[Both] - it's a bit working backwards from the result (I'll do that too of course), but forgetting hard tyres pace difference, it wasn't because of early stop, it happened much earlier than expected, "proper two-stopper" wouldn't do it against Vettel, small chance if he was stuck behind Webber--> <--Grosjean twice(?). Webber on the other hand - yes.komninosm wrote:I agree. Lotus should not have tried to cover Webber at all. If they went with a proper two stopper and covered Vettel the result would be Webber-Grosjean-Vettel 1-2-3.spin1/2 wrote:Lotus' mistake was to cover Webber at the 1st stop, in order to maintain the lead. Instead they should've stuck to the 2 stopper from the beginning. They didn't have the race pace as RBR but they messed up their strategy by trying to race different cars at different times - webber in the beg, and vettel later.
By having web on 3-stop instead of 2, rbr earned themselves a 1-2. Gros would've won ahead of web-vet if rbr.
About Lotus: hards are slower and any scenario against Vettel is not feasible, so it's against Webber who has better pace on hards but not as good as Vettel. Pitting early [23(?)] would force him to stay on stretched 2 stopper with unknown outcome, mediums are better for Lotus and it's a reverse situation - but that's only theory. Timing of stops, I felt that it wasn't optimal in terms of defending 2nd but nevermind, splitting hair.
Another one is penalised (and outraged) for going off the track, this time he didn't get the luxury of stewards asking him to give back position. So where were you Ricciardo when R.G. got robbed in Hungary? Like Hulkenberg, so much worse, so much blatant and clear case and they whine? [They say he "lost" time not gained]. It was meters from a clean overtake, no one forced him off at centimetres range like Massa did, he just overshot the corner. Why can't it happen to "high profile" driver
?
This is a race a thread and we're talking about the race? You have nothing more to say?
