Kimi Raikkonen, Ferrari, Monaco, 2017

Ferrari deny planning to get Vettel ahead of Raikkonen

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Ferrari say they did not plan to help Sebastian Vettel get past Kimi Raikkonen in the Monaco Grand Prix.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Ruben was blown away by Fernando Alonso’s performance at Indianapolis:

I haven’t been this impressed with a drivers skill since Max Verstappen’s showing in Brazil.

To me, this has to go down as one of the greatest showings ever from a F1 driver outside of the sport. In an age where most drivers are focusing on a single discipline, he was always around the top 10 in a category so far out of his comfort zone and never looked out of position once. Alonso battled seasoned legends of IndyCar as if he did this a hundred times before and took no prisoners going inside and out. He looked like ‘one of them’ instead of ‘the new kid on the block’.

This showing should make him think about his future in motorsport. I loved seeing him competitive again and if the F1 team can’t provide the needs to do so, then IndyCar seems like a pretty good alternative right about now.

I can say nothing more but hats off to Fernando.
Ruben

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Fation Losha, Remco H, Ted Tofield, Wesley and Jonathon!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

  • Nigel Mansell took pole for Williams today in 1992 at Monaco

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 121 comments on “Ferrari deny planning to get Vettel ahead of Raikkonen”

    1. To be entirely honest, I’m still a bit over the moon from what we saw on Sunday afternoon at Indianapolis. I’m still shocked, the whole thing was incredible.

      1. Can’t agree more, what a spectacle. Fantastic.

      2. Yeah I agree. Amazing race…. Indycar won itself a huge amount of new fans last weekend!

      3. I agree with the above it was a fantastic race and its so obvious F1 has much to learn.

        HOWEVER – Scott Dixon’s accident should have 9/10 times killed him. IMHO it was a huge piece of luck that it didn’t kill him and that we are now celebrating such a ‘successful race’. His car was ripped into two at 200mph.

        IndyCar must genuinely address the core viability of single-seaters on ovals. The risk of debris striking drivers or cars going airborne is still way too high. IMHO, sadly its only a matter of time before the next tragic incident.

        1. I don’t know 9 out of 10, but had Dixon’s car rolled another 45 degrees we would indeed now be mourning another racing fatality. On the other hand, the same crash only a few years back would have a different outcome, which shows just how Indy, as motor sport as a whole, has come safetywise.

          1. @paulk, mind you, this was the same race weekend which also saw Bourdais fracture his pelvis during a practise crash – so although Dixon was OK, that same event did see other drivers being seriously injured during crashes.

            1. I watched the whole race and enjoyed the spectacle, but was reminded that I just can’t get on with oval racing – there doesn’t seem to be any connection with the first 80% and the last 20%, except survival (mechanical or otherwise).
              With all the cautions and pit strategies, I don’t feel as if a win is ‘deserved’ the way it’s built-up to in F1, GP2 etc over the whole race. Yes, Alonso led plenty of laps, but it didn’t make him any more or less likely to win it come the end. I don’t geddit.

            2. @webbo82I If by “deserved” you mean the team did a much better job over the off season to produce a better car and rules that forbid other teams to be able to be competitive if they get it wrong then OK. Or maybe it’s deserved because they were the faster car on Saturday? But just like in a 24 hour race it takes an entire team to perform flawless over the course of 500 miles to be able to win a race. I don’t think anything can be more “deserved” than having your team alter strategies, pit crews performing flawlessly, and a driver never putting a foot wrong for three and a half hours or better yet 24 hours.

            3. @webbo82 @brakius – I completely agree with Webbo here. This is one of the biggest reasons that I cannot get into Indy, NASCAR, etc. Endless throttle and any time cars get behind they either draft their way back to the front or more likely than not a caution bunches them up. Anyone can win based on a huge pile-up or because it’s their turn to be in the lead. (I know I’m simplifying and there is a bit more strategy than this…)

              A 24 hour race or long endurance race builds leads over time. More reliable?, less time lost in the garage. More efficient?, fewer stops for tires/fuel. For ovals, sit in a group, avoid being wrecked if you can, wait for your time to draft and lead. It’s the idea of make passing more possible taken to the extreme. If every straight is a pass, then most of the race is unnecessary; watch the last dozen laps.

              To be fair to these oval-based, spec series… in the grand scheme of things, a lap is a lap and any track—when simplified to it’s most basic—is little more than a circle/oval. But when you have an actual oval (or roval), and nearly spec cars, there seems to be little penalty to doing something right or wrong.

        2. I think the comment that resonates the most with me, in the AutoExpress article, is about the “real pit crews” at Indy as opposed to the NASA ground crews locked-away in their clean rooms that we have in Formula One.
          When I started following Formula One, the mechanics wore grease-stained overalls, and worked on the cars under awnings surrounded by stacks of toolboxes, tires, spare parts and gas cans. Indy Car is still much closer to this than to modern Formula One.
          Don’t get me wrong, I still love Formula One, but it has seriously lost the plot over the years.

      4. I concur entirely, and also with comment of the day. It was incredible to watch and incredible to see just how good Alonso is too.

      5. SevenFiftySeven
        30th May 2017, 11:56

        I agree. Alonso drove majestically at Indy. Some of his moves were, perhaps, unconventional for the Indy genre, but they showed Fernando’s raw talent and skill when it comes to car control, racing instinct, attack and defense. Loved seeing him hunting down the pack, overtaking on the inside and outside, defending well, nailing the restart when ahead. Just looking at that McLaren of his, the lines he took, and the stance of the car on track made me believe he would finish in the top 3, if not win it. Well done, Fernando!

        The commentators were quite impressed. I heard them say that for someone who entered as a rookie, he was driving like a veteran.

      6. Was it really that good? I watched last year and the year before (which I found really good iirc) but was on a train having to catch some sleep this year

      7. @fer-no65 As a regular watcher of Indy for many years now, that was the worst Indy 500 with the DW12. The whole middle of the race was ugly with yellow after yellow and the end of the race wasn’t great with most of the favorites out of contention with various problems (crash, pit strategy, mechanical failure). I still enjoyed it overall, but not as much as previous years. I did enjoy Sato winning though.

        The good news is that if you enjoyed that Indy 500, I can assure you that you will enjoy almost any Indy 500.

      8. I was stunned at what Alonso accomplished this past weekend! That is a true racer. I hope he leaves F1 for IndyCar.
        Also, LOVED the article by Steve Fowler. Are you listening F1? Please get a clue…before you lose us to other forms of motorsport. (F1=tire management, fuel management, team orders, unfair distribution of funds, poor promotion, very little fan transaction, very little overtaking) F1 has really just become a very, very expensive parade. Flame me if you want. That is how this racing fan feels.

    2. I don’t currently feel that we have to have a number one. I think it’s really important now that we collectively work as a team but there might be some things along the way that position-wise, at some stage, might become valuable.

