[Official] Tuscan Grand Prix 2020: Grand Prix Weekend Thread - Round 9

[S griffin]

That is something I never considered. Although we never know what Williams could have done without those incidents, who's to say Russell had a big chance of the podium? Not me, although the race could have gone any which way with or without the incidents

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

If aggregate times are not going to be accounted for after a red flag restart, then half points should be awarded. This race and Monza are less meritorious races for not accounting aggregate times.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by RWill2073

He asked to go opposite to hamilton, which to me didn't come across as defeatist, but as someone trying to strategize. Then the call comes for him to box first for "safety reasons". Lol. Like he couldn't have stayed out one lap longer so hamilton could get on his tire to give bottas the alternate. C'mon... that was engineered to give preferential treatment to hamilton. Not that there's anything wrong with giving preferential treatment to the number one driver, but dont pretend bottas is getting equal treatment.

They have to pretend giving Bottas equal treatment. It's very important as it's horrendously, possibly irreversible PR (For MB, Hamilton, F1, etc.)

Someone like yourself (And many others) can conclude MB are giving Hamilton preferential treatment (I personally have no doubt). You may be bang on in your observations, but it's only on anecdotal evidence and not facts.

If MB admit to preferential treatment, then it completely changes the way everything is seen for the worse. It diminishes MB, Hamilton, F1, the experience for the fans (even Hamilton fans). It's not worth dragging down all of that just to redeem Bottas. Who otherwise gets better contracts, pay and opportunities than he normally would have.

Fans can think whatever they want. But if there's no hard evidence, then it doesn't matter and MB/F1 can carry on as they are.

Where it gets blurry for critics, is that even if there was equal treatment for Bottas and Hamilton, fans can't conclusively say that Bottas would be better (head to head, get close, or beat Hamilton).

Originally Posted by RWill2073

And I'm with those that say dont change anything about restarts. Make the supposed best drivers in the world (I dont think that's the case, tbh) figure out what amateurs in other series have figured out.

It's a generalisation which gets blurred when you start scrutinising the mid and back field. But the generalisation should be accurate for the front running F1 drivers for all but the top WRC drivers.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Talent and preparation doesn’t help create luck, it puts you in a position to win. Perpetration and talent puts you in the best position to capitalise on your opponents errors and deficiencies, it gives you the opportunity to control races from the front, and forces your opponents to overdrive their cars to keep up. It’s no secret that Hamilton is better on his tyres than Bottas, and being out front only magnifies that by putting Bottas in dirty air.....

In theory, I agree with the generalisations. I don't think it strictly applies to the points RWill seems to be trying to make.

Talent and preparation has nothing to do with scenarios like when the safety car gets released to Hamilton's benefit.

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Makes me laugh how you just concentrate on how ‘lucky’ Hamilton is, let’s take Max, how lucky was he at Silverstone in both races to capitalise on Mercedes tyre woes,

No luck for RB/Max. They were better on the day and won. (Had they not got caught up the "glory" of a cheap FL point, they'd have won the previously week as well.

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

how lucky was gasly at Monza,

It was pretty random. It's an outlier result for Gasly, so he was fortunate.

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

how lucky was Rosberg to capitalise on Hamilton’s unreliability

Rosberg wasn't lucky. He was better overall in 2016.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

In theory, I agree with the generalisations. I don't think it strictly applies to the points RWill seems to be trying to make.

Talent and preparation has nothing to do with scenarios like when the safety car gets released to Hamilton's benefit.

No luck for RB/Max. They were better on the day and won. (Had they not got caught up the "glory" of a cheap FL point, they'd have won the previously week as well.


It was pretty random. It's an outlier result for Gasly, so he was fortunate.



Rosberg wasn't lucky. He was better overall in 2016.

Huh, you’re as bad as will.....you see luck in one direction and not in the other!

I don’t think Rosberg as being lucky in 2016 either, you make your own luck....but using Wills logic, you can’t call hamilton lucky for engine blowups via max/ tyre issues via Bottas and not call Rosberg lucky due to the multiple mechanical issues of hamilton in 2016.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

They have to pretend giving Bottas equal treatment. It's very important as it's horrendously, possibly irreversible PR (For MB, Hamilton, F1, etc.)

Someone like yourself (And many others) can conclude MB are giving Hamilton preferential treatment (I personally have no doubt). You may be bang on in your observations, but it's only on anecdotal evidence and not facts.

