comfortably, 1-2 in WDC and the WCC. Without the best car. Which is to their credit. All I was saying is that it really wasn't much of a comeback for Ferrari/RB.

I think they will.

But probably not by Ferrari - although I expect them to come out of the blocks fast, a year of inconsistency and poor strategy will again leave them behind.

Red Bull, however, have made strides this year and the Honda engine is looking stronger and stronger. Max is getting very consistent, so I can see a challenge from him.

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:Its a shame we didn't keep the 2019 thread running, it died because of the massive lead that Mercedes had leading up to the summer break, who would have thought of the Red Bull/Ferrari comeback in the second half of the season?

Not sure about the comeback, Mercedes had 9 wins in the first half, 6 in the second. They were not threatened for a second frankly

They won 5 races after the summer break one of these gifted in Mexico by Verstappen in qualifying otherwise he surely would have won, I'm sure in the analysis the Red Bull would have been viewed as being the fastest car?

So 4 race wins were no doubt Mercedes gets viewed as being the fastest, the 3 wins of Ferrari and 2 races were Red Bull might be seen as the quickest in Mexico and Brazil.

After the summer break the thread would have been far more interesting but of course wouldn't have changed the outcome being easily in favour of Mercedes but it would have been nice to see were Ferrari and Red Bull would have ended up relative to one another.

I don't see why having the fastest car (Ferrari or Red Bull) means you have the best car. Fast is important, but it is not everything. It's not the whole package.

A 70's era muscle car will leave a 70s era Porsche 911 far behind at the local drag strip, where speed is the only criteria. But the Porsche will always reach the finish line first in a 2-hour road course event.

Give credit where it's due. Mercedes won the most races (15/21, or 72%). Mercedes had the most successful car in 2019 (by far), which means Mercedes had the BEST car in 2019, period.

DFWdude wrote:I don't see why having the fastest car (Ferrari or Red Bull) means you have the best car. Fast is important, but it is not everything. It's not the whole package.

A 70's era muscle car will leave a 70s era Porsche 911 far behind at the local drag strip, where speed is the only criteria. But the Porsche will always reach the finish line first in a 2-hour road course event.

Give credit where it's due. Mercedes won the most races (15/21, or 72%). Mercedes had the most successful car in 2019 (by far), which means Mercedes had the BEST car in 2019, period.

I'm not completely sure of the analogy, F1 cars aren't racing on drag strips and their speed isn't determined by how fast they might be in a straight line.

However it's true that there doesn't need to be detailed analysis to determine that the Mercedes was the best car but then again no one said otherwise.

pokerman wrote:

DFWdude wrote:I don't see why having the fastest car (Ferrari or Red Bull) means you have the best car. Fast is important, but it is not everything. It's not the whole package.

A 70's era muscle car will leave a 70s era Porsche 911 far behind at the local drag strip, where speed is the only criteria. But the Porsche will always reach the finish line first in a 2-hour road course event.

Give credit where it's due. Mercedes won the most races (15/21, or 72%). Mercedes had the most successful car in 2019 (by far), which means Mercedes had the BEST car in 2019, period.

I'm not completely sure of the analogy, F1 cars aren't racing on drag strips and their speed isn't determined by how fast they might be in a straight line.

However it's true that there doesn't need to be detailed analysis to determine that the Mercedes was the best car but then again no one said otherwise.

Both Exediron and Siao7 said so in their posts above. I didn't make it up.

DFWdude wrote:

pokerman wrote:

DFWdude wrote:I don't see why having the fastest car (Ferrari or Red Bull) means you have the best car. Fast is important, but it is not everything. It's not the whole package.

A 70's era muscle car will leave a 70s era Porsche 911 far behind at the local drag strip, where speed is the only criteria. But the Porsche will always reach the finish line first in a 2-hour road course event.

Give credit where it's due. Mercedes won the most races (15/21, or 72%). Mercedes had the most successful car in 2019 (by far), which means Mercedes had the BEST car in 2019, period.