      China: Vettel is behind Raikkonen and clearly much quicker. Ferrari don’t do any team orders.
      Bahrain: Hamilton is behind Bottas and clearly quicker. Mercedes order Bottas to let him through.
      Spain: Mercedes keep Bottas out to hold up Vettel as much as possible and then let Hamilton through.
      Monaco: Vettel jumps Raikkonen in the pits instead of being let through on track. Vettel was clearly quicker.

      I’m sick and tired of the blatant double standards the media have regarding team orders. If Hamilton’s benefits then they are great and perfectly understandable. If Ferrari do them then it’s a huge controversy. David Croft is especially guilty of this. That guy is such a huge Hamilton fan and he doesn’t even try to hide it.

      You can bet that if Hamilton had jumped Bottas for the lead in Monaco like that, the media would be praising his genius non-stop and nobody would even consider it team orders.

      1. Chris (@tophercheese21)
        30th May 2017, 1:13

        David Croft is especially guilty of this. That guy is such a huge Hamilton fan and he doesn’t even try to hide it.

        He’s clearly not a Hamilton fan. He’s just an idiot.
        But people who do not like Hamilton seem to think that just because he’s British, that he must be a fan of Hamilton’s, but when you actually listen to what he says when commentating, there’s literally nothing that would indicate he harbours some sort of bias for Hamilton.

        Personally, I think that as far as commentary goes as a fundamental skill, he’s one of the best in the world, but his constant inference that everything must be some kind of tabloid headline is getting tiresome. For example, whenever he sees a car going slowly on track in a Practice session, he almost always immediately jumps to the conclusion that that car must have some sort of technical problem. It’s almost as if he’s oblivious to the fact that out-laps, in-laps and cool down laps exist.

        That’s what annoys me about David Croft.
        He’s technically brilliant when it comes to commentary, but he often overly dramatises things. But if there’s one thing I’m certain of, it’s that he sure as hell isn’t a Hamilton fan. Don’t assume that just because he is British that he must be a fan of Lewis.

        1. That’s only because he’s employed by Sky
          When he was on BBC radio, there was non of this, and his commentary was far better. Sky will go to any length to sensationalise

        2. I was watching the race in a different language, but was chatting with friends during the Grand Prix that watched the Sky broadcast. It’s not just Croft, it’s Sky. After the race they still tried to stirr things up with Brundle in the lead.

          I thought we might finally have a season with two drivers/teams racing hard, but respecting each other and everybody enjoying it. I enjoyed the race, even though it was pretty boring except for a short burst inbetween. It got tainted for me afterwards by the media who jumped at this nonsense. And I’m afraid this will be going on for the rest of season. It’s always the same. And annoying.

          Besides what everybody’s opinion is on all of this… I can’t believe people really think that Ferrari, a team that screwed up strategically at almost every race in 2016 and ultimately lost in Spain because of a questionable strategic call is now suddenly able to create such a strategy masterpiece that allows Vettel to come out of the pits 3 tenths infront of Räikkönen. Croft said during the race “Kimi has been awfully quiet”… I’m getting the feeling he and many others jumping on this bandwagon must be new to F1…

      2. Yes yes yes!!! It was absolutely stupid the amount of speculation happening before, during and after the race.

        Croft was really getting on my nerves this race. People need to remember that when Vettel set his 1:15.2 lap, Kimi did a 15.5 lap. It is not like Kimi was cruising allowing Vettel to lead.

      3. @kingshark Yes exactly. Cotd. I’m sure Ferrari is happier that Vettel has got some extra points but we, Symonds, Horner saw no evidence of team orders. Ferrari have always been blatant when it comes to team orders, Austria 2002 was unnecessary shambolic etc, ever since then, Massa helped Raikkonen to win the title in 07, in 08 after Rai’s championship bid collapsed, Raikkonen tried to help Massa. “Alonso is faster than you” for as bad as it was, to me is better than veiled team orders, and there were countless instances of engineered team orders and veiled orders from many other teams. Hidden orders work better nobody cares that Heidfeld let Kubica win in Canada 08 in order for BMW to lead the championship on both drivers and Constructors.

        Sky make their own truth. Whenever Croft hand picks a tweet questioning his bias and to some extent his journalistic values, he says he doesn’t have a preference. I’d rather have Croft, Ted and Martin admit they are rooting for the British drivers which is absolutely a good thing and normal and understandable, than twisting the truth and the sanity of the people watching a race. In Russia Raikkonen was running too long, Bottas and Vettel were within 5 sec, Crofty picked up the team orders subject, made a sarcastic comment on Ferrari and team orders, giggled and then Ferrari pitted Raikkonen not interfering with Bottas nor Vettel but Croft kept going.
        I know Sky invests a lot in f1 but they don’t get to influence the racing, for instances sky said pointed out the SFI didn’t look to comply with the new number/letters rule. SFI passed scrutineering though, but eventually got a penalty afterwards. Did sky mentioned anything about that? Passing scruteneering then getting a penalty, Andy Green was livid afterwards. Sky claimed kudos for making the SFI change their livery and made no reference or whatsoever to what happened between SFI and the FIA.

        The media are disgusting, long gone are the days, when media pushed the world forwards, we going back to the past, the media push the world down. Journalists that want to stars want to entertain or are self proclaimed experts and carriers of absolute reason. They are the voice of the world, now they make the world by making up facts. That last link the tweet that got that guy fired, over political correctness at work. I really don’t understand the concept of free speech. Indy 500 is always on memorial day, if there’s an holiday to remember those lost at war, it means there are also memories of war, remnants of the past, a bit of a paradox to expect no one to be bothered by war enemies. I’m sure Japan feels the same way about the US, I reckon it’s not wrong to say that you feel hurt and aggrieved, it’s no taboo. A sign of a civilized world that they have healthy relations despite the past. I just don’t think you should be forced to be “happy” for it, you do need to accept it. You write a tweet and your career is over.

        1. The reason is straightforward: because being uncomfortable with someone who had nothing to do with the wars of the past winning a race that had nothing to do with a past war, simply because of a past war, is not a healthy relationship with the past or the present. Yes, the journalist’s explanation makes that discomfort understandable and, on a personal level, perhaps unavoidable. The trouble is that this discomfort isn’t really relevant to the subject to which the journalist linked those feelings. Transposing those feelings into a completely different context is then judging someone for something they can’t and shouldn’t need to do anything about, which is what makes it an “-ism” (in this case, racism).

          Had Takuma had any personal involvement in World War II, or had the Indianapolis 500 of 2017 had anything more to do with World War II than simply being on the same weekend as Memorial Day (for example, if it had been shortly after the cessation of hostilities), then the journalist’s tweet (depending on context) might have been convertible to something with journalistic merit. Yes, it’s possible to combine journalistic merit and racism in the same article, but at that point it would have been a matter of debate as to whether political correctness was a good or bad thing.

