2018 Scuderia Ferrari F1 Team

[Sevach]

If Raikkonen did that into turn 1, he'd have been out of position and passed by Hamilton into Turn 3.

You are reading way too much into Raikkonen's frame of mind, based on worse than 2nd hand information. That's not very technical or informative, and because your arguments are based on absolute fresh air - i.e. nothing - they are easy to rebut.

My last remark in this regard: what is simpler, safer, and less prone to error? Orchestrating a pass off the start line between parties that are, apparently, and according to you, potentially non-cooperative? Or doing so during a (pick one): pit stop; late phase of a stint; first phase of a stint; 5 laps after the start; after a safety car; after team principles have had a chat with non-compliant drivers?

The answer is, to me anyway, do it when you have maximum control of the outcomes. Starts are chaotic, you have little to no control over a great many things as too much is happening all at once, and you can't foresee every potential outcome of the choices you make - as Vettel learned to his detriment this weekend.

I'm reading from his actions, not on peoples speculation, he defended against Vettel that's a fact, i don't think he should've done that.

As for the second part, yes.
And that's why i said Vettel, management AND Raikkonen are idiots.

[LM10]

If Raikkonen did that into turn 1, he'd have been out of position and passed by Hamilton into Turn 3.

You are reading way too much into Raikkonen's frame of mind, based on worse than 2nd hand information. That's not very technical or informative, and because your arguments are based on absolute fresh air - i.e. nothing - they are easy to rebut.

My last remark in this regard: what is simpler, safer, and less prone to error? Orchestrating a pass off the start line between parties that are, apparently, and according to you, potentially non-cooperative? Or doing so during a (pick one): pit stop; late phase of a stint; first phase of a stint; 5 laps after the start; after a safety car; after team principles have had a chat with non-compliant drivers?

The answer is, to me anyway, do it when you have maximum control of the outcomes. Starts are chaotic, you have little to no control over a great many things as too much is happening all at once, and you can't foresee every potential outcome of the choices you make - as Vettel learned to his detriment this weekend.

I'm reading from his actions, not on peoples speculation, he defended against Vettel that's a fact, i don't think he should've done that.

As for the second part, yes.
And that's why i said Vettel, management AND Raikkonen are idiots.

It's pretty interesting, though. Both seem to be quite good friends off track. Still, Kimi doesn't like to help Vettel in same way as Bottas does with Hamilton. What I mean is that Bottas immediately and without talking back or getting upset does everything to help his teammate. Kimi, on the other side, gives me the impression of doing it unwillingly.

[Sevach]

It's pretty interesting, though. Both seem to be quite good friends off track. Still, Kimi doesn't like to help Vettel in same way as Bottas does with Hamilton. What I mean is that Bottas immediately and without talking back or getting upset does everything to help his teammate. Kimi, on the other side, gives me the impression of doing it unwillingly.

It is a curious situation, sure Raikkonen wasn't "super enthused" back in Hockenheim.

And it seems the same thing this weekend.

[LM10]

It's pretty interesting, though. Both seem to be quite good friends off track. Still, Kimi doesn't like to help Vettel in same way as Bottas does with Hamilton. What I mean is that Bottas immediately and without talking back or getting upset does everything to help his teammate. Kimi, on the other side, gives me the impression of doing it unwillingly.

It is a curious situation, sure Raikkonen wasn't "super enthused" back in Hockenheim.

And it seems the same thing this weekend.

Indeed, and I don’t understand it. Like I told, as teammates they get along perfectly well. One might think of a relationship like Rosberg and Hamilton had, but that’s not even close to being the case.

[Phil]

It's pretty interesting, though. Both seem to be quite good friends off track. Still, Kimi doesn't like to help Vettel in same way as Bottas does with Hamilton.

Neither like helping. They do it, because sometimes it is demanded by the team.

The only thing about Kimi’s behavior that makes sense, is that he may know his contract will not be renewed and if the rumours are true that getting pole frees him from being subject to direct team-orders, he will and had every right to defend his own drive as he sees fit.

So why still talk of any moral obgligation? There was none. Still doesnt change the fact that if the Ferraris had continued in their starting positions beyond lap 1, that Vettel in all likelihood would have found a way past - either by his own doing or by Ferraris strategy...

[AnotherAlex]

As for the second part, yes.
And that's why i said Vettel, management AND Raikkonen are idiots.

Some surprisingly sensible opinions in the Ferrari Team thread

For me the team management was primarily to blame - I don't know what contractual constraints they may have been working under but they should have made it clear to both drivers that the aim was for Vettel to win the race and that Raikkonen should let him through at the earliest opportunity (ideally into the first chicane).

Kimi shouldn't have defended against Vettel into the first and second chicanes. Difficult to say what the contract situation would have to be for him to choose that option, given his years of association with the team; perhaps he feels he needs wins to secure an extension. Either way, all that did was allow Hamilton to attack Vettel and as Phil stated earlier, Vettel had more to lose in the event of a collision.

