Sebastian Vettel, Ferrari, Monza, 2019

Vettel’s critics shouldn’t “write him off” after Monza, says Wolff

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

[gmsabu]

In the round-up: Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff predicts Sebastian Vettel will rebound from his poor weekend at Monza.

What they say

I would just say don’t write him off. Because he’s a four time world champion and the difference between the great ones and the good ones is that the great ones are able to get back up again. And I have no doubt that he can do that. He had a spell of bad races and now it will be about the ability to get himself back where he deserves to be and today for sure is a bad day for him.

Quotes: Dieter Rencken

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Comment of the day

Was the way Vettel rejoined the track on Sunday really so reckless? @Socksolid presents the case for the defence:

I don’t think it is fair at all to lambast Vettel for his error and driving into Stroll. The way his car was angled after his spin Vettel had absolutely no way at all seeing Stroll or anybody coming. Even if you think that should have meant Vettel should have stayed put you need to remember that Vettel was almost directly in the line of fire. Any car that comes after him could t bone him. He needs to get out of there quickly. He wants to get out of there quickly. He just spun. Little bit of panic sets in. He is thinking he is losing massive amounts of time. Car is starting to overheat with no airflow. He needs to move now.

The thing with these long cars is that they can’t make tight turns. Issue which was also made worse by the steering ratios. In Monaco the cars are set up to make those tight turns. In monza they are not. Vettel was also driving over a kerb sideways to come back to the track. This is typically pretty dangerous in a low car like in F1 car which can easily get stuck from its belly on the high kerbs. Of course we can see from the side camera view that there was no such danger but Vettel did not have that camera angle either. He is experienced driver and he knew that danger. Last thing he wanted was to get beached on top of those high kerbs.

He could have reversed to angle his car better? You don’t want to reverse an F1 car unless you know for sure you have the room and the tarmac behind you. Last thing you want to do is to reverse into a gravel trap. Again Vettel has no good visibility. Reversing could also be just as dangerous and driving forwards. If an incoming car had actually taken avoiding action and gone straight to avoid Vettel what you would have instead is Vettel reversing straight in front of him.

Sure the spin was Vettel’s error once again and that is what he should be blamed for but not what happened after the spin. Every driver would have done the same thing. From outside these incidents look almost comically stupid low skill maneuvers but in reality the driver is blind on those cases. With the HANS limiting your head movement and the high side padding of the cockpit and the helmet there is not much visibility out of the car sideways. You cannot just turn your head and look. Some blame also goes onto Stroll for coming at such high speed there when he can clearly see Vettel can not see him.

In ideal world Vettel would have stayed put to wait and wait until team or marshals give him a go sign. In ideal world doing so he would not be T-boned by other car spinning out in the same corner. Doing that would be very slow and not ideal and would have cost him a lot of time. I think the Vettel’s incident is just over blown. He barely clipped Stroll’s car with his front wing. Stroll could have also done better job avoiding him. It was very tricky spot.
@Socksolid

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Sweetooth and Dimitris 1395!

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

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 RaceFans Round-upTags , , ,

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

  • 80 comments on “Vettel’s critics shouldn’t “write him off” after Monza, says Wolff”

    1. Monza should have been like Canada, much as I didn’t want to see a penalty it was the right thing to do I seem to smell the stench of appeasement in the air.

      Brundle feels so, so sorry for his best buddy, heartbroken.

      Lewis looks at Ferrari, Toto looks at Sebastian, lovely.

      1. I’m confused, who is Brundles best buddy?

        1. Brundle actually said before the race that he fancied Leclerc for the win. He said it around four minutes before the grid walk for reference.

