f1316 wrote:The reasoning on here seems to be that Hamilton's relatively poor 2nd stop was a contributing factor for Ferrari going to a one stopper. I'm not disputing that they might have done this, but it seems strange logic to me. By pitting on the very next lap, Alonso would have gained time from the pit stop - all things being normal he could could possibly have made up over a second in pure pit stop - and whilst he would still have emerged behind Hamilton, the gap would have been reduced.
Then you've got one stint on the primes. If you use the first stint as your guide, which is surely the obvious comparison, Alonso was able to stick with Hamilton with a stronger performance towards the end of the stint. He was slower down the straights, so overtaking was by no means a given, but it was still a decent shot at victory whilst also covering off the possibility of "falling off the cliff". He still had one set of brand new primes, I believe, so it seems a no brainer.
His logic after the race is that 10 points is fine, given their expectations before the race. That's all very well, but you had, at worst, 3rd in the bag with a two stopper, so a team with low expectations would surely have erred on the side of caution and got the 15/18 points? I'm certain Alonso is doing the "win together, lose together" job, which is admirable in a way, but I don't think anyone is really buying his explanation.
Well, 10 points is still a bunch after such a big mistake. If the race would've been 71 laps, he would've been 8th, with number 6-8 all within 3 seconds of him at the finish. In that respect, it could've been worse.
What I didn't understand is that they didn't seem to see it coming, including Alonso I'd say. Vettel was quicker than him in the laps before he pitted, at first I thought Alonso was managing his tyres a bit for a fight with Hamilton, but he was obviously losing them right then and there. It was clear Hamilton was going to pass him with DRS, like it or not, and the number 1 priority should always have been Vettel.