If MB admit to preferential treatment, then it completely changes the way everything is seen for the worse. It diminishes MB, Hamilton, F1, the experience for the fans (even Hamilton fans). It's not worth dragging down all of that just to redeem Bottas. Who otherwise gets better contracts, pay and opportunities than he normally would have.

Fans can think whatever they want. But if there's no hard evidence, then it doesn't matter and MB/F1 can carry on as they are.

Where it gets blurry for critics, is that even if there was equal treatment for Bottas and Hamilton, fans can't conclusively say that Bottas would be better (head to head, get close, or beat Hamilton).

It's a generalisation which gets blurred when you start scrutinising the mid and back field. But the generalisation should be accurate for the front running F1 drivers for all but the top WRC drivers.

Really? Where’s your proof of preferential treatment?

Has hamilton received new aero parts first like at red bull or Ferrari? No.
Has Bottas ever been told to move out of the way when he’s in the middle of a championship fight? No
Has hamilton handed places back to Bottas when requested? Yes
Has hamilton been told to hold position behind Bottas? Yes

What instances over 4 years of being Hamilton’s teammate other than Russia 18, Austin 18 or 18 (can’t remember) where Bottas has been told to move over for hamilton....and only because he was out of the championship fight? What instances of perferential treatment can you give?

Or are you passing off opinion as fact?

[S griffin]

I have yet to see proof of preferential treatment. Bottas would beat Hamilton more if he used up a lot of willpower

To me both drivers are given the best equipment and do their own job with it. They are way ahead for a reason. There's a good reason too why RBR struggle to keep up and Ferrari are in a mess

We'll see what the rest of the season brings. Both drivers operate in a fair and open environment. And they race when they can and hold positions when it is needed

Really Bottas being told to move over in 2018 was because Mercedes were in a tougher fight than they are now, even if it wasn't to everyone's satisfaction, even Mercedes themselves. Not the easiest of decisions, but it was probably right on balance. Now they are free to race each other with no real other opposition, they are that far ahead of everyone

Let's just enjoy the rest of the season, it won't last forever this kind of dominance and remember the better driver gets the title

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Huh, you’re as bad as will.....you see luck in one direction and not in the other!

I don’t think Rosberg as being lucky in 2016 either, you make your own luck....but using Wills logic, you can’t call hamilton lucky for engine blowups via max/ tyre issues via Bottas and not call Rosberg lucky due to the multiple mechanical issues of hamilton in 2016.

I said I agree with the generalisations. I don't think it strictly applies though. However it's a topic that'ss got away from me and doesn't interest me that much. So unless you want me to clarify, I'll leave it.

[S griffin]

Luck has always played a part in motor racing. That you can’t deny. At the end of the day it all evens and it’s the driver who makes the most of their opportunities that prevail. Without the luck factor, it wouldn’t be as exciting would it?

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Or are you passing off opinion as fact?

It's my opinion, and I acknowledge it does get blurred with my overall opinions on racing and facts.

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Really? Where’s your proof of preferential treatment?

Has hamilton received new aero parts first like at red bull or Ferrari? No.
Has Bottas ever been told to move out of the way when he’s in the middle of a championship fight? No

Well, this question above is a "yes". But it's negated with the following question below.

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Has hamilton handed places back to Bottas when requested? Yes
Has hamilton been told to hold position behind Bottas? Yes

What instances over 4 years of being Hamilton’s teammate other than Russia 18, Austin 18 or 18 (can’t remember) where Bottas has been told to move over for hamilton....and only because he was out of the championship fight? What instances of perferential treatment can you give?

It's not about what they "do" because what you've asked is correct.

It's what MB don't do that often undermines Bottas and helps/protects Hamilton, and gives me that opinion. I'll just take it from this season alone.

British GP - There was audio broadcasted from Bottas that his tyres were finished (blistering, delaminating?). But unlike when Hamilton sent a similar message earlier, Bottas was also saying that he was struggling to see.

If a driver is finding it hard to see like Bottas was saying he was. Then a normal, functioning, professional racing team that takes the concerns of its driver seriously, would just call him in and give him another set of tyres.

Never mind the 1-2 or the strategy, just look after him and get a 3rd place if that's the best result.

But MB didn't do that. They (irresponsibly) left him out there, and he subsequently suffered a blown tyre which meant he ended up scoring no points, while Hamilton won.

There was no reason to not pull Bottas in at the point of his troubles. With the current sporting regs over mandatory tyre stops and multiple use of compounds. In actual fact, Bottas would've been in a better position to win the race stopping again (when MB were planning to go the rest of the race distance on one stop) conceding all that time but having fresh tyres, than just running behind Hamilton on the same strategies. An unscheduled stop for Bottas would've then left Hamilton vulnerable for the win as he would've had to counter Bottas' stop and concede position to Verstappen/RB.

