Lewis Hamilton has dominated the Singapore Grand Prix after both Ferraris were eliminated at the start of the race. Daniel Ricciardo ran virtually the entire race in second place and rightfully finished there, ahead of Valtteri Bottas. Carlos Sainz finished a brilliant fourth for Toro Rosso.
Vettel's move was textbook pole position defending. Drivers have been doing it since forever. Hell, Hamilton did it on Stroll in Monza just a few weeks ago.
There's no blame here. Neither Vettel nor Raikkonen could see each other because Verstappen was there. Vettel went for a standard defending move, which made Verstappen twitch to the left just as Vettel cleared him and Raikkonen was rocketing past him. Verstappen's left front wheel went between Raikkonen's wheels. As Raikkonen was much faster, his right rear wheel latched on Verstappen's left front slinging him into Vettel. Clear example of a racing incident.
Last edited by Squid on 17 Sep 2017, 22:45, edited 1 time in total.
F1F reporting the same. The team expected him to retire, but he nurtured the car home.
The sign out a quality driver, mechanical sympathy. Reminds me of the driver interview from Monza!
Lol that was pervey
Education is that which allows a nation free, independent, reputable life, and function as a high society; or it condemns it to captivity and poverty.
-Atatürk
F1F reporting the same. The team expected him to retire, but he nurtured the car home.
The sign out a quality driver, mechanical sympathy. Reminds me of the driver interview from Monza!
How far up Ricciardo's but can you go?
You do realise it is a bit smelly there, especially after the press conference ...
I am also a fan of him, but to say stuff like that is a bit to weird.
De first lap incident was just a racing incident, to blame Verstappen for it is bit far fetched imo.
F1F reporting the same. The team expected him to retire, but he nurtured the car home.
The sign out a quality driver, mechanical sympathy. Reminds me of the driver interview from Monza!
How far up Ricciardo's but can you go?
You do realise it is a bit smelly there, especially after the press conference ...
I am also a fan of him, but to say stuff like that is a bit to weird.
De first lap incident was just a racing incident, to blame Verstappen for it is bit far fetched imo.
Mate, he had to manage the issue and he did it so well he exceeded team expectations.
“Even before the first Safety Car we could see we were losing a lot of oil pressure in the gearbox,” Horner explained. “We thought it was only going to go to half-distance.”
“So Daniel had an instruction to start managing that. And then of course he had to sacrifice lap time doing that. But he did that incredibly well and managed to nurse the car home almost another hour and a half.”
Once again, Max had a DNF and Ricciardo on Podium!!!
This is what happens when you keep your nose clean and don't cause accidents.
talk about being delusional.
"Explain the ending to F1 in football terms"
"Hamilton was beating Verstappen 7-0, then the ref decided F%$& rules, next goal wins
while also sending off 4 Hamilton players to make it more interesting"
It is true that Ricciardo keeps calmer and has the benefit of then steering away from trouble.
On the other side, Singapore was a textbook example of - like Alonso, really - being at the wrong place at the wrong time. He could have done NOTHING to avoid this DNF.
Additionally, the view on Max' DNF's is obscured by mixing technical DNFs [ the engine letting him down ] with bold moves.
For example his move on Danny where he made contact and ended his own race was Max' his own stupidity.
But plenty of other situations he really couldn't have done anything else.
As for Danny bringing home a oil pressure-stricken RedBull, well, he was lucky there where Max got a lot unlucky. Sure he did his best not to stress out the car.
I do think his comment on the interview before has some merit, even if it's brought as a laugh. Max -like his father- tends to be agressive in his driving, where danny is much smoother.
But an oil problem is an oil problem. Hulkenberg had to retire, Palmer didn't. Just another example. Palmer also got seriously unlucky this season [not taking away that i think he's still cr*p].
but there was no way Max could have kept 'his nose clean' and he surely didn't 'cause' any accident.
You could rather argue Kimi got into the heat and caused the accident, sure as hell more than Verstappen.
"Explain the ending to F1 in football terms"
"Hamilton was beating Verstappen 7-0, then the ref decided F%$& rules, next goal wins
while also sending off 4 Hamilton players to make it more interesting"
Vettel's move was textbook pole position defending. Drivers have been doing it since forever. Hell, Hamilton did it on Stroll in Monza just a few weeks ago.
There's no blame here. Neither Vettel nor Raikkonen could see each other because Verstappen was there. Vettel went for a standard defending move, which made Verstappen twitch to the left just as Vettel cleared him and Raikkonen was rocketing past him. Verstappen's left front wheel went between Raikkonen's wheels. As Raikkonen was much faster, his right rear wheel latched on Verstappen's left front slinging him into Vettel. Clear example of a racing incident.
100% disagree. It is not written in any textbook you defend your line by causing collusion. If FIA had a backbone of a paramecium, Vettel would be penalized for the next race causing retirement of 3 other drivers. He has only one excuse and that is not seeing Raikkonen which I find extremely unlikely since he was looking at that direction through the mirror. Luckily this was an example of instead karma