With hindsight, Vettel could have been more cautious and probably would have had an opportunity to attack Hamilton on subsequent laps, but I'm of the opinion that when Hamilton chucked it round the outside and turned in to the corner it was already too late for Vettel to back out. (Earlier in the season Vettel was criticised for risking an overtake round the outside as he came off worse when the other driver understeered into him, here Hamilton did pretty much the same thing and greatly benefitted. Ironically, had Vettel been slower into the chicane his front tyre or front wing would have impacted Hamilton's rear and the result likely to have been very different (and the accusations would have been flying ).)

[PhillipM]

There's a big difference between trying to go around the outside with barely a nose alongside, and one where the other guy is already clear in front of you around the corner - you've lost the corner, you have no right or ability to take a wide exit without a collision, Vettel was bloody silly.

[Fulcrum]

I've presented a reasonable case for why attempting an orchestrated move on the first lap was a high risk, low reward strategy. We know an opportunistic, non-cooperative move was even more risky. Simply put, there were more opportune moments to affect this change later in the race, when risk factors had been reduced.

Think of the possible permutations after lap 1 that don't involve Vettel leading.

Raikkonen, Vettel, Hamilton - 1st and 2nd could swap on any lap into the Roggia chicane or at the end of the Start/Finish straight.
Raikkonen, Hamilton, Vettel - pit either Raikkonen first, and use him as a barrier for Hamilton when Hamilton pits, or pit Vettel first. Either way, Hamilton would be stuck, allowing Vettel to lead after the stops.
Hamilton, Raikkonen, Vettel - swap whenever you like, wherever you like.

The Lap 1 option is simply poor racing tactics considering the nature of this circuit, with the two long drags into Rettifilo and Roggia, and the fact cars would be most bunched up at this point.

[tpeman]

I agree that Vettel was to blame for the incident with Hamilton, but as others mentioned above, Raikkonen defended way too hard against his teammate, not once but twice. I don't know if it was for the tires, but it seemed that he defended harder in turn 1 against Vettel, while the Hamilton pass looked almost easy. In my opinion both Vettel and Ferrari are making mistakes that could cost them the title in a year that they have the fastest car. They made a mistake in Austria by making their first driver cruise behind their second with the hope that Kimi would try an attack on Verstappen, when the fastest of all three was Vettel. What I don't undestand is the sudden change of tactics. They used Raikkonen as a roadblock for Bottas in China (in the very beginning of the season!), but that is not OK now, when they are runner-ups in both the WDC and WCC?

[AnotherAlex]

There's a big difference between trying to go around the outside with barely a nose alongside, and one where the other guy is already clear in front of you around the corner ...

That was patently not the case:






As can be seen from these screen shots, Hamilton was travelling faster than Vettel because Raikkonen covered Vettel into the chicane, and the furthest ahead Hamilton managed was at the point of impact.

[phillippe]

What I don't undestand is the sudden change of tactics. They used Raikkonen as a roadblock for Bottas in China (in the very beginning of the season!), but that is not OK now, when they are runner-ups in both the WDC and WCC?

I am theorising it is because Ferrari are now sympathetic to Raikkonen because it is his last season in F1 despite his performance having been the best in recent memory. Ferrari must have thought if Raikkonen could win it on merit at Monza, letting him do so would have been a nice gesture to someone who have had his races compromised beyond belief for the larger team game during a season when he has made a turnaround in performance. Kimi the roadblock could well be back in the next race, especially given Mercedes' strategy with Bottas in Monza.

[Phil]

As can be seen from these screen shots, Hamilton was travelling faster than Vettel because Raikkonen covered Vettel into the chicane, and the furthest ahead Hamilton managed was at the point of impact.

huh, no. kimi was on the normal racing line. He wasnt covering anyone, because there was no need to. His position was uncontested.

Also the definition of “ahead” is ahead. Full stop. Not alongside, but ahead. No one specified how far ahead, just that he was, which is clearly visible on all the screen grabs you posted.

Edit: if you are having trouble gauging the positions relative to the corner, you should look at Vettels onboard. You can see it nicely using the front wheels as reference.

[WaikeCU]

As can be seen from these screen shots, Hamilton was travelling faster than Vettel because Raikkonen covered Vettel into the chicane, and the furthest ahead Hamilton managed was at the point of impact.

huh, no. kimi was on the normal racing line. He wasnt covering anyone, because there was no need to. His position was uncontested.

Also the definition of “ahead” is ahead. Full stop. Not alongside, but ahead. No one specified how far ahead, just that he was, which is clearly visible on all the screen grabs you posted.

Edit: if you are having trouble gauging the positions relative to the corner, you should look at Vettels onboard. You can see it nicely using the front wheels as reference.

The fact Vettel made contact with the left side of the floor under the sidepod of Hamilton pretty much proofs Hamilton was ahead at that moment.

[AnotherAlex]

At no point have I suggested Hamilton wasn't ahead of Vettel. What Hamilton wasn't is "clear" of Vettel, or even close to being clear of him, which is the quoted comment that I was replying to.

[Phil]

What PhillipM was referring to is that Hamilton was clearly ahead, not well clear in front of Vettel. His point was about contesting position from the outside when coming from behind and never being quite alongside vs the case that Hamilton was at the very least alongside and indeed just that bit ahead. The fact that the corner was also a chicane, e.g. the outside is the inside to the next corner, also makes a difference.