I'm not completely sure of the analogy, F1 cars aren't racing on drag strips and their speed isn't determined by how fast they might be in a straight line.

However it's true that there doesn't need to be detailed analysis to determine that the Mercedes was the best car but then again no one said otherwise.

Both Exediron and Siao7 said so in their posts above. I didn't make it up.

They seemed to be disagreeing with one another but still I didn't see either of them saying that the Mercedes wasn't the best car over the season.

DFWdude wrote:Both Exediron and Siao7 said so in their posts above. I didn't make it up.

pokerman wrote:They seemed to be disagreeing with one another but still I didn't see either of them saying that the Mercedes wasn't the best car over the season.

Yeah, I don't think either of us was saying the Merc wasn't the best car over the year. I said it wasn't the best car every time it won (and Siao7 agreed with that) but over the balance of the season I'd say it was clearly best.

Exediron wrote:

DFWdude wrote:Both Exediron and Siao7 said so in their posts above. I didn't make it up.

pokerman wrote:They seemed to be disagreeing with one another but still I didn't see either of them saying that the Mercedes wasn't the best car over the season.

Yeah, I don't think either of us was saying the Merc wasn't the best car over the year. I said it wasn't the best car every time it won (and Siao7 agreed with that) but over the balance of the season I'd say it was clearly best.

Just to be clear, I agree with this. They didn't always have the best car, but over the whole year, how can you argue against them?

At Abu Dhabi Mercedes had a clear 0.5 to 0.75s / lap advantage over the Red Bull in the opening laps. That is an eternity and the gap can't be expected to close by 2020. I say, Mercedes will start the 2020 season clearly in front of both Red Bull and Ferrari. My guess is 0.5 sec over Red Bull in Australia. Ferrari is somewhat of a question mark where they'd be.

ReservoirDog wrote:At Abu Dhabi Mercedes had a clear 0.5 to 0.75s / lap advantage over the Red Bull in the opening laps. That is an eternity and the gap can't be expected to close by 2020. I say, Mercedes will start the 2020 season clearly in front of both Red Bull and Ferrari. My guess is 0.5 sec over Red Bull in Australia. Ferrari is somewhat of a question mark where they'd be.

I agree. Mercedes are the catalyst in that they will always have a car that can compete each race. Ferrari and Red Bull fluctuate their pace way too wildly throughout the season, and have yet to really demonstrate being consistent over an entire season.

Schumacher forever#1 wrote:

ReservoirDog wrote:At Abu Dhabi Mercedes had a clear 0.5 to 0.75s / lap advantage over the Red Bull in the opening laps. That is an eternity and the gap can't be expected to close by 2020. I say, Mercedes will start the 2020 season clearly in front of both Red Bull and Ferrari. My guess is 0.5 sec over Red Bull in Australia. Ferrari is somewhat of a question mark where they'd be.

I agree. Mercedes are the catalyst in that they will always have a car that can compete each race. Ferrari and Red Bull fluctuate their pace way too wildly throughout the season, and have yet to really demonstrate being consistent over an entire season.

And even in races where Mercedes is not the best, more often than not Hamilton is right on the tail of car#1. When Ferrari and Red Bull aren't on pace, they are nowhere.

If Mercedes were developing there 2020 car as early as was rumoured, then it may be a carbon copy of 2019. Red Bull sure came stronger in the second half of the year, and Honda have developed fantastically - but Mercedes PU development wont be static if components are going to be frozen from 2021.

Another solid year for Mercedes next year with the usual circuits where the opposing teams strengths are accentuated.

You never know though! Be nice to see McLaren strong.

ReservoirDog wrote:At Abu Dhabi Mercedes had a clear 0.5 to 0.75s / lap advantage over the Red Bull in the opening laps. That is an eternity and the gap can't be expected to close by 2020. I say, Mercedes will start the 2020 season clearly in front of both Red Bull and Ferrari. My guess is 0.5 sec over Red Bull in Australia. Ferrari is somewhat of a question mark where they'd be.

