And If the gap was there for LeClerc then Hamilton would have used it. It was obvious both Ferrari and Mercedes were just waiting for a gap.NathanOlder wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:04 pmAh ok I'm with you now. Lets say the gap to 4th was big enough and Leclerc could pit and undercut, the only problem with that is, it risks Leclerc undercutting Seb. and that can't possibly be allowed to happenWynters wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:55 amApologies if I wasn't clear. The undercut clearly gave the driver on the road an advantage in the short term but penalised them in the long term on tyre life. It's this balance of benefit/loss that I was referring to.
This was a three car race for the podium positions so Leclerc was available to be used as a pawn to force Mercedes to compromise their strategy in order to prevent him gaining a position on Hamilton and slowing him for a number of the following laps (allowing Vettel to drive off into the distance without any pressure).
Clearly, the undercut was faster as it allowed Vettel to stay ahead of Hamilton, despite the latter having a faster car.
However, having rewatched the relevant portions of the race, I don't think Leclerc had a sufficient traffic window to make it work, so question answered.
that's just your opinion, and let's just say I strongly disagree.
No, I'm just poking fun at the absurdity of the situation. This one is real though:
Aside of the regulations that obviously have to be followed and were correctly applied, people lamenting this took away the action at the end of the race is a valid complaint. 5 seconds was the lowest penalty the stewards could give. Depending on how severe you want to punish someone, that's either too stringent or getting off too easy. If we forget about the regulations for a second, and just apply rationality and logic, should Vettel have been punished? Should he have been punished for creating a dangerous situation, should he have been punished for creating a situation where he would have been overtaken and blocked that from happening in an unreasonable way?dans79 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:05 pmthat's just your opinion, and let's just say I strongly disagree.
it's somewhat ironic that the forum "rules" prevent me from fully expressing my opinion! so yeah that's one more instance of rules that are put in place for a reason whether people like them or not!
People are always trying to find the Goldilocks regulation, not too lenient, not too harsh. In this situation the rules as they are were clearly infringed, that's not up for debate. Remarkably some are still debating it. What is debatable is whether these regulations are too hot or too cold going back to my Goldilocks comparison.
Lol, Danny doesn't want to admit that Lewis didn't actually block him it was a bluff, a feint. A beautiful bit of racecraft that Lewis stitched him up with, so when the stewards looked there was in fact a car's width, so Danny had given it up for nothing
OK, I see that you put lots of effort into your answer, and I respect you for that.
And that's the thing, isn't it? If Vettel and Hamilton were fairly equal points and this happened, people would be more accepting of it. But because Hamilton has opened his lead to 1+ / 2+ DNFs ahead of his teammate / Vettel, they're all up in arms. The usual "game over, man, game over" shouts.
No. Watch the replays and read the Autosport article I linked to. Vettel steers to the right. Understandable, it's what any racing driver would do in that situation, you want to defend your position. And I probably would not have penalized him for that.roon wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:28 amHe did go straight, that's the problem. Some suggest the Ferrari should have immediately hooked up its front tires right after the grass and turned the car more to the left in order to stay on the left hand side of the track so as not to intersect the racing line. But physics doesn't agree, and physics are being read as a defending move here.
even if, he still he gained an advantage (and he could have braked and re-entered safely, there was lots of free grass to the left) and it was very dangerous and it was clearly blocking with a massive speed differntial (even if necessary to enter "safely"...)...LM10 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 7:09 pmMichael Schmidt: "All drivers I've asked after the race confirmed Vettel's words: To safely drive back on the track, Vettel needed to choose that line."
All ex-drivers, current drivers (they know the best what Vettel was going through behind the wheel) and even the Sky F1 coverage do have the same opinion. Who don't? Peter Windsor, and obviously the Mercedes team including a part of their fans (not even all of them).