          Many journalistic outlets subscribe to a code of conduct that bars their journalists from various “-isms” (either in general or specifically) for this reason. Compliance is notorously hit-and-miss, but sometimes lines get crossed to the point where the outlet can’t really ignore the situation. This was one of them.

        2. You’re not “forced to be happy with it” at all. And no, it’s not cool to connect a single individual with any events concerning his/her nation’s past, that he has absolutely nothing to do with.

      4. +1
        British media are disgustingly biased.

        1. While some most certainly are, I think @keithcollantine‘s coverage of this incident should put to bed once and for all these ridiculous claims of bias that seem to pop up against him all the time (though, of course, I know it won’t).

          It would have been easy for him to jump on the bandwagon and get a jab in at Ferrari if he had wanted to, but, as usual, I found his analysis to be well thought out and balanced. I may not always agree with his viewpoint, but he does try to present it fairly and provides strong backing for his opinion.

          It’s that kind of reporting, as well as other similar sites, that make me get a lot of my F1 news from British media, so let’s not tar all British journalists with the same brush.

          P.S. This is not specifically directed at you, more of a comment on a general trend that I see quite often in the comments section.

      5. @kingshark
        Don’t Forget how croft tried to speak over and over that Bottas did his own race and didn’t held vettel to help lewis through out Fp2 to an extent Ted shut him down as much as he can, when bottas came out and said he was helping lewis.
        I think Crofty wants to make it look like Team orders for Lewis is fair and reasonable because Ferrari are the team doing that from the long long time,but for this season there is nothing that proves to be true and if Ferrari really want to give Team orders they wont shy away to give it publicly time and time again they proved it. They dont need code words/ name of Different strategies . If they feel Vettel will get benefit they will give Kimi the order to move out of the way with out even any hesitation and we can surely hear the Team Order in live feed.
        The Double standards is getting on the nerves for alot of people i guess. Yes we all know that its a British TV channel hence the favoritism to Lewis is understandable, but the lengths the likes of Crofty/ Hill(some times) go on to prove that Lewis needs full team backing is fair and Vettel should fight with his team mate and him getting full team backing is unfair or not good for sport is really not the best way to portray for the world considering that Sky f1 is received as major F1 channel for most of the TV subscribers around the world.

        1. not good for sport is really not the best way to portray for the world considering that Sky f1 is received as major F1 channel for most of the TV subscribers around the world.

          That part is what really bothers me. It’s one thing that they are doing this for the British audience, it’s a whole other matter that they basically control the narrative for the entire F1 world. There’s little to no local interest in F1 where I live and from what I can see the UK journalists/broadcasting set the tone almost exclusively* and regrettably Sky is the most powerful and effective contributor among them.
          *The sheer volume of them is overwhelming. Also as it’s written/spoken in English the rest of world are able to consume their work without a problem. And I must admit the overall quality of their reporting (bar regarding certain subjects apparently) isn’t bad really.

          1. Their Quality of reporting isn’t the issue the issue is time and time again how Croft tries to stir the pot on his own and tries to make it look like a big storm in tea cup. he was really the odd one in the team who was going down in terms of People’s View as a commentator and sooner rather than later that’s going to be big problem for most of people because that will hurt the reporting quality.
            I mean in FP2 he tried to make the Bottas holding up Vettel is entirely fair and he wasn’t helping Lewis and how its his race when Bottas said himself that he was purposely holding Vettel to help Lewis to an extent Ted Kravitz told him to stop his idea and how they tried to force Merc favour Lewis in toto’s interview so that he can get help as much as they can to win the title . Come Race day he was the one floating the idea of team orders and how its unfair because its helping Vettel.
            I’m not against nor favor of Team orders because we surely don’t have the data the teams have we all have the What if Scenario once the situation plays itself, If Mercedes Favors Lewis then its not a big thing its always natural to bet on their best bet as was Ferrari’s the problem is double standards in sky team and particular David Croft who says its Ok for what ever Merc does but goes on how unfair it is when the opposition does the same (which i believe still has to do )

      6. There’s a reason why the press are held in lower esteem than lawyers or politicians. The latter two groups at least have enough respect for the public to try to lie skillfully. The press will tell you “The sun rose in the West this morning” and if you demur they’ll respond with “We’re the news! You have to believe what we tell you!”

        1. A lot of politicians are the same -which may be why lawyers are trusted more than either mainstream press or politicians these days.

      7. jayteeniftb
        30th May 2017, 5:44

        And they would be whining even louder if vettel pits first and manages to undercut raikkonen.

      8. Unfortunately British media feel that they should be both the PR and psychological war room of Lewis Hamilton and Sky is getting pretty disgusting at that.

        As you mentioned double-standards are abounds; basically everything that Lewis does to get victory is justified.

        But as someone else mentioned worse than that is the tabloid mentality. They are constantly looking for some controversy, ideally a conspiracy that they could talk over and over about it with no end.

        I have personally decided to watch every race that C4 broadcasts there, and if other follow suit it will become a warning message (as the viewer numbers will be known) for Sky to make some changes.

        1. Libertini (@)
          30th May 2017, 10:04

          It’s hard not to get irritated by David Croft and Martin Brundle, between opinionated and just stupid comments, they make enjoying F1 a lesser experience. Unfortunately we don’t get to choose commentators, and Sky seems to have a monopoly in the UK. The media do much to influence people’s minds. Sometimes they are just chatting about their food, their free time and some such idiotic things – and their banter is utterly ridiculous. I do miss James Hunt. Unfortunately, commentators are just people – Italian commentators from the ’80s onwards are equally dire, in my experience. I wish the media would give us more of a choice. The other thing is, just turn the sound off, and watch those beautiful cars in silence. One might start enjoying F1 again :D

          1. Whenever possible turn to channel 4. I find Ben Edwards probably the the best lead commentator since Murray Walker.

        2. Not to mention that, with Sky, apart from their tabloid slant, they seem contractually-obliged to shoe-in a betting reference at every opportunity, promoting their Sky Bet platform.
          I usually watch both C4 (when live) and Sky, inevitably turning Sky off as sometimes the difference is night and day: C4 despite their ads and shortcomings is inifinitely more tolerable and enjoyable to watch. Crofty really has descended to utter drivel, as evidenced by colleagues like Ted openly disparaging his opinion.

      9. Michael Brown (@)
        30th May 2017, 11:41

        SkyF1 is fake news.

      10. SevenFiftySeven
        30th May 2017, 14:04

        The commentators and Sky Sports are just presenting the narrative of the network. The problem is, the intended narrative doesn’t just stay local, but also goes global. Sky Sports is the official media partner of F1. Since F1 is a global sport, Sky’s coverage would be better if it were aimed at a global audience. In countries where English is not understood, networks that pay Sky to broadcast races in their own countries, will hire local commentators. In countries where English is understood (but not the first language), networks that buy Sky’s coverage will simply not hire English-speaking commentators to cover F1 to save costs. In the old days when F1 was free-to-air, English-speaking commentators were hired to cover the sport in various regions around the world.