Abu Dhabi is a very strong track for Mercedes, just like Melbourne. The season opener and season closer have always favored Mercedes in the hybrid era, whatever the relative pecking order of the season.

Exediron wrote:

ReservoirDog wrote:At Abu Dhabi Mercedes had a clear 0.5 to 0.75s / lap advantage over the Red Bull in the opening laps. That is an eternity and the gap can't be expected to close by 2020. I say, Mercedes will start the 2020 season clearly in front of both Red Bull and Ferrari. My guess is 0.5 sec over Red Bull in Australia. Ferrari is somewhat of a question mark where they'd be.

Abu Dhabi is a very strong track for Mercedes, just like Melbourne. The season opener and season closer have always favored Mercedes in the hybrid era, whatever the relative pecking order of the season.

As I said, when it's a Mercedes track, the other teams are nowhere. When it's not a Mercedes track, Hamilton is still there and thereabouts. Given the same regs next year, I just cannot see Mercedes advantage disappearing. Red Bull as usual will start a second off with a string of excuses.

Mercedes had a significant advantage this year. I think the changes FIA made to this year played into their hands. Ferrari have gone backwards. Though they had some strong qualifying. RBR was affected due to front wing rules and they usually they start slow. For the most part of this year they also had big disadvantage in qualifying.

I think RBR will challenge Mercedes next year. RBR need to be strong from first race. Their car works well in high altitudes but tracks like Monaco, Hungary, Singapore they need to start winning these again. If Max can win at least 6 races next year he has a chance to win the title.

I think one part of Mercedes and Hamilton's success that might not get enough credit is James Vowles. Even Lewis has had to admit that Vowles has been right about some strategy calls when they didn't seem right early on in the race. Certainly James needs some credit for the win in Hungary over Max.

In this respect Ferrari has was sorely lacking this year. Some of their moves this year to help Sebastian, compromised Charles's results. Other times their strategy decisions could only leave one wondering what they were thinking.

Red Bull have always been quick to pounce on any safety car situation that would benefit them and they did seem to make quite a lot of good decisions for Max again this year.

Mort Canard wrote:I think one part of Mercedes and Hamilton's success that might not get enough credit is James Vowles. Even Lewis has had to admit that Vowles has been right about some strategy calls when they didn't seem right early on in the race. Certainly James needs some credit for the win in Hungary over Max.

In this respect Ferrari has was sorely lacking this year. Some of their moves this year to help Sebastian, compromised Charles's results. Other times their strategy decisions could only leave one wondering what they were thinking.

Red Bull have always been quick to pounce on any safety car situation that would benefit them and they did seem to make quite a lot of good decisions for Max again this year.

Hungary was the only one mentioned, I would say that Vowles cost Hamilton 2 to 3 wins.

pokerman wrote:Hungary was the only one mentioned, I would say that Vowles cost Hamilton 2 to 3 wins.

Which ones do you think, out of curiosity?

The only time I would say confidently that Vowles cost Lewis a chance at a win was Austria 2018, although in that case a mechanical failure later made it a moot point. I wouldn't count Japan 2019, because although Hamilton was denied a chance to win that's as a result of Mercedes rules of engagement, not bad strategy. They knew what they were doing that time.

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:Hungary was the only one mentioned, I would say that Vowles cost Hamilton 2 to 3 wins.

Which ones do you think, out of curiosity?

The only time I would say confidently that Vowles cost Lewis a chance at a win was Austria 2018, although in that case a mechanical failure later made it a moot point. I wouldn't count Japan 2019, because although Hamilton was denied a chance to win that's as a result of Mercedes rules of engagement, not bad strategy. They knew what they were doing that time.

