Then they are idiots who haven’t been paying attention. The very second they pitted Hamilton and put him behind Vettel they had binned a 1-2 to massage Bottas’ ego.LM10 wrote: ↑13 Oct 2019, 09:31Mercedes obviously thought that Hamilton could overtake Vettel on the Softs at the end and they wanted to gift Bottas a win, rightly so, because he’s the perfect wingman.
Turned out that Hamilton couldn’t overtake Vettel, but the fresh Softs gave him the opportunity to get the fastest lap.
16 instead of 18 points after all. What a disaster!![]()
Sierra117 wrote:How dare you even think about asking such a ridiculous question.Justthatek wrote: ↑13 Oct 2019, 09:33Any reason why Lec didnt get a black flag for driving 2 laps with the front wing like and having it disintegrate into Hamilton?
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Possible excuse We had high deg, 1 stop was a risk, he wouldn't have made it to the end, tyre cliff blah blah blahtranquility2k4 wrote: ↑13 Oct 2019, 09:30I am watching sky, why on earth no one has asked the drivers or management a straight forward and obvious question which is why did they pit Hamilton with 11 laps to go when he was around 8 seconds ahead and had tyres in good condition. At the very least he could have fought Bottas and there's no evidence Bottas would have even caught him. Vettel was miles behind so they lost a gauranteed 2nd position and I'd like to know why, even though we know it was to assist Bottas. Maybe they see it as payback for Singapore, where Bottas had to hold back, although that was a different scenario as they were on the same strategy and were fighting other cars. Here they were fighting each other on different strategies, which I believe they usually allow. Maybe they would say Bottas had to do a 2 stop to cover Vettel and so shouldn't be punished if 1 stop turned out to be better, but instead we just get told a lie that one stop wasn't possible. It's frustrating no one from sky is even picking up on this.
Either they did it on purpose to make sure Bottas won, or their complete morons.Restomaniac wrote: ↑13 Oct 2019, 09:35Then they are idiots who haven’t been paying attention. The very second they pitted Hamilton and put him behind Vettel they had binned a 1-2 to massage Bottas’ ego.LM10 wrote: ↑13 Oct 2019, 09:31Mercedes obviously thought that Hamilton could overtake Vettel on the Softs at the end and they wanted to gift Bottas a win, rightly so, because he’s the perfect wingman.
Turned out that Hamilton couldn’t overtake Vettel, but the fresh Softs gave him the opportunity to get the fastest lap.
16 instead of 18 points after all. What a disaster!![]()
![]()
Haha! Very good. In all honesty the report might as well have said that. ‘Yes it was obvious car 5 false started and probably led to two other cars colliding, but we decided to just let it slide because we felt like it today.’RZS10 wrote: ↑13 Oct 2019, 09:21Here's the stewards' report for the 'alleged' (lol) false start
https://i.imgur.com/aBkvVtG.png
According to this article the rules regarding false starts have been amended for this season.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13196 ... jumpstarts
And those changes were made
36.13 Either of the penalties under Articles 38.3c) or d) will be imposed on any driver who is judged
to have :
a) Moved before the start signal is given, such judgement being made by an FIA approved
and supplied transponder fitted to each car, or ;
b) Positioned his car on the starting grid in such a way that the transponder is unable to
detect the moment at which the car first moved from its grid position after the start
signal is given.
Ohh my dear lord- the force is strong with this one..El Scorchio wrote: ↑13 Oct 2019, 09:46‘Yes it was obvious car 5 false started and probably led to two other cars colliding’