        There’s a dilemma here. Do we regard Sky’s F1 coverage as a local one or a global one? One the one hand, English is an international language and a source of soft power for both the UK and the US, and other English-speaking nations. If that soft power is used to present a certain narrative globally, it should be done very subtly, which isn’t the case with Sky F1 – they are overt with their narrative and then go overboard with it, rendering soft power to regional comedy. On the other hand, UK is also the home of motorsport with English being UK’s national language. It’s understandable to own and curate this historical reality as you see fit. The question is how does one approach this dilemma. If we view Sky’s F1 as a local coverage, there’s nothing wrong with it as it is meant for a defined audience. If it’s seen globally, Sky’s F1 is less than ideal.

        The good thing, however, is that English commentary of F1 has historically been largely professional and evenhanded at the hands of the BBC, and also with ITV with Murry/Hunt, Murry/Brundle, Brundle/Allen. The current situation is a Bernie-created one in which Sky has full control over the narrative they chose to project with its coverage, having paid huge sums to CVC to gain the rights to do so. I’m not 100% sure about this, but I’ve heard the broadcast company that covers F1 is wholly owned by Bernie with Sky just acting as the official media partner to bring F1 material to homes. If that is so, race filming and selection and direction of content is covered by the broadcast company. Sky then has exclusive access to the content. Knowing Bernie, they work together. So, it’s not far fetched to say that all broadcast team radio content is selected, rather than random. Anyway, let’s hope things work out to well for everyone at the end.

    3. One accident came close to wiping out 3 drivers at once. What an incredible lucky outcome.

      1. And a big fella with brown trousers and a mobile phone

    4. It was the perfect result for Ferrari, with the biggest assist going to Lewis Hamilton. His poor performance on Saturday made the Italian team’s Sunday all the more easier. It was a fantastic opportunity for them and they, and Vettel, grabbed it with both hands and never let go.
      Mercedes, with Hamilton on many occasions prospering, have maximized moments like this which have enabled them to win championships. When Rosberg told Raikkonen ‘I know how it feels’, we all knew what Nico meant at the end of the race.
      At this moment in time, Sebastian Vettel is the best placed Ferrari driver to win the championship. Whether Ferrari are guilty of scuppering Raikkonen’s race means nothing to them with this hollow statement, as a team, Ferrari are back to where they wanted to be. Back at the front and back in the spotlight.

    5. I read the the Mark Hughes reports every race. I really enjoy his writing style. Thanks Keith for including a link on the Round up. This is my daily F1 content site and I appreciate all the effort put into it!! Keep up the good work!

      1. 2017 Monaco Grand Prix report
        by Mark Hughes

        Reading that made me shave my hair, lift my right arm put on a conical white rucksack over my head and read another article about Mark Hughes struggle with life.

      2. They sang along to the Italian national anthem, all the Ferrari mechanics, engineers and catering staff as they stood below the new Monaco podium in the late afternoon sun. Sebastian Vettel conducted them as if they were his orchestra, pure delight writ large on his face. Kimi Räikkönen stood to his right devoid of expression, a thousand yard stare, clearly furious. Similarly with the Champagne as Vettel enthusiastically sprayed it around, Räikkönen giving his bottle a half-hearted scowling shake. A few moments earlier, in less public surroundings, Vettel had offered Räikkönen his hand for the ‘mutual respect’ upright handshake – and Kimi had hesitated before reluctantly accepting, and with those green eyes looking directly into Seb’s with undisguised fury, briefly acquiesced, turned and walked away.

        Seriously?

        1. Michael Brown (@)
          30th May 2017, 11:42

          “Undisguised fury, briefly acquiesced…”
          Ok

        2. The way he describes Kimi does not do him any favors…

        3. @f1-liners – Methinks Mr. Hughes is aiming for the William Shakespeare Sporting Scribe of the Year award…

      3. Probably one of the worst examples of journalistic ‘license’ that I have read in years. It was clearly Mark Hughes that was pushing the Ferrari Team orders thing at the Sky broadcast team as well, and unfortunately Crofty laps up anything he says. The disappointment for me was the way that Brundle got on board the conspiracy train throughout the broadcast whilst also acknowledging that Vettel would have won either way on pace….but apparently it was still a deliberate act from Ferrari!

        1. And another thing! I am getting fed up with Journalists (especially the British ones) bemoaning the fact that they have restricted/no access to Ferrari this year! What do they expect? They’ve spent the entirety of last season slating Ferrari for not being on Mercedes pace and praising RedBull for developing a car that was still ultimately no faster than the Ferrari! Trotting out the frankly disgusting view that ‘well….they’re being run by a bunch of Italians again’ and writing them of this season before last even ended with proclamations that RedBull would be at least coming to save the day.

          If I were Ferrari I would be doing exactly the same thing, pulling down the shutter with my big ‘F@~K you’ index finger raised!

          1. or middle finger even! ;)

            1. @asanator Well they do have a driver who loves raising his index finger ;)

        2. It was clearly Mark Hughes that was pushing the Ferrari Team orders thing at the Sky broadcast team as well

          No kidding. From the season opener, Mark Hughes has been talking about ‘Vettel contractually is given a priority on strategy’ thing in his every other race reports for Motorsportmagazine or in the comment box. Apparently he got it from someone he trusts and can’t resist bringing up for any vague situations.

        3. Probably one of the worst examples of journalistic ‘license’ that I have read in years. It was clearly Mark Hughes that was pushing the Ferrari Team orders thing at the Sky broadcast team as well, and unfortunately Crofty laps up anything he says. The disappointment for me was the way that Brundle got on board the conspiracy train throughout the broadcast whilst also acknowledging that Vettel would have won either way on pace….but apparently it was still a deliberate act from Ferrari!

          I have to agree with that. Mark Hughes does not come across to be as blatantly biased as Oliver Brown, but a lot of Hughes’ comments and conjectures in the Monaco Report range from not making sense to downright ridiculous. He seems to hint that there was some sort of conspiracy afoot to make Raikkonen lose this race after he got pole position on Saturday; and the Finn, in obvious disagreement with his team’s instructions, tried some clever trick to back-up Vettel to the following pack by moderating his pace even though he could have pulled away if he wanted to and ended-up shooting himself in the foot. What nonsense!