I'm just referring to this year, I would go with Singapore, Germany putting Hamilton on to dry tyres when it had started raining and other drivers were pitting for wet tyres, you may want to blame Hamilton for the crash but Vowles was the catalyst for things to go wrong, he further cost Hamilton the podium by not pitting him under the SC to get rid of his 10 second penalty claiming at the time that Hamilton would lose too many places when in fact he would have lost just 1 place. Also yes I say Japan but you may refer that to Wolf himself but the strategy given to Hamilton was both confused and bizarre and Vowles had to be initial strategist in that race for Hamilton.

There are more I could bring up as well but these didn't cost Hamilton any wins but in total out weigh one stand out strategy decsion in Hungary.

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:Hungary was the only one mentioned, I would say that Vowles cost Hamilton 2 to 3 wins.

Which ones do you think, out of curiosity?

The only time I would say confidently that Vowles cost Lewis a chance at a win was Austria 2018, although in that case a mechanical failure later made it a moot point. I wouldn't count Japan 2019, because although Hamilton was denied a chance to win that's as a result of Mercedes rules of engagement, not bad strategy. They knew what they were doing that time.

I'm just referring to this year, I would go with Singapore, Germany putting Hamilton on to dry tyres when it had started raining and other drivers were pitting for wet tyres, you may want to blame Hamilton for the crash but Vowles was the catalyst for things to go wrong, he further cost Hamilton the podium by not pitting him under the SC to get rid of his 10 second penalty claiming at the time that Hamilton would lose too many places when in fact he would have lost just 1 place. Also yes I say Japan but you may refer that to Wolf himself but the strategy given to Hamilton was both confused and bizarre and Vowles had to be initial strategist in that race for Hamilton.

There are more I could bring up as well but these didn't cost Hamilton any wins but in total out weigh one stand out strategy decsion in Hungary.

I'd agree with Singapore from that list -- Hamilton was ahead of Vettel and Max, both of whom pitted. Of course, that still relies on Ferrari to make the initial strategy error to not pit Leclerc, without which he would never have been vulnerable to an undercut. Germany is a bit 50/50, but I'll agree that certainly the strategy didn't help Lewis.

I still don't agree with Japan. Everyone knows that Mercedes doesn't allow their drivers to beat each other using different strategies.

On top of that -- on the subject of Hungary -- I'd add against Vowles that everyone I knew who was watching the broadcast could tell that pitting Lewis was the obvious call. It wasn't nearly the 'roll of the dice' it was made out to be. They had nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

I don't really rate James Vowles, and do believe he's cost Hamilton more wins than he's turned around difficult causes for victories.

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:Hungary was the only one mentioned, I would say that Vowles cost Hamilton 2 to 3 wins.

Which ones do you think, out of curiosity?

The only time I would say confidently that Vowles cost Lewis a chance at a win was Austria 2018, although in that case a mechanical failure later made it a moot point. I wouldn't count Japan 2019, because although Hamilton was denied a chance to win that's as a result of Mercedes rules of engagement, not bad strategy. They knew what they were doing that time.

I'm just referring to this year, I would go with Singapore, Germany putting Hamilton on to dry tyres when it had started raining and other drivers were pitting for wet tyres, you may want to blame Hamilton for the crash but Vowles was the catalyst for things to go wrong, he further cost Hamilton the podium by not pitting him under the SC to get rid of his 10 second penalty claiming at the time that Hamilton would lose too many places when in fact he would have lost just 1 place. Also yes I say Japan but you may refer that to Wolf himself but the strategy given to Hamilton was both confused and bizarre and Vowles had to be initial strategist in that race for Hamilton.

There are more I could bring up as well but these didn't cost Hamilton any wins but in total out weigh one stand out strategy decsion in Hungary.

I'd agree with Singapore from that list -- Hamilton was ahead of Vettel and Max, both of whom pitted. Of course, that still relies on Ferrari to make the initial strategy error to not pit Leclerc, without which he would never have been vulnerable to an undercut. Germany is a bit 50/50, but I'll agree that certainly the strategy didn't help Lewis.

