Analysis: The details that let Ferrari down and how Red Bull snatched the F1 win
Strategy Report
Posted By: James Allen  |  17 Apr 2018   |  1:37 pm GMT  |  215 comments

This was a race Ferrari had two chances to win, Mercedes had one chance to win, Max Verstappen had a chance to win and yet Red Bull actually won it with Daniel Ricciardo.

This would have been quite a straight forward one-stop race without the Safety Car 21 laps from the end, which Red Bull attacked boldly by stopping both cars.

The timing of the Safety Car caught out the leading pair of Bottas and Vettel, costing Bottas the win, but it opened up the chance for Ferrari and Mercedes to split strategies and hedge their bets. Neither team took that chance.

But they were wrong. This was a day when the main strategic turning points of the race, and the wonderful excitement of some breath-taking passing moves, were all about the power of having fresh, and ideally soft, tyres.

Pre-race considerations

Sunday was by far the hottest day of the weekend. The question was whether the ultra soft tyres would last long enough in the opening stint to make it a one stop race. Ideally, they would need to go 17 laps. For the cars that chose to start the race on softs -in the lead battle the two Ferraris and Mercedes cars – it was a clear one stop.

For Red Bull, starting fifth and sixth on ultras, but with strong race pace if they could just get a break on strategy, it was finely balanced. Their first moment of inspiration was when they took a risk and did a double pit stop, because the gaps around their cars meant that one of their cars would be at a disadvantage if they prioritised one; so with the gap between them on the road just enough to chance it, they went for the double stop. This kept both cars well in play.

For everyone thinking of a one stop, Toro Rosso’s Pierre Gasly was a benchmark; he was put onto medium tyres at the start of the race, which gave all the teams a chance to see the performance of the mediums. Fernando Alonso was another who went onto mediums quite early, committing to a one stop early. His performance provided encouragement to teams on the medium tyre

How Ferrari lost the lead to Mercedes

Although the main drama was saved until the final act, the middle part of the race provided a strange moment in the competition between Mercedes and Ferrari.

Ferrari, who had dominated qualifying and looked set for a third consecutive win, made a series of small errors that added up to Vettel losing the lead.

First, he squeezed his team mate at the start, forcing him to lift and he was passed by Valtteri Bottas. This gave us the same pairing in the lead battle as Bahrain and it left Vettel without protection from behind and vulnerable to an undercut.

Then the team underestimated that undercut effect – new tyres count for a lot in performance delta. It was in their hands, so Vettel could have anticipated the attack from Mercedes and stopped first. These things are finely judged and you don’t want to pit too early and have to risk running out of tyres. But you also have to cover the undercut otherwise you look foolish when you lose the lead this way. Vettel had shown in Melbourne and Bahrain that he can make a set of tyres last a long time on this Ferrari. So they should have been the ones taking the initiative.

When Bottas stopped on Lap 19 Vettel’s lead was just over three seconds, which was marginal for Ferrari. Especially as, after their problems with pit stops last time out in Bahrain, Ferrari might have built in a little more margin, knowing that the pit crew would be tense at that first stop. Mercedes executed the stop very quickly, while Ferrari lost a second when they pitted to try to cover the move and with Bottas doing his bit with a fast out lap, the net result was Vettel’s lead was lost.

Raikkonen was then sent on a mission to stay out. At first this looked like a repeat of what they did in Melbourne, with Vettel building a seven-lap tyre offset. But the time being lost by Raikkonen against cars on new tyres ( up to 2 seconds per lap) meant that this didn’t make sense as a strategy. The sub plot was that Raikkonen was being left out to try to close Bottas up to Vettel so he could try an attack.

This kind of move is risky on two fronts; first it is hard to choreograph and second, it’s demoralising for the driver who is asked to do it. Raikkonen has been more competitive this season than for many years and felt he had a chance to win this race. Being blocked at the start by Vettel into Turn 1 and losing position to Bottas did not improve his mood.

But he did what he was asked and avoided getting caught where Bottas would pass him easily, into the hairpin. Ideally Ferrari would have like them to catch Raikkonen where he would be able to hold Bottas, in the fast curves allowing Vettel a chance to ambush. But Bottas was bolder than in Bahrain and made a pass the first time he saw a chance, into Turn 3.

We’ve said since the start of the season that Ferrari will win this championship if they can execute perfectly. They did so in Melbourne and Bahrain, but this series of small errors handed Mercedes a lifeline, especially after the shame of not putting a car on the front row in qualifying.

Red Bull take the bold approach

Having been passive in strategy early on, it was therefore surprising that Ferrari didn’t react and have a go later on when the Safety Car was deployed 21 laps from the end.

It took a couple of laps for the Race Director to throw the Safety Car as he assessed the debris from a collision between the Toro Rosso cars. In a situation like that, teams have everything on standby, tyres ready for a snap call. Everyone is tensed up waiting for that signal.

