The gamble was surely to stick it out on old slicks and hope Max pits twice or go early for Inters and undercut. Not sure how going first for new slicks get's him ahead regardless of what the weather does. If anything I'd say it was very conservative option to sure up second
It didn't make a whole load of sense to me, but given it unlikely changed anything in the outcome. I guess it was worth a shot. Max managed that race quite incredibly.
I’m not sure there’s a circuit on the calendar that can stop Red Bull winning now- I think the clean sweep is firmly on. Barca next week I’d have had down for Aston but they’ve taken out the old chicane where I think they’d have been mighty! Instead a sweeping right hander into the straight probably plays into Red Bulls speed advantage and DRS might. Next weeks fun is all about just watching Mercedes play around and gather data on their new parts I reckon!
I think we're stuck with more than just this season. The entire package of Red Bull and Max isn't likely to be challenged for a couple more seasons.
I think they simply gambled that inters would turn out to be the wrong choice and everyone else would have to stop again. They'd be a pit stop ahead on fresh rubber. It was worth a punt when nobody quite knew what the weather would do. And if it went wrong they could change for inters and keep second, no harm done.
I think there are only 2 drivers capable of taking Max on, Lewis and Fernando, but neither have the car to so.
Doesn't that plan work better by staying out for an extra lap or two? Going first onto dries makes it easy for Max. If it doesn't rain more that lap, box for slicks to cover Alonso. If it does rain more go for inters. No way to lose. I thinks he's a class of one as a package at the moment. Lewis and Fernando have the experience but I do think age has cost them a tenth of raw pace. Leclerc has the speed but not the consistency That said, they're all good enough to give us a more more entertaining fight if the teams could pull their finger out.
Apparently everything is not alright there: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bbc-f1-commentator-jack-nicholls-sacked-formula-e-2023-3bf5rxrw5 (Or mirror: https://archive.is/oabjq) I think the article is poorly written, so the severity of his actions are a little difficult to judge (although in no scenario excusable), but very disappointing to see. His statement is also pretty poor. Does anyone else find those two sentences contradictory, or am I missing something? His behaviour could have been consensual and with his partner, but been observed by others and the relationship not allowed by Formula E regardless. Or, he's a serial offender acting inappropriately towards multiple people. Either way, distinctly not ok.
As long as the relationships are legal and consensual, surely that is all that matters. If others are complaining because they suspect the 'consensual' was questionable then that is for the parties to determine, not outsiders. It is a complex world.