      2. They should directly handle the next race win to Lewis. It should be easier than Canadian race fiasco.

    2. First half of season was dismal for everyone except Mercedes.
      Second half starts with a death but LEC wins so there is a glimmer of hope.
      This past weekend was looking bleak as the 2 Red Bulls would be starting at the back so 1/3 of the competitive teams would not be competing. During Q3 VET should have had his time eliminated and BOT should have as well. This would have left another 1/3 of the competitive cars somewhere on the grid but not in the top 4. F1 couldn’t have that happen as the needed all 4 cars in the top 4 starting positions. VET was deemed to have kept a sliver of rubber on a flake of white paint and BOT was deemed to have completed the lap prior to the red flag.
      As the first half showed, the Mercedes are dominant on most tracks. Monza is a Ferrari and Red Bull friendly track. Red Bull was out so Ferrari was really looking at their best chance for a 1-2 finish. All the teams manage to screw it up in Q3 so Ferrari is starting 1 and 4 with VET and apparently the team believing that LEC screwed up. I believe Ferrari was trying to freeze out Mercedes and were intentionally running on the edge for Q3. Their plan seems to have been to have VET and LEC being the only cars to get a second run. It didn’t happen. F1 and Ferrari needed a Ferrari to win the race in order to generate some buzz for the second half.
      And here we are, on to Singapore. I do believe that HAM, VET, VER, and BOT will be racing differently now that the new rules have been established. Good luck to the stewards.

      1. Ferrari was meant to obliterate Mercedes at Spa & Monza, yet they could’ve so easily lost both races. Their margin of victory at both circuits combined was less than 2 seconds!

        Now contrast that to Mercedes at the tracks that’s meant to suit their car? Both qualifying and winning margins are quite huge. Only once has Ferrari qualified below 0.5s or finished within 2 seconds at any of those tracks.

        If we ignore Austria, it’s fair to say the Mercedes has been dominant at every track. And there’s no reason to think why they won’t dominate the remainder of the season.

      2. @jimfromus Firstly, only one Red Bull started from the back of the grid, and regarding the Q3: You can’t hand a penalty if you aren’t entirely sure a penalty is warranted, which is essentially why the Stewards’ resorted to the ‘no further action’ decision in the case of Seb, and that was pretty clearly and validly explained in their decision. Furthermore, keeping parts of the car width on the white line that was obvious from a different angle indeed was enough not to warrant a penalty, and the reasoning for Bottas getting a lap time despite the appearance of the red-lights on the marshalling light-panels a couple of seconds before crossing the timing line was also validly explained. The Stewards’ simply followed the formal procedures in both cases.

      3. Monza a red bull track? Albon couldn’t overtake a renault, verstappen couldn’t overtake a force india, let’s say it: the engine is still not great, it’s still 3rd or maybe even 4th now that renault’s improved, so a track with 80% throttle uptime does NOT suit red bull, they wouldn’t have done much even starting 5th.

      4. My comment didn’t get posted before due to some gateay error, but Monza a red bull track? Albon couldn’t overtake a renault, verstappen couldn’t overtake a force india, let’s say it: the engine is still not great, it’s still 3rd or maybe even 4th now that renault’s improved, so a track with 80% throttle uptime does NOT suit red bull, they wouldn’t have done much even starting 5th.

    3. Leclerc is proving the car is fast enough to win races and did so 4 times already.
      Vettel, only one, and given how Leclerc is leading the way since Canada, the least one could do is expect him to keep the trend.

      Vettel is at odds with the car and never performed well under pressure. So he is in a bad place at the moment. At least this season, he is probably done already as the remaining tracks should not suit Ferrari as well as the last two, in which he didn’t even got a podium anyway.

    4. One error, bad judgment. Two errors, bad luck. Three, bad season. Four, five, six?

      Ferrari’s rear end behavior seems to dislike Vettel so much. Germany last year was the last time I saw him loosing the front, and that was most due to a damp track.

      Verstappen has RBR tuned to his like. I believe. Mercedes is tuned to Hamilton’s like. Looks like Ferrari is tuned to whoever can drive it like it is. And that is just not the case with Vettel since last year.

      For him to come back strong, he needs a car tuned to his taste.

      By the way, Leclerc’s attacking the parabolica in Monza, lap after lap, was something for the delight of the purists, myself included.

      1. Verstappen has RBR tuned to his like. I believe. Mercedes is tuned to Hamilton’s like. Looks like Ferrari is tuned to whoever can drive it like it is.

        In ̶S̶o̶v̶i̶e̶t̶ ̶R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶ Maranello, drivers are tuned to the car.

      2. Totally agree. I genuinely believe much of Vettel’s driving errors are due to him not being comfortable with the car.

        1. Car and also pressure. That Ferrari bites Vettel whenever he overdrives it. Something about his style that is fundamentally not sound.

          Meanwhile LeClerc can cope just fine. Maybe Vettel would do much better in Mercedes, but not so much RedBull?