Had Bottas stopped at the point of his troubles, he would've effectively been in the same position Mansell was in 87. As the race subsequently turned out, he could've won, or finished second behind Verstappen.

70th GP - Bottas takes pole, has the early running of the race. His tyres are finished, but is pulling away from 2nd placed Hamilton just before stopping. Hamilton stops but Verstappen doesn't.

Bottas stops again at the same time of Verstappen's only stop. Subsequently, MB use the information from Bottas' tyres to guide Hamilton and put him in a position to win.

They subsequently chicken out of Hamilton going for the win and put him on fresh tyres late in the race. Hamilton's 3rd behind Bottas and the message is sent to Bottas that they are "free to race".

That's cute and makes MB look good by giving the appearance of impartiality. But it's hardly an fair contest when Bottas' tyres a worn and Hamilton is on a fresh set.

Bottas takes pole. Has the better running of the early stages of the race. Hamilton finishes ahead due to a favourable pit strategy.

Belgian GP - Bottas requests the use of more power and is denied. It's a great rebuff for Hamilton. Good for MB. But unhelpful for Bottas.

At this stage of the season, it's better for Bottas' reputation that he goes for it and the car blows up. But is denied the best opportunity to win.

Mugello - Bottas requests to be put on the opposite strategy of Hamilton's (even if it's an inferior option). His request is ignored.

He's denied the knowledge of Hamilton's selection because he is to stop first (A deviation from the normal procedures). One of the justifications to stop first is on safety grounds, which is in contrast to the lack of action at the British GP I already stated.

In the 4 years Bottas has been at MB. I've never seen a scenario where he's been behind Hamilton, and then consciously put on a strategy which increases his chances of winning, and weakening Hamilton's. It has occurred the other way around a number of times (To win or finish ahead of Bottas).

[ascarracinguk]

British GP - Mercedes Believed the tyres would last the race, there was zero indication from the rest of the weekend that tyres would blow.

If they pitted Bottas as you say, then either that would have favoured Bottas, or they would have pitted Hamilton and status quo would have resumed, problem is Verstappen was too close to pit either and Mercedes could have thrown away the win

70th GP - Hamilton yet again makes his tyres last longer than bottas..has a track record because he knew the best way to win the race was have a large tyre offset from Bottas.

Belgian GP - Agreement was to use equal power modes against eachother. if bottas had increased his mode, so would hamilton and status quo would have resumed but weakening both drivers chances against Max

Mugello GP - Bottas requested the alternate strategy, but it only works if you pit second, he couldnt make his tyres last (yet again) and lost that advantage, by his own admission his tyres were finished....thats his fault.

Care to give examples of those instances of strategy in 4 years? from where im sitting i cant remember the last time they were on different strategies, the only difference being in stint lengths on how long one of the drivers can make their tyres last.

Lewis has shown over the last few years that if he cant get an offset large enough to overtake on track he will do so by extending his stint, something that bottas has the opportunity to do, but doesnt seem capable of doing.

Sounds to me that you want Bottas to have preferential treatment with engine modes and strategy......

[S griffin]

I agree. Maybe Merc could have pitted Bottas later in the British GP just to make sure, even though there was no indication something would go wrong. They could have checked Bottas’ tyres and passed it on to Hamilton, although they might have found all was ok. As you say though they weren’t that dominant, they had Verstappen who would have inherited a win if they had. Just one of those thing

It’s no surprise they decided to play it safe for the 70th GP. Hamilton got a bit lucky there, any other time it could have been a different

At Spa Merc were doing no more to win, especially as something could have gone wrong. For me Bottas could have won, but he needed to be in front Hamilton and again Max was still close enough to benefit from anything

At Mugello, Bottas was a bit unlucky, but in a way Merc were lucky with people like Max and others hitting trouble. On another day they could have been beaten, who knows?

For me Merc are doing what any dominant team would do, making sure of 1-2 finishes and not stressing the car too much. Still time for things to change, even if Merc are more than likely to win the title. If Bottas wants more attention on him, he needs to pull his finger out and start delivering wins

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

British GP - Mercedes Believed the tyres would last the race, there was zero indication from the rest of the weekend that tyres would blow.