          IF Raikkonen really had more pace than he showed after lap 25 or so, he should bloody well have used it to get as much clear air between himself and his teammate so that he was safely ahead from either an overcut or undercut. But the fact remains that he was not doing so and was restricting Vettel to his own pace and backing him up to Bottas, Verstappen and Ricciardo. In the highly unlikely event that Raikkonen was really backing-up Vettel, then he should have no complaints against being called in to pit and deserved to lose out. But not for one moment do I believe that it happened that way; Raikkonen is a great driver and a fine man and not the sort to play fancy tricks on his own teammate, especially when he, Raikkonen, had no way of knowing the relative paces, positions or strategies of the the other 3 cars behind the Ferraris. The simple answer was that Raikkonen indeed did not have the pace to pull away from Vettel and was inadvertently backing the latter-up.

          Now put yourselves in Ferrari team’s position. They could clearly see what was happening and after Bottas and Verstappen had pitted, the charging Ricciardo was closing in on both Ferraris. They HAD to intervene and did the right thing in calling in the driver who was causing this problem – Raikkonen. They were proved right when Vettel then broke free and put up some spanking laps to seize the initiative….and eventually the race lead.

          If, on the other hand Ferrari had called Vettel in first, he would have come out ahead of the already pitted Bottas and Verstappen while the flying Ricciardo would have closed in even more on the struggling Raikkonen. Ferrari would then have had to call Raikkonen to box and Red Bull might have allowed Ricciardo, who clearly still had pace in his old US tyres, a few more laps to overcut Raikkonen. Vettel would have gone through by then but there is a 50:50 chance that the Ricciardo overcut would have succeeded and he would then be between the two Ferraris, although not in the sequence that Hughes tried to sell.

          In the reader’s comments section of Hughes’ article, a few asked some pertinent questions, particularly someone called “Skylien”. Note how Hughes deflected the response by saying that the article answered all those questions, which it clearly did not.

    6. Is F1 going to avoid clashing with other major races or is it going to avoid same day comparisons ? As long as F1 has tyre temperature serendipity as the major influence separating otherwise similarly performing teams and an aerodynamic regulation that multiplies the tyre problems for a car following close enough to attempt a pass then F1 will fail to impress in comparison.

      I well understand the frustration Auto Expressed, as one who has waited years for the gimmick of re-fuelling to end, and waited for the grooved tyres to go, and waited and waited for some engine development to be allowed to balance the dominance of aerodynamics, and waited again for wider tyres to redress the aero V mechanical grip imbalance only for the powers-to-be to do what they always do, that is make 2 changes to fix 2 problems with fix 2 nullifying the effect of fix 1, eg. DRS to allow a faster car that cannot overcome the turbulent air disadvantage in the bendy bits a chance to pass on the straights, but combining DRS with high-deg tyres meant that a faster car had to stay twice as far behind a slow car not to compromise its tyres, or Wider tyres to increase mechanical grips importance over aero-induced grip, combined with bigger wings for more aero-grip making the clean-air advantage even greater than before. I am now being asked to wait for Ross Brawn to come up with new regulations for 2020, I fear I may not have the patience.

    7. So, a message to Gregory B. Maffei, President and Chief Executive Officer of Liberty Media who bought flailing F1 for a not inconsiderable sum, to Chase Carey, new Chief Executive of Formula One, and to Ross Brawn, Formula One’s Managing Director of Motorsports: it’s goodbye from me to Formula One until you discover what racing really is.

      Oh no, however is F1 going to recover from such a terrible blow?

      What a pitiful article. It started as nothing more than a frustrated F1 fan finally tasting something different (to his admission, having only been lured to watch the 500 because Alonso was there) and quickly degraded into condescending blabbering. “The fans were smiling – probably because they were real fans who hadn’t paid a fortune to be there.” So now F1 fans are not real fans because the tickets are expensive… right…

      It’s astonishing people get paid to write stuff like that.

      1. No, he’s suggesting F1’s race attendees are divided between fake fans (I don’t think he believes all of the celebrity attendees, let alone corporate types, are interested in F1 as a sport), and real fans who have to pay a relative fortune to turn up (and thus are often disappointed when they show up – the “I paid 6 weeks’ wages for this?!?” effect – especially if they are also interested in wider motorsport and thus have a close comparison point).

    8. Da Costa’s gesture is nice. Rivals only on the track, and total respect at all times.

    9. Congratulations to Takuma Sato winning the Indy 500. He has worked very hard in IndyCar and really deserves this win. He was so happy and how could any real racing fan not be happy for him too?

      Sadly the long time sportswriter at the Denver Post felt a need to show his bigoted opinion, but rightfully so is now out of a job. The US is a diverse place and most folks truly know how to get along with other people.

      Our history is not always proud however. A good friend’s father was a US citizen of Japanese descent and his family was put in an internment camp during WWll. Undaunted he enlisted in the US Army and fought for our country in the war. He was not bitter and never complained even though he certainly could have been justified in doing so. He has my undying gratitude and respect. I mention this to hopefully provide a different perspective than the one put forth by someone who does not really seem to believe in freedom and the pursuit of happiness for all.

      For this rather privileged sports reporter to sit in his chair write such a sniveling remark because Takuma Sato is Japanese is beyond pitiful. It is a sad reminder that people who think like this certainly do exist.

      1. Sato was basically the 2000s’ Maldonado in F1, maybe not as quick on his best days. It’s very impressive that he was a cyclist until late teen and still advanced to F1 in his 20s, but the Japanese’s kamaikaze spirit is just dangerous for people racing with him.
        Regarding the WW2 stuff, you can read more about troop 731/ how IJA tortures captives, and how these Grade A war criminals are still worshiped in Japan today.

        1. Thank goodness for most of us WWll has been over for almost 72 years now. Japan is one of the greatest allies the US has. Your references are rather unfortunate at best.

          Right now I’m more concerned about some things going on in my own country and in the world that are much more current events.

          Usually motor racing provides some welcome relief from all that, until a miserable jingoist sportswriter comes along and makes himself known.

          1. You think the world isn’t currently at war? Open your eyes

            1. Michael Brown (@)
              30th May 2017, 11:45

              Is the US at war with Japan?

            2. Technically speaking, the world has only known 20 days of peace since World War II. We still have to live in it, and recognise that at any one time, we’re at peace at most other people. Ill-judged tweets trying to connect events of 70-odd years ago to a race where it wasn’t relevant do not help with this process.

      2. +100 Well said.

      3. +1 @bullmello
        Am I correct that those bigoted opinions are aired/shared more often now?
        Why?
        Are people getting more racist (and stupid), or do they feel it’s more accepted now due to easy access social media platforms or by having a spokesperson in the White House?

        1. Michael Brown (@)
          30th May 2017, 11:53

          @f1-liners I think it’s the social media. “I feel uncomfortable and I want to share it with the world,” is probably what Frei thought.