I still don't agree with Japan. Everyone knows that Mercedes doesn't allow their drivers to beat each other using different strategies.

On top of that -- on the subject of Hungary -- I'd add against Vowles that everyone I knew who was watching the broadcast could tell that pitting Lewis was the obvious call. It wasn't nearly the 'roll of the dice' it was made out to be. They had nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

What was the difference between Japan and USA though? They had different strategies in the US as well but there was no talk of Hamilton having to let Bottas past at the end of the US GP despite the different strategies.

JN23 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:Hungary was the only one mentioned, I would say that Vowles cost Hamilton 2 to 3 wins.

Which ones do you think, out of curiosity?

The only time I would say confidently that Vowles cost Lewis a chance at a win was Austria 2018, although in that case a mechanical failure later made it a moot point. I wouldn't count Japan 2019, because although Hamilton was denied a chance to win that's as a result of Mercedes rules of engagement, not bad strategy. They knew what they were doing that time.

I'm just referring to this year, I would go with Singapore, Germany putting Hamilton on to dry tyres when it had started raining and other drivers were pitting for wet tyres, you may want to blame Hamilton for the crash but Vowles was the catalyst for things to go wrong, he further cost Hamilton the podium by not pitting him under the SC to get rid of his 10 second penalty claiming at the time that Hamilton would lose too many places when in fact he would have lost just 1 place. Also yes I say Japan but you may refer that to Wolf himself but the strategy given to Hamilton was both confused and bizarre and Vowles had to be initial strategist in that race for Hamilton.

There are more I could bring up as well but these didn't cost Hamilton any wins but in total out weigh one stand out strategy decsion in Hungary.

I'd agree with Singapore from that list -- Hamilton was ahead of Vettel and Max, both of whom pitted. Of course, that still relies on Ferrari to make the initial strategy error to not pit Leclerc, without which he would never have been vulnerable to an undercut. Germany is a bit 50/50, but I'll agree that certainly the strategy didn't help Lewis.

I still don't agree with Japan. Everyone knows that Mercedes doesn't allow their drivers to beat each other using different strategies.

On top of that -- on the subject of Hungary -- I'd add against Vowles that everyone I knew who was watching the broadcast could tell that pitting Lewis was the obvious call. It wasn't nearly the 'roll of the dice' it was made out to be. They had nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

What was the difference between Japan and USA though? They had different strategies in the US as well but there was no talk of Hamilton having to let Bottas past at the end of the US GP despite the different strategies.

Didn't that only change after Japan though? I seem to recall Mercedes deciding that they will now allow their drivers to use alternate strategies around the time after Japan.

kleefton wrote:

JN23 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote: Which ones do you think, out of curiosity?

The only time I would say confidently that Vowles cost Lewis a chance at a win was Austria 2018, although in that case a mechanical failure later made it a moot point. I wouldn't count Japan 2019, because although Hamilton was denied a chance to win that's as a result of Mercedes rules of engagement, not bad strategy. They knew what they were doing that time.

I'm just referring to this year, I would go with Singapore, Germany putting Hamilton on to dry tyres when it had started raining and other drivers were pitting for wet tyres, you may want to blame Hamilton for the crash but Vowles was the catalyst for things to go wrong, he further cost Hamilton the podium by not pitting him under the SC to get rid of his 10 second penalty claiming at the time that Hamilton would lose too many places when in fact he would have lost just 1 place. Also yes I say Japan but you may refer that to Wolf himself but the strategy given to Hamilton was both confused and bizarre and Vowles had to be initial strategist in that race for Hamilton.

There are more I could bring up as well but these didn't cost Hamilton any wins but in total out weigh one stand out strategy decsion in Hungary.

I'd agree with Singapore from that list -- Hamilton was ahead of Vettel and Max, both of whom pitted. Of course, that still relies on Ferrari to make the initial strategy error to not pit Leclerc, without which he would never have been vulnerable to an undercut. Germany is a bit 50/50, but I'll agree that certainly the strategy didn't help Lewis.

