Agreed, if you're told you can't claw back a deficit over the next 15 races then you're being told you're a no.2!!
And it was the best thing to do, they had a 6 second gap at one point, but by the time Bottas came in Kimi's pace had gone (never to return) and Bottas had gotten within DRS range. At the end of the day it was because Kimi was fast enough during the pit phase both in and out, and lost a lot of time during it, despite having the faster stop. And you don't start asking about pit-stops unless you want one.
the real problem is the commercial guarantees the manufacturers get for doing a **** job. 'Back-in-the-day' if your engine was ****, and you had the money, you'd go and get a different one.
That is an interesting and valid point. I wonder if any PU supplier has considered bonus payments for points at the end of the season. i.e. Flat PU fee of say $10million + $100,000 per point? Saying that probably not enough of an incentive to get PU manufacturers to give customers equal mapping/data etc.
Either way a Ferrari was going to win . To introduce team orders this early is a season Stinks IMHO .
But you're making the assumption that's what they did, Kimi had the choice of stop, Kimi had the fastest stop, but Kimi was slow on the track, because that's Kimi. I never really rated him as a top driver, more like Massa, every now and again there's a flash of the talent, but a lot of the time it's consistent mediocrity. ESMC is moaning about ferrari's team orders, whilst a week or so ago he was demanding his retirement.
While there are 7 points between 1st and 2nd I dont really blame Ferrari if they did engineer the switch. Lets face it the drivers championship is currently between 2 drivers. If either team deprives their potential World Driver Championship winner of any point could loose them the championship in the end. Remember Massa loosing by a single point? It has happened many times. So most teams have no1 driver and if not they will do if necessary to win a championship! Sad but true.
That is how it is, but I don't think they did it, though I do think they would've made the switch later had it not happened when it did. Someone had to pit at Ferrari to cover Bottas, and it had to be the one who had the best chance of coming out in front of Bottas, which was Kimi.
To be honest I am not sure they pitted Kimi when they did to create a switch. It's not like Ferrari are scared of publicly from using team orders. My guess is they pitted Kimi as he enquired about pitting and with all the data they had they decided that they had to pit one of their drivers or the other. As Kimi enquired it can be him. They might have also hedged their bets that Seb could go faster in clean air so gives them more chances of winning with either driver.
Try telling that to Sir Frank & Sir Patrick , who ALWAYS put the constructors championship ahead of the WDC . You make a perfectly valid point , but for me , the team is more important than the driver . Though I imagine I am in minority of about .001%
Due to the inconsistency of his performances. Atleast when he puts himself in a position to win don't take it away from him. In what will be his last season.
I agree. The constructors championship is what stays with the team. Drivers come and go. Plus, especially for a private team, constructors championship mean prize money, sponsorship money, and help entice best driver at cheaper cost.
Red-bull did something similar at Suzuka 12 or 13 to jump Grosjean IIRC (again, unpopular as Seb went from 3rd to 1st and Webber from 2nd to 3rd, but I enjoyed it ) he took it from himself being slow for the 2nd 2/3rds of the race.
When the numbers are done I'm sure that they will find if they hadn't of pitted Kimi when they did he would have been off the podium.
It is indeed, yet for some reason people think Kimi was faster than he was, it's not like he got Barricello'd.
James Allen has already changed his mind and the British press are shocking considering the blatant Piss taking Merc have done in this new formula. If we just look at the math, if Kimi stayed out for the same laps as Seb he would have lost between 3-5 seconds and both of the Ferraris would have been behind Bottas. The alternative would have been to pit Seb first who would have effectively held the track position of Kimi - like for like. But Kimi would have lost between 0.5 & 1 sec for every lap he stayed out at his pace, either way Kimi would lose position. Ferrari couldn't have predicted the pace difference for the two drivers and the fortunate traffic for Seb as a result - the didn't know Sauber would pit at exactly the right time and that was the difference - half a second. Both Merc and RB thought the undercut would work, so it wasn't a forgone conclusion the the overcut would work. Like I said Merc have been doing this for 4 years, turning engines down in a 1-2, like for like strategy meaning pole and whoever leads in the first corner wins.
I don't agree with what they did but I'm also a realist, they did what they had to do to get the result they wanted. The only problem is if Kimi now sulks, but then Ferrari have never been overly interested int he WCC.
Not sure what all the fuss is about to be honest. Manufactured or not, Ferrari are right to put all thier eggs in Vettel's basket over Kimi.