There was no issue, unless you know more than ferrari.siskue2005 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2019, 11:01He was 1.02 sec to 1.2 sec behind Vettel for more than 5 laps
Leclerc had a greabox issue later in the race
There was no issue, unless you know more than ferrari.siskue2005 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2019, 11:01He was 1.02 sec to 1.2 sec behind Vettel for more than 5 laps
Leclerc had a greabox issue later in the race
breath breathShader wrote: ↑14 Apr 2019, 11:03Charles had to make peace that his own team scapegoated him and what, what is there to drive for when your teams hold you back, for 3 races now, and today worse than ever? He let Vettel in front, Vettel was not faster then, and gap to Bottas even increased? Those are facts, if you don't like them, go to that "imaginary championship" thread or whatever it's called.
it was broadcasted on tv.... and after few laps Ferrari came back on and said the issue is ok nowJuzh wrote: ↑14 Apr 2019, 11:12There was no issue, unless you know more than ferrari.siskue2005 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2019, 11:01He was 1.02 sec to 1.2 sec behind Vettel for more than 5 laps
Leclerc had a greabox issue later in the race
And a double stack, where it was hardly required, while they clearly knew that their lead driver didn't even have a new set of Mediums, whereas the second driver had one!!! Amazing.Restomaniac wrote: ↑14 Apr 2019, 11:17Let’s put this in context.
Ferrari torpedoed their number 2 for their number 1.
In the same race.
Mercedes almost gave their number 2 an undercut on their number 1. To the clear annoyance of that same number 1.
It's to scare naughty children.
It's not so much about letting Vettel trough (a dick move anyway as their pace was nearly identical), but much more about letting Leclerc out for another 3 laps where he lost nearly 3 seconds per lap. That was the real bummer and it was not necessary at all.
Indeed!GPR -A wrote: ↑14 Apr 2019, 11:22And a double stack, where it was hardly required, while they clearly knew that their lead driver didn't even have a new set of Mediums, whereas the second driver had one!!! Amazing.Restomaniac wrote: ↑14 Apr 2019, 11:17Let’s put this in context.
Ferrari torpedoed their number 2 for their number 1.
In the same race.
Mercedes almost gave their number 2 an undercut on their number 1. To the clear annoyance of that same number 1.
To be entirely correct: Leclerc felt there was an issue. Ferrari replied a lap later that the data looked ok. So either it was resolved in the meantime (by intervention or not), or there was no issue.siskue2005 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2019, 11:19it was broadcasted on tv.... and after few laps Ferrari came back on and said the issue is ok nowJuzh wrote: ↑14 Apr 2019, 11:12There was no issue, unless you know more than ferrari.siskue2005 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2019, 11:01
He was 1.02 sec to 1.2 sec behind Vettel for more than 5 laps
Leclerc had a greabox issue later in the race
they did that to be fair to two drivers, and it was the best optionGPR -A wrote: ↑14 Apr 2019, 11:22And a double stack, where it was hardly required, while they clearly knew that their lead driver didn't even have a new set of Mediums, whereas the second driver had one!!! Amazing.Restomaniac wrote: ↑14 Apr 2019, 11:17Let’s put this in context.
Ferrari torpedoed their number 2 for their number 1.
In the same race.
Mercedes almost gave their number 2 an undercut on their number 1. To the clear annoyance of that same number 1.
I’m cool.Steven wrote: ↑14 Apr 2019, 11:25Would you guys calm down please?
Ferrari's Mattia Binotto noted they wanted to give Vettel a chance, as it was clear the Mercedes were running away from it with Leclerc in third.
Although it may look like scapegoating for the fans, there is a point to make for Ferrari. The problem is however that Red Bull forced their hand, and they had no option anymore when Verstappen made his first stop.
As Ted Kravitz said it properly to Horner: "You take pride in being a disruptor among the front runners, and you certainly did that today".
All along, Mercedes' rules of engagement has been that, the lead driver gets to pit first and gets the most optimum strategy. There have been instances where (and it's mostly not Lewis) the second driver got the first pit stop as there was genuine and inherent danger of losing second place. Here, the double stack was definitely not required .siskue2005 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2019, 11:29they did that to be fair to two drivers, and it was the best optionGPR -A wrote: ↑14 Apr 2019, 11:22And a double stack, where it was hardly required, while they clearly knew that their lead driver didn't even have a new set of Mediums, whereas the second driver had one!!! Amazing.Restomaniac wrote: ↑14 Apr 2019, 11:17Let’s put this in context.
Ferrari torpedoed their number 2 for their number 1.
In the same race.
Mercedes almost gave their number 2 an undercut on their number 1. To the clear annoyance of that same number 1.
One cannot fail to see why Hamilton was annoyed.GPR -A wrote: ↑14 Apr 2019, 11:35All along, Mercedes' rules of engagement has been that, the lead driver gets to pit first and gets the most optimum strategy. There have been instances where (and it's mostly not Lewis) the second driver got the first pit stop as there was genuine and inherent danger of losing second place. Here, the double stack was definitely not required .siskue2005 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2019, 11:29they did that to be fair to two drivers, and it was the best option
I remember 2016 Austria when initially Lewis was put on one stop and then for no reason, it was changed to two stop and despite having managed the race lead comfortably, Lewis lost the lead to Nico due that ridiculously stupid strategy move. So, Mercedes has this habit of shooting in their own foot by going for things kind of stupid strategies for the sake of being OVERTLY fair.