    5. RE COTD:
      Not to rub Vettel’s wounds, but we have seen how he handles such situations in the past and it is consistent. He panics and makes rash decisions. The immediate thought in his mind is he had messed up and how to reduce the time he’d have lost. He saw the line the Renault took and thought he could quickly go across the track.
      Strange as it may seem, that was one of the safest parts of the track to have a spin. You lose the car because of throttle action and not being on the limit. The drivers have very good visibility going into that chicane and plenty of options to avoid a stranded car.

      1. The visibility going into variante ascari is not perfect. Before the corner you come over a crest and then you turn in. I was not able to find helmet cam video of a lap but if you watch any onboard formula videos of that corner entry the camera position on any car is a lot higher than what the drivers see. The onboard cam allows you to see a lot further. So you’d see a car in vettel’s position very late only after you have done your braking and have turned into the corner. Variante ascari is also relatively quick corner. It is as quick as the lesmos if not little quicker. It is not blind corner per se like parabolica..

        I don’t agree that vettel lost the car on throttle. He just carried too much speed and clipped the kerb too much which unsettled the rear. It is a clear driver error. Too greedy with kerbs and too much entry speed.

        1. If you look at the low camera view from Vettel’s car, you will find the view is good into the corner

          1. That camera view is a lot higher than vettel’s eyes.

            1. @socksolid
              Vettel’s car had a camera on the front wing, so unless he managed to contort himself in the cockpit, the camera was lower than his eyes

            2. @kartguy07
              Thanks for the link. I had not seen those videos.

      2. There were yellow flags waving which should indicate that there is something abrnormal at the next few corners. I think Stroll went to a corner just a little bit too fast to really have a change at avoiding the contact. As for Vettel he had the yellow flags “protecting” him from a heavier crash but you don’t want to just sit there like a duck. He made a bold move and luckily nothing more serious happend.

        1. Vettel was off the track when stopped. Stroll saw him off the track. Only an idiot would move at that point. Which is what he did…. He wasn’t a sitting duck on the grass.

          This was probably the worst comment of the day this site as ever had. All excuses and then ‘stroll could of done better’ Stroll who didn’t incredible to actually change direction like he did.

          End of the day if it wasn’t safe to move then you don’t move. If the only safe option is reverse but risk bogging down, then you risk bogging down. If the car overheats, it overheats. Anything was better than what he did.

        2. @Qeki Except that he reduced his speed significantly for the double-yellows that were in effect there, and did everything he could to avoid Seb by keeping as left as possible at that part of the circuit.

          1. Are people actually trying to defend Vettel’s return to the track now?

            He was the one who went of track, the responsibility is on HIM to return to the track safely, not on everyone else to leave him room to do so. Stroll had slowed down as was required by the double yellows and did everything he could to avoid the collision. What was he supposed to do, slam on the brakes and hope those behind didn’t rear end him?

            That early in the race, Vettel had to have known that everyone was still pretty bunched up and that just because two cars had passed didn’t mean that there was now a big gap for him to join safely. The fact he might not have seen Stroll is no excuse, in those situations you err on the side of caution and use the radio or wait for the Williams to pass. Yes, he’d have lost positions and time to those ahead, but he still ended up doing so anyway due to having to pit for a new wing.

            Stroll was responsible for only the incident he caused, which was a result of Vettel’s move. Although, I do have sympathy for Stroll here as he didn’t actually go off track as it were, and was parked half across the racing line. Had he stayed and someone bodged their line through the previous corner, there could have been an horrendus accident……as opposed to the potential one in Gasly’s pants 0_o
            He could have -like Vettel- just picked a better moment.

            1. I am not defending vettel. I am simply stating the facts. Vettel’s positioning was a lot more trickier than it looks when you have perfect view from tv cameras. It seems you did not even bother to read what I said but just read the first sentence and then wrote your repply. All the points you made were addressed in the post I made earlier.

              Stroll had slowed down as was required by the double yellows and did everything he could to avoid the collision. What was he supposed to do, slam on the brakes and hope those behind didn’t rear end him?

              Double waved yellows mean exactly that. Be ready to stop because the track is blocked. If you can’t stop then you are going too fast.

            2. @nikkit What was Stroll meant to do, slam on his brakes? Under double waved yellows, yes, he is meant to have slowed to a position and be able to stop should the need arise.

              The incident that occured resulting while mostly Vettel to blame, was in part Stroll going too quickly…

          2. @jerejj Well after watching the replay again Stroll could barely do anything to avoid Vettel. But I still think if you’re coming to a yellow flag area it’s your responsibility to slow enough not to crash but on the other hand you still don’t want to lose too much time slowing down so it’s double-edged sword.