If they pitted Bottas as you say, then either that would have favoured Bottas, or they would have pitted Hamilton and status quo would have resumed, problem is Verstappen was too close to pit either and Mercedes could have thrown away the win

What MB believed doesn't matter as it wasn't occurring during the race. At the point where a driver is saying they can't see, I'd expect a genuinely professional racing team to adjust their plans. They didn't, and allowed Bottas to subsequently fail to score points solely due to their neglect. There's been no recognistion of this post race. Bottas' 5 point deficient to Hamilton blows out to 30, and it's all on the team.

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

70th GP - Hamilton yet again makes his tyres last longer than bottas..has a track record because he knew the best way to win the race was have a large tyre offset from Bottas.

I acknowledge Hamilton's strength of using his tyres. The sticking point is that it almost always doesn't matter with the way MB operate their pit strategies (pitting one lap apart. Track position is typically seems to be the determining factor in MB's strategies.

In the case this race, it wasn't a straightforward scenario with Verstappen/RB threatening to win. I agree with the adjustment of Hamilton's strategy (It's not just him determining it though) when it becomes the difference between an MB or RB winning.

Since they ultimately blinked and pitted Hamilton (He didn't hang on to win, and pitted too late to make the most of fresh tyres relative to Verstappen). I would expect MB pattern of track position determining strategies of both Hamilton and Bottas (pitting one lap a part), and accounting that MB were primarily responsible for Bottas' failure to score points the previous week.

I expected MB to acknowledge that Bottas took pole, he had track position and the better of Hamilton, pulling away prior to the first stop. They tried to get the win, but it didn't work. So instead of being "free to race" when they handed Hamilton a huge advantage, I expected them to ask Hamilton to hold station.

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Belgian GP - Agreement was to use equal power modes against eachother. if bottas had increased his mode, so would hamilton and status quo would have resumed but weakening both drivers chances against Max

The agreement flies in the face of what we heard from what we heard of the radio communication broadcasted. It wouldn't have weakened Hamilton that much, and that's only if he did decide to turn the wick up. But this to me is one of the more tenuous moments to infer favouritism.

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Mugello GP - Bottas requested the alternate strategy, but it only works if you pit second, he couldnt make his tyres last (yet again) and lost that advantage, by his own admission his tyres were finished....thats his fault.

I'm interested to know of this admission. And will look for various sources before asking you if I need to.

As of this race, I find it peculiar that after hearing that radio communication, that MB deviate from their typical pattern of stopping. Bottas requested an alternative tyre to Hamilton (presumably even if the theory was saying it would be to his disadvantage, or if he stopped before Hamilton).

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Care to give examples of those instances of strategy in 4 years? from where im sitting i cant remember the last time they were on different strategies, the only difference being in stint lengths on how long one of the drivers can make their tyres last.

Off the top of my head, aside from Silverstone last year, I'm not familiar with pit strategies undermining the other MB. There's also the Italian GP last year which was to Bottas' benefit. That was the difference between an MB or Ferrari win though, and the championship situation was leaning on the side of non threatening for Hamilton.

It's the lack of it occurring in the past that makes it more peculiar to me that it's occurred this year.

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Lewis has shown over the last few years that if he cant get an offset large enough to overtake on track he will do so by extending his stint, something that bottas has the opportunity to do, but doesnt seem capable of doing.

Aside from Silverstone last year, it doesn't occur though. The inital track position is key (even when Rosberg was there)The advantage Hamilton has with tyres normally just blows out his lead when he wins. Bottas often (if not always) holds off Hamilton despite the disadvantage with tyres. Dirty air is dirty air, and Hamilton gets affected by that regardless of how well he looks after his tyres.

Originally Posted by ascarracinguk

Sounds to me that you want Bottas to have preferential treatment with engine modes and strategy......

Presuming you're familiar with cricket terminology? I view Bottas' recent radio communications as attempting to "throw the bat". But the requests are denied.

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by 2 litre Touring Car Star

What MB believed doesn't matter as it wasn't occurring during the race. At the point where a driver is saying they can't see, I'd expect a genuinely professional racing team to adjust their plans. They didn't, and allowed Bottas to subsequently fail to score points solely due to their neglect. There's been no recognistion of this post race. Bottas' 5 point deficient to Hamilton blows out to 30, and it's all on the team.

I acknowledge Hamilton's strength of using his tyres. The sticking point is that it almost always doesn't matter with the way MB operate their pit strategies (pitting one lap apart. Track position is typically seems to be the determining factor in MB's strategies.

In the case this race, it wasn't a straightforward scenario with Verstappen/RB threatening to win. I agree with the adjustment of Hamilton's strategy (It's not just him determining it though) when it becomes the difference between an MB or RB winning.