        2. Less recognition of the distinction between public and private spheres.

        3. @f1-liners, unfortunately, it does seem that there has been a gradual drift towards increasingly nationalistic and populist policies, often to distract from severe internal issues such as poor education, economic problems, corruption or any other manner of poor governance, in a number of countries that mean that such attitudes are being increasingly frequently expressed. There are a number of nations where there have been reports that indicate that instances of racially motivated violence, harassment or abuse are becoming increasingly frequent, especially now that it is increasingly easy to act anonymously.

        4. Most people misunderstand what racism actually is

          1. Read the tweet of that Denver Post writer and you have a clear example.

        5. @f1-liners – Social media can be used for good or ill and that trend has been ramping up steadily for a while. I think there is much good that comes from social media use, but those who use it for ill are getting more sophisticated all the time. Some folks merely find it easy to hide behind their monitor and keyboard to bully, fight, argue and act stupid when they would be way too scared to do the same face to face.

          Sadly, in the US we are seeing more people with bigoted views that seem to be emboldened by the actions and politics of the current administration. Happening in other countries too, obviously. There is a lot to be said for common decency. Sadly all too uncommon with some folks these days…

    10. Perhaps Mercedes dont have a number 1, but they are certainly happier when Hamilton wins.

      1. Please rewatch Russia gp

        1. MG421982 (@)
          30th May 2017, 13:48

          Not needed. BOT was 1st from lap1, while HAM was 4th from lap1 until the end of the race. Of course they (they = Mercedes) were happy BOT “stole” the victory from the 2 Ferraris, while HAM was all the time just good for 4th! Actually, Mercedes would have been happy no matter who their 2nd driver would have been, they were happy because their driver won starting 3rd.

      2. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
        30th May 2017, 22:40

        @jaymenon10 Shouldn’t it be that way? Should Mercedes not be cheering for a driver they’ve known for 4 years now and won so many WCCs with?

    11. RE:COTD – Rarely do I feel inclined to compare any race car drivers to Jim Clark. My inclination after Alonso’s entire Indy 500 experience, practice, qualifying and most importantly running in traffic in the race, is to give him a big nod that direction.

      1. Is it only me that thinks this is a tad too much?
        Alonso did great over the weeks and during the race, but he wasn’t close to perfect by all means and probably wouldn’t have won due to his own mistake(s). Still, it was a great performance.
        What about Alex Rossi though? I thought he was stronger than Fernando during the race, and he actually one it the first time around – why not praise his efforts?
        Alonso did great for a rookie, but I think we should keep things in perspective. He probably wouldn’t have won the race, and if you compare him the the former F1 drivers, even those with little experience at Indy, it wasn’t that grand, was it?
        And as fun as it was to watch the Indy 500, I do know why I prefer F1 and would never like to see anything like that in this sport. That is why Indy is fun, it would ruin F1 though.

    12. “There is no clear number one in Mercedes…..”

      I’m pretty sure “Bottas has been told to let you through” and “We don’t like doing this, but it’s done in the best interests of the team” mean the very thing you’re denying…

      1. Was bottas in the lead and on his way to win the race when the team order was given.

        1. What team order was given to Raikkonen anyway so what are you comparing?? Mercedes have never been in a position to order Bottas to let Hamilton win as Hamilton was nowhere near him when he won. But they did tell him to let Hamilton through when he was 2nd though, so they did just swap positions in Bahrain.

    13. The way I see it Alonso’s one-off appearance only proved how little skill it takes to master ovals. Anyone can drive flat-out left-hand kinks, a veteran or a rookie. It’s all about the car and fuel saving.

      I watched the last dozen laps or so and while the battle for the lead was tight and we got lead changes I didn’t see them to be spectacular or entertaining in any way. Slipstreaming on a straight line is not captivating if there’s not a big braking zone coming up ahead. Anyway, I recommend all those who watched IndyCar for the first time to check out Detroit’s race which is coming up next. On road and street courses IndyCar is usually quite a treat and Detroit is one of the best street circuits out there.

      1. @huhhii I didn’t watch, i don’t necessarily agree with your comments on racing, but boy, am i puzzled by this completely one-sided alonso praise. Wasn’t this race win contested by none other than Max Chiton?
        Or in other words, didn’t that show that in mostly-sorta-equal spec-cars, alonso is about as good as max?
        Or explain to me what i am missing here please.
        Member ‘worst pay driver ever hurr durr’? I member…

      2. I wouldn’t take Alonso as being “anyone” at all @huhhii. I think he made it possible by being the driver that he is, still on of the best in the world at his game. And off course him being as high profile, he got the full support of probably the best team in IndyCars to race with for the 500 AND his own McLaren team.

        If anything, it shows that it needs quite an effort to be there and achieve a good performance

        1. @bascb But for what are you basing your opinion? Many rookies and not so highly regarded also did well (as @mrboerns said, Chilton is a fine example). I’m confident you put anyone else from F1, Formula E or F2 to that Andretti car and they could bring good result if the strategy works. Oval tracks are not pushing the drivers to the limits.

          1. Well, yeah. Chilton @huhhii. Only Chilton is not a rookie at the Indy at all. He has been racing in the series, doing oval races for the second year now. And off course he was at indy last year too. Rossi DID win as a rookie last year, off course. But he had raced in the series since the start of last season too, and yes, he had both a lot of luck and the full support of Andretti to do it (his teammates helped him with fuel saving in the latter stages of the race).

            If you think Oval track do not push drivers to the limit, just ask yourself why a guy like Ed Carpenter is such an oval specialist and other drivers don’t really shine at it however long they race in the series.

            I agree that there are many talented drivers in F1 and Formula E that could get into Indycar and have a shot at winning as well. But that only goes to show how F1 fails at offering their drivers a more equal opportunity at contending for podiums and wins (and even seats with the limited field) and that FE has good drivers too. Not that the Indy 500 is less of a race for it.
            That is the same as saying that LeMans is not high level racing because FE drivers and “lesser” F1 drivers/F1dropouts have won it in the past, and I hope you wouldn’t argue that one.

            1. @bascb I know Chilton isn’t a rookie in American racing. Didn’t he drive a full season in Indy Lights too? Anyway, in Europe he was never touted as big champion, but somehow even he came close to winning Indy 500. It tells quite a lot of how easy oval racing is. As I said, it doesn’t challenge the drivers, but the machinery. Le Mans (and the whole series) is far more challenging than any oval race, especially in GT classes where the grid is full and you have to beat many cars in order to win. Prototypes (especially LMP1) are lacking in competitiveness because of so few teams and cars are taking part in it. If you finish the race in LMP1 you’re guaranteed a podium at the very least.

            2. @bascb Yeah he Is not a Rookie. But he Is also considered to be pretty much untalented. And for some reason sidelined f1 has beens tend to run competitively in indycar (And also wec). That indeed seems to indicate that the Level of Performance required from Drivers may not be quite as high.
              And f1 does Not ‘fail to provide competitive seats’. There are pretty much only spec series in Motorsport at this point. F1 Is Unique and should never ever give that up. If peoole don’t like f1 they can Watch any other Random spec series, not Change f1 to their liking .