            1. Stroll had a clear race track as he approached. Vettel was off track. Vettel jerked forward, paused and then continued on into stroll despite stroll being way off the racing line.

            2. Stroll reduced his speed fairly considerably, and went to the other side of the track off the racing line to avoid Vettel. Vettel actually managed to cross the track to hit him.

              Stroll was responsible for his incident with Gasly, but to try apportion any blame to him for what Vettel did is absolutely ridiculous.

    6. Re CotD: the undying hit “VET cracked under pressure” will end up clouding a quite important occurrence: those high sides showed a really dangerous facet. IIRC, they were introduced to prevent the nose of a car hitting the helmet. However, in a high speed T-bone crash the driver most definitely will die, as we’ve seen recently. Not only that, but the car nose is lowered for years now. So, what are they waiting to re-adequate the safeness around the new design? Why are they satisfied with the halo, when it is clearly a palliative? Are they really studying how to implement a canopy?

      The constant push for safety means not only introductions and evolutions, but also revaluations. It’s easy to enforce cheap things, play woken, let everything be still while boasting around, only to come back with “thoughts and prayers” when avoidable misfortunes happen.

      1. I have to admit I was surprised that the cockpit padding was left completely untouched when the halo was added. I thought the addition was a perfect moment to reduce some of the side padding around the helmet to gain back some of the lost visibility without any safety loss as the halo now protects the helmet from frontal side impacts.

        1. The side padding does not reduce viability, the helmet and Hans device do. The drivers have as much peripheral vision now as they would without the side padding.

          @socksolid

          1. @niefer @socksolid – I thought the same as @megatron. The padding is there to keep you from bouncing off carbon in a collision.

            1. @hobo @megatron
              Yes, both impairs the peripherals. The thing is, drivers can still move the head to a certain degree. If I’m not mistaken, even the body could rotate a very little under the seatbelt. So, in the context of the incident, when every little movement matters for a safe rejoin, the paddings takes those things away.

          2. @megatron
            Actually looking at images of 2019 cars I was wrong. For some reason I remembered that the side padding protruded more forward than it actually does. You are right that the padding is so much out of the way that the hans doesn’t even allow you to turn your head that far.

      2. Keep in mind the nose is a crushable structure, and part of the crash tests is that it crushes on impact, absorbing huge amounts of kinetic energy, rather than spearing through. So in theory, the survival cell should be able to take a head on impact.

        Unless it’s already been damaged in a prior collision.

        1. So in theory, the survival cell should be able to take a head on impact.

          Unless you crash it with another structure with the very same characteristics.

          Also, it was known they cannot test impacts at 300 kph (and I believe it hasn’t changed). So, the calculations may predict some things, but the testing itself isn’t conclusive for high speed t-bone crashes.

      3. @niefer Yet we can see Vettel watching both the Renault’s come through the chicane. You can see his helmet move towards their positions.

        1. @f1osaurus yes, he was watching by the mirrors. What’s your point,given the matter here isn’t the deserved penalty he got?

          1. @niefer What on earth is “by the mirrors” supposed to mean? He was looking directly at the Renault’s passing by. And also at Stroll and still pulled out.

            So yes he deserved that penalty. If not worse.

            1. What a waste of time, @f1osaurus: we do concur that he saw them and decided to join anyway. That’s not what I’m discussing on my first post. What are you here for?
              Do you care to contribute sharing a view regarding the side paddings and the safety run or is Vettel the only subject you react to?

    7. He’s not being written off just because of Monza, but for all the times he has screwed. Andrew Benson noted that he has made 9 crucial errors in 29 races, that’s unacceptable for a 4x champion

      1. Only 9?
        1) crashed into Bottas in France (perhaps this isn’t in the last 29 races, but still)
        2) Grid penalty for playing with his steering wheel instead of watching mirrors in Q3 of Austria (would have won the race otherwise)
        3) Crashed out from P1 in Germany
        4) Spun off at Monza 2018 instead of taking the win
        5) Spun off multiple times in Q3 Japan
        6) Crashed into Verstappen during the race in Japan
        7) Dumb red flag related penalty during FP1(!) in USA (cost him a likely race win as Raikkonen did win starting from P2)
        8) Crashed into Ricciardo during the race in USA
        9) Spun off in Bahrain (dropping from P2 to P5)
        10) Went off in Canada losing the win.
        11) Crashed into Verstappen at Silverstone
        12) Spun off at Monza
        13) Crashed into Stroll at Monza

    8. I thoroughly agree with Jolyon Palmer, 100%. An excellent analysis of things overall, and yes, the decision to only hand out the black-and-white flag warning could indeed have unintended consequences in the long-term as the precedent from now on is that the drivers are allowed to force a rival off the track that way once in a race, so things could get a bit ugly.