I still don't agree with Japan. Everyone knows that Mercedes doesn't allow their drivers to beat each other using different strategies.

On top of that -- on the subject of Hungary -- I'd add against Vowles that everyone I knew who was watching the broadcast could tell that pitting Lewis was the obvious call. It wasn't nearly the 'roll of the dice' it was made out to be. They had nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

What was the difference between Japan and USA though? They had different strategies in the US as well but there was no talk of Hamilton having to let Bottas past at the end of the US GP despite the different strategies.

Didn't that only change after Japan though? I seem to recall Mercedes deciding that they will now allow their drivers to use alternate strategies around the time after Japan.

Fait enough if it did. What about Silverstone this year though? I remember something about them allowing different strategies in that race, was that just a one off?

JN23 wrote:Fait enough if it did. What about Silverstone this year though? I remember something about them allowing different strategies in that race, was that just a one off?

Silverstone (to the best of my memory) is a case where Mercedes tried to put Hamilton and Bottas on the same strategy, and Hamilton refused to pit again since he didn't need to.

I suppose maybe the difference is that in Silverstone Hamilton was already leading, but in Japan he only took the lead because he didn't pit when Bottas did?

Exediron wrote:

JN23 wrote:Fait enough if it did. What about Silverstone this year though? I remember something about them allowing different strategies in that race, was that just a one off?

Silverstone (to the best of my memory) is a case where Mercedes tried to put Hamilton and Bottas on the same strategy, and Hamilton refused to pit again since he didn't need to.

I suppose maybe the difference is that in Silverstone Hamilton was already leading, but in Japan he only took the lead because he didn't pit when Bottas did?

I thought Hamilton said he was always going to one stop in Silverstone.

Either way, I hope Merc do allow a bit more strategy variation going forward, it's lead to some fairly exciting races when they have done in the past.

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:Hungary was the only one mentioned, I would say that Vowles cost Hamilton 2 to 3 wins.

Which ones do you think, out of curiosity?

The only time I would say confidently that Vowles cost Lewis a chance at a win was Austria 2018, although in that case a mechanical failure later made it a moot point. I wouldn't count Japan 2019, because although Hamilton was denied a chance to win that's as a result of Mercedes rules of engagement, not bad strategy. They knew what they were doing that time.

I'm just referring to this year, I would go with Singapore, Germany putting Hamilton on to dry tyres when it had started raining and other drivers were pitting for wet tyres, you may want to blame Hamilton for the crash but Vowles was the catalyst for things to go wrong, he further cost Hamilton the podium by not pitting him under the SC to get rid of his 10 second penalty claiming at the time that Hamilton would lose too many places when in fact he would have lost just 1 place. Also yes I say Japan but you may refer that to Wolf himself but the strategy given to Hamilton was both confused and bizarre and Vowles had to be initial strategist in that race for Hamilton.

There are more I could bring up as well but these didn't cost Hamilton any wins but in total out weigh one stand out strategy decsion in Hungary.

I'd agree with Singapore from that list -- Hamilton was ahead of Vettel and Max, both of whom pitted. Of course, that still relies on Ferrari to make the initial strategy error to not pit Leclerc, without which he would never have been vulnerable to an undercut. Germany is a bit 50/50, but I'll agree that certainly the strategy didn't help Lewis.

I still don't agree with Japan. Everyone knows that Mercedes doesn't allow their drivers to beat each other using different strategies.

On top of that -- on the subject of Hungary -- I'd add against Vowles that everyone I knew who was watching the broadcast could tell that pitting Lewis was the obvious call. It wasn't nearly the 'roll of the dice' it was made out to be. They had nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

Hamilton was allowed the 1 stop strategy to beat Bottas at Silverstone, in regards to Hungary being the obvious strategy, well I'll still give him credit for calling it if I'm going to highlight all his bad calls.