            3. Well, I certainly would have been amazed if Chilton had won, afterall the group right behind him were all likely to pass. Leading the race is nice, but it does not mean that you are winning on an oval. The gloves came off only in the last 20 or so laps for the win and he dropped back as expected @huhhii, @mrboerns.

              As for F1 – I think that only a measly 10 teams with 20 cars is far too little. And I would hope that F1 sorts out the way it finances the teams so that at least a third of the teams have a good chance of winning, maybe a half to two thirds can have a lucky podium and the gaps are small.

              That is not about “changing f1” or making it less unique. It is about creating healthy competition. I really don’t know why you pulled in spec series into the discussion.

    14. Did Ferrari inform Räikkönen pre-race that at the stops the plan was to put Vettel – as the Scuderia’s title challenger – in front, by running him longer and overcutting Räikkönen? Did Kimi refuse to go along with it? Did he try to frustrate that plan by backing Vettel into the cars behind at the crucial time? Try to make Vettel vulnerable to being undercut by Bottas or a Red Bull? Ferrari would have been forced to respond by pitting Vettel first – to defend the undercut attempt. Which would then have allowed Räikkönen to have upped the pace once more and used the overcut to stay ahead of Vettel. That plan was foiled by Verstappen reaching Bottas before Bottas could quite put Vettel under undercut threat.

      This is only conjecture, obviously.
      Alot of Conjecture from Mark Hughes shows he too doesn’t had any clue. Let us Put it this way if this was in any calender race where overtaking is even possible remotely Vettel would have overtaken Kimi at the first possible moment and romped ahead

      1. That’s also conjecture. We don’t know how much Kimi was nursing the car – after all this is Monaco. Track position is everything.

        1. I know but considering how Vettel is driving this season and Kimi is thats less of conjecture than what Mark Hughes is saying.

      2. Here in Spain there a some “experts” that make even more strange conjectures.

        They said that VET couldn’t match RAI pace and that was the reason RAI slowed down.

        Ridiculous

      3. It is always fun to think about things though. I do think that it woudl make sense, it gives the best explanation for Kimi being slower than most other cars around him available. Much like Lewis tried to do a few times to Nico in the past few years. And it does fit with how Ferrari approaches their racing, wanting to give their no. 1 driver all the advantage he can get.
        Off course Kimi wouldn’t have told his team up front that he did not want to go along with giving up his race for Vettel (if they wanted that from him). Kudos to Kimi for trying to avoid that fate.

      4. SV: But the plan was always that the car in front would pit first – and that is what happened. It was simply not foreseeable that the other way around was the better solution today.

        I guess it goes without saying that if the car in front doesn’t want to pit first and the behind one is under threat the order can be reversed.

        So, Kimi knew he’d pit first, and both Ferrari were not under threat of undercut until they lost time behind backmarkers. That was critical because it narrowed Ferrari’s options in terms of how quick they had to respond to P3-P5 and the pit window to Sainz remained marginal (20-21 seconds). If you know you have the priority on the strategy, having your teammate at your tail and just nursing his tyres tactic doesn’t make any sense. You need to build 3-5 seconds gap to offset any unexpected under or overcut advantage by your teammate and it should be enough. It was that simple. Kimi failed to build any gap and incidentally put his teammate (= team’s best interest, 1-2 finish in any order) under threat. I don’t think Kimi is that sort of a character who’d purposely back Seb into traffic.

      5. Ferrari deny planning to get Vettel ahead of Raikkonen

        Well, the big news is Ferrari apparantly said something. In a time when Liberty is cautiously trying to open up the paddock a bit, Ferrari has retracted into its own cocoon, not speaking with media and other followers.

        So all the questions raised by Mr. Hughes and others will not be answered. If this happened at Mercedes or Red Bull, then at least there would be high profile team member available to explain it.

        Everything said about this subject by anyone is conjecture, simply because Ferrari does not take us, the audience, serious. We seem to be an anoying inconvenience to them.

    15. Great, now we will have to hear this non-sense all season long.

      Uh but they have team orders, we don’t we only let each-other pass, its different, uh
      Uh we don’t have team orders, Mercedes does!

      No we don’t, yes you do, you do too, no we don’t, you do

      And the press keeps throwing bread to these pigeons. Just race ffs

      1. Exactly! Still a long way to go this year! Enough of the team orders cr@p! Move on

    16. Glad Folwer enjoyed the Indy 500. But I think it is a bit sad how he takes it as an opportunity to critisize F1 for not having passes and how well trained everyone is.

      Sure, Indy has many more passes on an oval. However, part of that is passing more in a sense how it is done in cycling, where the lead changes because athletes take turn “pulling the train” before dropping back a bit to relax – with cars it is about taking turns saving a bit of fuel. I do agree that the pitstops are more interesting to watch, but that is not about the slick operation (indycar has that too) but more about how many people can work on the cars at every one time.

      The spectacle is huge – best viewed from either on board or from those great cameras low down where you see the cars come by, you see the camera shake and you hear them blitzing past. But then, is the spectable less when you see it from the barrier at Monaco. Or from a car nose, like the camera Kimi had in qualifying.
      Now I do agree that this year again Monaco’s director let us all down both in qualifying and the race be showing largely irrelevant moments, but the spectacle of cars racing through Monaco at 200 kmh+ is not less stunning than seeing them blitzing the large oval at 300 kmh+ for me.
      The point is, both are quite different races, and it is lovely to see both of those and enjoy both of them for being two opposites. The walls can bite for both. The thrill of a great qualifying (Kimi, Bottas, Sainz in Monaco, that huge run from Dixon in Indy) and of taking the chequered flag is comparable for any driver.

    17. If it was “obvious” that the overcut would work, i.e. staying out longer is faster, then why did Mercedes pit Bottas in response to Verstappen? Wouldn’t it then have been better to have him stay out for a couple more laps?

      I don’t buy the Ferrari team order story. Sure, their strategy risked Vettel getting ahead of Raikkonnen, but it was far from obvious – Vettel ended up only slightly ahead of Raikkonen, and he was lucky that Ericsson pitted just as Vettel began to catch him. Otherwise Vettel would have lost time in traffic as well and would have staid behind Raikkonen.

      I think the choice was quite logical: Bottas and Verstappen were faster than Kimi, so there was a risk that a few laps later, Ferrari would have come out behind them. But at that moment the gap was still sufficient to pit both Kimi and Vettel in subsequent laps and have them come out ahead of Bottas and Verstappen. Once Kimi pitted, Vettel upped his pace and was now faster than Bottas and Verstappen, so there was no longer an immediate need to pit him – indeed, it would be better to have him stay out longer to increase the gap.

      So all in all quite logical. I don’t think Ferrari favoured Vettel, but it was Vettel’s speed which allowed him the chance of an overcut.