      Regarding the COTD: I don’t really agree with it, especially the end of the penultimate paragraph; Stroll can only get the blame for the latter incident with Gasly, but definitely none for the incident with Seb. That was entirely on Seb, which is how the Stewards’ always viewed it. Stroll did everything he could to avoid him, and there was no other option for him than to keep as left as possible there, and he definitely didn’t drive too fast for the double-yellows that were in effect at that part of the circuit.

      1. @jerejj Palmer’s additional observation needs underlining: although the ‘new tolerance’ is supposed to improve racing, and is seen by lots of fans as such, allowing Leclerc’s shoving of Hamilton off track with an inconsequential warning could well make drivers more reluctant to even begin an overtake at corners. Same goes for Albon being pushed off by Sainz. Those attempting to overtake only have one recourse: allow contact to happen, so that the defending drivers begin to factor in the cost of contact on their own race and allow room by themselves. So basically the new approach either causes less racing or more accidents.

      2. Here’s an idea– keep the black/white flag, but hand out a penalty point with it.

    9. Doing that (wait for a gap) would be very slow and not ideal and would have cost him a lot of time.

      I’m not sure how this is a defence of what Vettel did. It rather supports a penalty as the decision he took (not to wait until the track was clear) was only to gain some time.

      1. Indeed.

        “Ain’t got no time to wait for that red to turn green.” I’m going to try this at the next traffic light I encounter. Will keep you all posted how it goes.

    10. The sky f1 crew (for the most part) is out for Seb, the same way they were out for Kvyat and anyone else they decide they don’t like, they’re trying hard to ‘torpedo’ Seb’s career. The questions they ask, and topics they “speculate” about make me sick, like asking Seb if he’s lost his love for the sport, endless “speculation” about him at Ferrari, or whatever else they can find, seems like they have to get their diploma from the national enquirer/big brother university or something. How I miss the old days when the crew covering the event would stick to the facts of the race and championship, and not turn F1 into a bad reality show.

    11. Worst ever COTD on this site. His moves were unacceptable and he was OFF the track so he could of just stayed where he was if it wasn’t safe to move. Excuses like his engine getting hot are laughable

      1. Agreed. I feel for Seb at the moment, but trying to defend his actions during the Monza race is ridiculous.

        Trying to put some of the blame on Stroll even more so.

      2. Worst ever COTD on this site.

        Lol, no. Not even top 50 material. This one tries to argue on a factual basis and is only flawed by its lack of logical rigour.
        I’ve seen CotDs that tried to argue on the basis of hallucinations. Hallucinations that were proven to be just that in the corresponding comment thread, which led to the commenter resorting to even more outlandish alternative facts to argue that the facts had been manipulated in order to contradict his hallucinations. And then that rubbish was CotD’d.
        A CotD that comes to a silly conclusion you don’t like? Not even close.

        1. Nase, You are exactly describing this COTD.

    12. Toto is the worst liar I know.

      1. Never heard of The Donald?

        1. Donald? I don’t know even if is it a human or not?

    13. In response to COTD.

      I don’t buy it. As others have said, that’s actually one of the slower/safer areas of the track, and as soon as he went off, marshals would have been waving yellows to slow any incoming cars down. Unlike Stroll, who genuinely was left halfway on the track, Seb was well clear of the tarmac and should have called in on the radio to check if there was enough of a gap to rejoin. Or reversed straight back – there was PLENTY of room to back it up on the grass a cars length and rejoin in-line with the traffic.

      This was Vettel as his worst, only thinking about his position and not the other cars around him.

    14. Maximum respect to both Toto and Lewis who constantly defend Sebastian even though his fans incessantly spew hatred towards both and boo them when they do well.

      1. It’s almost like it’s in their own interest to have Vettel at Ferrari, blundering the points away, rather than say Verstappen or Ricciardo.