Since they ultimately blinked and pitted Hamilton (He didn't hang on to win, and pitted too late to make the most of fresh tyres relative to Verstappen). I would expect MB pattern of track position determining strategies of both Hamilton and Bottas (pitting one lap a part), and accounting that MB were primarily responsible for Bottas' failure to score points the previous week.

I expected MB to acknowledge that Bottas took pole, he had track position and the better of Hamilton, pulling away prior to the first stop. They tried to get the win, but it didn't work. So instead of being "free to race" when they handed Hamilton a huge advantage, I expected them to ask Hamilton to hold station.

The agreement flies in the face of what we heard from what we heard of the radio communication broadcasted. It wouldn't have weakened Hamilton that much, and that's only if he did decide to turn the wick up. But this to me is one of the more tenuous moments to infer favouritism.

I'm interested to know of this admission. And will look for various sources before asking you if I need to.

As of this race, I find it peculiar that after hearing that radio communication, that MB deviate from their typical pattern of stopping. Bottas requested an alternative tyre to Hamilton (presumably even if the theory was saying it would be to his disadvantage, or if he stopped before Hamilton).


Off the top of my head, aside from Silverstone last year, I'm not familiar with pit strategies undermining the other MB. There's also the Italian GP last year which was to Bottas' benefit. That was the difference between an MB or Ferrari win though, and the championship situation was leaning on the side of non threatening for Hamilton.

It's the lack of it occurring in the past that makes it more peculiar to me that it's occurred this year.

Aside from Silverstone last year, it doesn't occur though. The inital track position is key (even when Rosberg was there)The advantage Hamilton has with tyres normally just blows out his lead when he wins. Bottas often (if not always) holds off Hamilton despite the disadvantage with tyres. Dirty air is dirty air, and Hamilton gets affected by that regardless of how well he looks after his tyres.


Presuming you're familiar with cricket terminology? I view Bottas' recent radio communications as attempting to "throw the bat". But the requests are denied.

Yes Mercedes operate strategies of pitting drivers 1 lap apart....this is only fair? or do you want favouritism to the driver behind? you want equality, but then want an alternate strategy for the driver behind....you cant have it both ways!

Silverstone - So if theyd pitted Bottas as you say, then they would have lost Bottas points. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, there was nothing being indicated over the radio from Bottas that his tyres were shot.

70th - No, hamilton handed hamilton a massive advantage. He is the one that preserved his tyres, went longer and came out with fresher tyres. Again, makes me laugh, When Bottas is behind hamilton, you want them to give Bottas a different strategy, when hamilton creates that different strategy himself by preserving his tyres, you want Mercedes to get him to hold station behind bottas despite a massive tyre advantage....blinkered much?

Tuscany - Again, listen to the radio, Bottas asked for the alternate strategy, then a lap later came over the radio and said his tyres were shot and needed to pit....so he had to pit before hamilton. Asking for an alternate strategy only works when you pit second.....



Sounds like your 'filter' is in full swing, and rather than in your view, you want equal footing, what you really want is for Mercedes to give Bottas a leg up to win.

Throw the bat at it? yeh they could do that, but why should they, Mercedes dont care which way around their drivers finish, why take the extra risk? take Austria for example, Hamilton was told to hold station and keep the car off the kerbs......

Or Hungary where hamilton handed the place back to Bottas as he promised

....funny you havent mentioned those though.....maybe because it doesnt fit into your narrative

Anyway, il leave it at that, i highly doubt i can change your mind, which is fine, we are all entitled to our opinions.

Onto Russia

[Tourer]

Well hasn't this thread ended up all a bit tetchy, preachy & off topic after a F1's visit to a wonderfully sublime circuit that was just - well, special.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion on the Hamster but guys, seriously........let's give it a rest huh?

[ascarracinguk]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Well hasn't this thread ended up all a bit tetchy, preachy & off topic after a F1's visit to a wonderfully sublime circuit that was just - well, special.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion on the Hamster but guys, seriously........let's give it a rest huh?

I dont detect tetchiness, certainly none intended from my side anyway, i just ask that if people want equal treatment, then they want just that...

Reverse the positions of drivers, use the same logic and ask yourself if your opinion is the same

If you apply your logic to criticise or praise one driver, then use the same logic for all.

[2 litre Touring Car Star]

No tetchiness. A misalignment of views. Probably could find some common ground, but it's become fatiguing to write so it'll be left at that.