      1. It was clearly orchestrated by Ferrari. Given the sophistication of their systems, they would have known exactly where Raikkonen would have filtered out, but chose to pit him so that he’d come out behind Button/Wehrlein anyway. Added to that, the overcut was always going to be the favourable strategy – if there were no team orders at play they wouldn’t have kept Vettel out for three/four extra laps to allow him to amass a lead on the better tyre. They would have brought him in the lap after, as would normally be the case if there were no threat from behind. Ricciardo clearly wasn’t a threat from overcutting either Ferrari, because Kimi was doing 15.5s on the SS and Seb could have done likewise. That was the pace advantage of Ferrari on the day. Red Bull tried the undercut with Verstappen only because Bottas was very slow – being compromised with lapped traffic. They assumed they’d get both cars ahead of Bottas – the only reason they didn’t with Verstappen was he had a slightly fumbled pit stop.

        1. You are ignoring the possibility of a safety car or VSC if Ferrari stopped Vettel before Ricciardo. In that situation Ricciardo could have benefited from a “cheap” pitstop and come out ahead of the Ferraris if both had stopped before him, leaving Vettel’s stop until after Ricciardo’s covered off that scenario.

        2. “if there were no team orders at play they wouldn’t have kept Vettel out for three/four extra laps to allow him to amass a lead on the better tyre. “

          It was not “the better tyre” for Kimi. It was only “the better tyre” for Seb.

          Prior to his pit stop Kimi was slow, running in the 1.17’s. Not only did he have Seb right behind him, he was keeping Bottas and the two RB’s in the picture. Once he pitted and took on the “slower tyre” and was “behind Button/Wehrlein” he promptly started lapping in the 1.16’s and even down into the 1.15s. Quite a change for a driver who was supposedly “dropped into traffic” and “on the slower tyre”! So why didn’t he do those lap times when he was on the quicker tyre and leading the race? Either he was deliberately going slow and backing Vettel up into range of Bottas, or he was just slow, full stop. I’m not sure which reflects more badly on him.

          Keeping Kimi out for another four or five laps on the ultrasoft would have meant keeping his much faster teammate bottled up behind him going much slower than he was capable of going, and would have meant placing the 1-2 finish in jeopardy. You’re not asking for fairness or driver equality, you’re asking Ferrari to rig the race so as to award Kimi a victory which his own driving simply did not merit, and to jeopardize the maximum points for the team in the process.

    18. Why are we still talking about Ferrari team orders that weren’t there.
      Horner said so and even Toto Wolff said so. All of the top teams messed up on strategy for the car that was ahead.
      All of the drivers who went for or covered the undercut got disadvantaged. Bottas lost out to Ricciardo and Max lost out even more. Because it wasn’t for a win you don’t hear them . It was just one of those 2% races in which the overcut worked better.

      Just because Kimi is such a likeable guy and their golden goose lost points to Vettel, the British media feel inclined to protect Hamilton and make him seen like a better driver just because he doesn’t need team orders to win while the evidence all season counts to the contrary.

      Do you really think Vettel would be content running around in P2 the whole race without trying to get past?
      *cough* Multi 21 *cough*

    19. Regarding the ”World Championship promoters meet to discuss calendar harmonisation” article: I wonder how that will affect on next year’s F1 race calendar?

    20. It was interesting to see the rear tyres on the Indy cars were more or less covered. It would be interesting to know if this neutralises the lifting effect a wheel has when it is rotated at speed. If it does then maybe F1 should consider also covering the wheels to reduce the need for aerodynamic downforce.

    21. I’m getting a bit of a chuckle out of LH in that I can’t help recalling his commentary at the start of the season about how he should be able to rely on his natural talent to find his way and should not have to share that info. Every driver for himself. Easily said when you think you are going to dominate the grid and your teammate.

      Now he can’t get back to the factory fast enough to try to figure out why VB is struggling less. Perhaps this experience will remind LH about what the true definition of team is. After throwing his under the bus last season, I’m sure they’re nonetheless going to do their level best to figure things out. Lucky for you, LH, they’re bigger than to throw you under the bus. They could just say figure it out for yourself. But they never would. They truly know they are on a team, not on their own island.

    22. Hahaha the need to defend Vettel and Ferrari are priceless.
      How time has changed.
      They pitted Raikkonen, putted him behind two slower cars, Vettel push all out (did his part) and that’s it. They gave Vettel the better chance, period. Just as Red Bull did with Ricciardo. They used Verstappen to give Ricciardo a chance to get the podium.
      I don’t know if the need of jutifiyng everything is because you all love Vettel or hate Hamilton.

      1. Vettel also had to navigate passed a back marker, Ericsson. Raikkonen was 0.5 secons slower in the pit lane despite an identical stop time to Vettel. Kimi’s in lap was two seconds slower than Vettels. Kimi lost 5 seconds pussy footing around waiting for blue flags prior to his stop which almost certainly put him behind the back markers you talk about. One helll of a conspiracy.

      2. MG421982 (@)
        30th May 2017, 20:22

        Even so… it showed that VET was a more deserved winner. RAI was so bad in passing the backmarkers when he led the race (he lost almost completely his advantage over BOT), then VET distanced from him at a rate of almost 1sec per lap, while RIC was catching him up fairly quick. RAI simply wasn’t fast enough over 78 laps to take the win. Seeing how the race evolved, had Ferrari kept VET behind all the time… it would have been a gifted race to RAI a lot more than it seems now to be a gift to VET.

      3. They pitted Raikkonen, putted him behind two slower cars

        If this theory were to hold any water than Raikkonen would have been going fast (before pitting) and then slow immediately after pitting when he was supposedly “behind slower cars”.

        In fact the reverse is true. Prior to his pit stop Kimi was quite slow and getting slower. (That’s generally a cue that a drivers tyres are shot) And immediately after his pit stop and while “behind slower cars” Kimi did by far his fastest laps of the race.

        They gave Vettel the better chance, period.

        Nobody stopped Kimi from driving faster, if he was able to. If he had done so he would have won. He was the slower driver and therefore he lost. That’s called “racing”.

        1. Read Mark Hughes’s column… (Motorsport Magazine)

          1. I wouldn’t bother, it is the biggest load of garbage that I have read for a long time!

          2. I wouldn’t bother, it is the biggest load of garbage that I have read for a long time!

          3. Isn’t he known for his impartial “journalism” on F1 lol?

    23. So I think I’m clear on this now: Twitter does derive its name from its sheer volume of twits, right?

    24. People, people. You are all forgetting one very basic fact that is confusing you… If they pitted Vettel the lap after they pitted Kimi, which might be also unfair as that could be seen as favoring Raikkonen too but whatever, in case of a SC, DR would have won the race. They were just covering for both strategies. It’s as simple as that.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
    If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.