    15. COTD

      Sure the spin was Vettel’s error once again and that is what he should be blamed for but not what happened after the spin

      No he should be blamed for both. Not having visibility is not an excuse, as much as Vettel apologists would like to make it. He should have asked his race engineer for a gap to go in if he couldnt see himself.

      Lets face it Vettel was wheeling spinning forwards towards the track before his car had even finished going backwards. He made little to no effort to rejoin safely and for the … I don’t know … countless time in the last 3 years he let his emotion get the better of him instead of being rational.

    16. @RB13

      How about Leclerc defending Seb saying the car doesn’t suit the German? Funny how you wont listen to that defence.
      Just the fist banging Toto and two face Hamilton, who often asks for tough challengers and is graceful, yet he’s beaten by a guy in a slower car and his comments now seem bitt er if not hyp@critical

      Last season was all about mo cking Vettel for not winning the championship by claiming he was in the ‘best team’ (garbage)
      This year mocking Seb for ‘cracking under pressure’ . Yet his car isn’t a championship contender.

      1. @bigjoe The whole team is set up to serve Vettel. So if the car doesn’t suit Vettel, it’s Vettel who is to blame.

        Hamilton is fine with competition. He’s just not fine with people punching below the belt.

        Last season Ferrari WAS the faster package overall. By a big margin. If Vettel hadn’t blundered 9 times, he would have won WDC with over 50 points margin.

        Who cares that the car isn’t a championship contender this year. That is no excuse for Vettel spinning off at random.

    17. Re “comment of the day”: Enjoyed your argument in the defense, but the argument that Vettel didn’t reverse because you never want to reverse an F1 car unless you have to – true, but in this case I argue he had to. Backing your car into a gravel trap should always be preferable to driving blindly into F1 cars at speed.

    18. I see you’ve broken out the usual Vettel damage control Keith.

      The guy was always a fraud – and deep down I think you know it.

      1. I don’t think a fraud could win 4 WDC’s. He obviously is very talented but only if the car suits him.
        Kimi is the same – Alonso slaughtered him when they were paired not because he’s a bad driver, but he can’t adjust to a chassis that isn’t set up to his liking.

        1. He struggled to win two of those championships, despite being in a dominant rocket ship.
          He got slaughtered the moment he got a decent teammate.
          He ran to a new team and compliant teammate.
          He lost a championship in the overall fastest package last year.
          Now he’s getting hammered by another young upstart.

          He always had his critics – they were proven right.

    19. Toto’s often defending of vettel can only mean he’s lined up at some point in the near future to drive for Mercedes in the hope a German driver wins the championship in a German car. Assuming when lewis’ contract is up and he does a final year or two in the red car.

      1. OR…he’s trying to keep a weak driver in Ferrari in order to keep them losing points. Nobody wants vettel, he has been exposed for the fraud he is.

        1. Indeed, toto also said he’d want vettel at some point, but he’s imo a total liar, bottas is currently better than vettel. He’s doing exactly that, with vettel ferrari should lose the constructor no matter what car they make.

    20. for once we could see that when HAM and BOT were on the limit trying to overtake LEC they (guess what?) made a mistake (aka “cracked under pressure” in this site). that’s what happens when you don’t have the best car of the weekend. you push like hell and errors are more usual

      1. @naylamp it’s much more difficult to stay on the limit in the wake of another car AND on worn tyres. Hamilton manages that a lot better than Vettel does driving in front.

        1. I never said VET is not making mistakes right and left. But pushing to the limit exposes you to more unforced errors.

          1. @naylamp Wow, that deescalated quickly. You went from a bold attempt at an excuse for Vettel’s long list failures to a wet noodle of a non statement.

            The point is, this does not explain how Vettel messed up while driving the fastest car in races like Germany, Baku, France (on a softer compound at the start) and Monza last season. Or how he ruined things for himself in Austria and USA by landing himself dumb penalties.

            Only a small portion of Vettel’s blunders is actually related to being “in the slower car”.

            Also, you don’t see all the other drivers simply spinning off at random. They all drive slower cars than Vettel. Amazingly, they somehow do manage to keep their cars on the road for most of the time. More than Vettel at least.

    21. It’s funny how Wolff keeps defending Vettel. It’s almost like it’s beneficial to him to have Vettel driving there.

      1. Yes poor driver in only reasonable competition is very good for Toto

        1. Indeed, it’s blatantly ovious.

    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'.