It was called as Verstappen, in third place, was exiting the Turn 14 hairpin. Too late for Bottas and Vettel, but Red Bull strategist Will Courtenay again calculated he had enough gap between his cars to do a double pit stop. As a stop under the Safety Car loses two thirds less time than at normal speeds it’s attractive. But if the gaps aren’t in your favour you can lose track position. The calculation therefore is whether with new tyres you can have enough pace advantage to pass the cars who went by when you were in the pits and even go on from there to pass the cars who were ahead before you stopped.

Raikkonen’s tyres were the freshest of the leaders, but he still would have benefitted from a new set of soft tyres (he had one set available). Hamilton most definitely would (he only had a lightly used set).

He was having an off weekend but came alive when served up fresh soft tyres in qualifying and would undoubtedly have been very quick in the final laps had he been given the chance to stop.

For both Mercedes and Ferrari It made sense to pit one driver at the Safety Car, as they already had the other driver committed to staying out on worn medium tyres. The Safety Car would bunch the field up for the restart, so there would be the chance to attack on new soft tyres.

It was already clear from the Vettel vs Bottas undercut what the advantage of new tyres was on the day. Shanghai is a track where a car with more grip coming off a corner will have a great chance to pass into Turn 6 and Turn 14; two chances every lap.

One of the two strategies would have worked out and in Hamilton’s case he would have finished ahead of Ricciardo, although Red Bull might have left Ricciardo out had Hamilton pitted as a hedge of their own. That is what Mercedes feared and with Red Bull proving quick in race pace they were concerned about getting back ahead. Hamilton had 15 seconds on Raikkonen, so it was only Ricciardo they were thinking about when the prioritised track position.

Raikkonen’s had a 24 second lead to Hulkenberg. So, there was no risk from behind to him making that stop.

For Ferrari, the reason for not stopping Raikkonen must surely come down to the calculation that he might catch and want to pass Vettel.

With a clearly defined team dynamic between the two – Raikkonen seems to be cast as the ‘domestique’, as they call it in cycling, doing the dirty work for the lead driver – how would Vettel have reacted to being asked to let his team mate through?

The UBS Race Strategy Report is written by James Allen with input and data from several F1 team strategists and from Pirelli.

Race History Chart

Kindly provided by Williams Martini Racing, click to enlarge

The number of laps is on the horizontal axis; the gap behind the leader is on the vertical axis. The thing to look at is the gaps between the cars and also the relative pace of the cars.

A positive sign is an upward curve indicating strong pace as lap time falls.

Look at the gap Raikkonen has to Hulkenberg before the Safety Car (orange vertical band). Look also at how much time he loses by staying out in the opening stint. In contrast to Melbourne, where the tyres held on for Vettel, in China new tyres are at a premium.

Strategy Insights
Strategy Briefings
Share This:
Posted by:

Add comment

E-mail is already registered on the site. Please use the Login form or enter another.

You entered an incorrect username or password

Sorry that something went wrong, repeat again!

Kimi needs to ignor his team if he wants a win. Same as Vettel did at Redbull when he was issued the “multi21” radio. Id ignor them and take the noise. You want to win!


For me it is clear, Vettel would have passed Bottas without the SC. There were many, many laps left. I don’t understand Ferrari’s tactics. For years to be quite honest. Vettel questioned them a few times during races back in 2015/2016 over the radio (and remember Abu Dhabi 2010..?)…

Vettel hasn’t done anything wrong for three races and people still blame him. He isn’t “blocking” or “squeezing” anyone, he is racing, he was in front and defending his position for the sake of fairness… Should he have lift and let Kimi pass??????

As long as the english speaking press can blame him and put him in a negative spot light, instead of talking about a struggling and spinning Hamilton without anywhere near a win after Round 3, they will take it and go for it…..

David Croft’s knee-jerk reaction when Verstappen crashed into Vettel was “Could have Vettel backed out of it?” … But 5 minutes and 10 replays later “I will take that back. Yes, it was Verstappen fault!” Oh, thank you dear master!…. That is going on for years now.

Bottas showed what everyone can do in this Merc. Driving very fast when it matters. If it was Hamilton instead of Bottas coming out in front of Vettel, it would have been “hammer time” and “a magical, an extraordinary lap. It’s game on, Hamilton is back! what a great championship”….

In 2017 Bottas was very close to Hamilton before the summer break. After Budapest (when Bottas had to let Hamilton pass…) He was only 19 points behind Hamilton, but then from Spa Q3 onwards, Lauda was only talking about Hamilton and that he will win the Championship….

Hamilton is asking for $40-60 millions for a new contract. And at one point Bottas will suddnly not only lose out to Hamilton, but also to Vettel.

Believe me, Lauda is happy, that Bottas crashed in Q3 in Melbourne. Lauda and Mercedes can’t allow another beat down by Bottas in Round 4.

Richard Mortimer

Wow, what a great article, James, with great insight! The pressure on those tatical guys must be huge, with a split-second to make the right call!

I am fed up with Ferrari making Kimi play ‘domestique.’ Could be his last year. Think he should be given a chance to go for the championship. He should have gone through that gap at the start!

If Vettel can’t win it without Kimi helping him, he does not deserve it.

Also, we still have this ridiculous weaving going on! There is no way it is acceptable for a driver to weave into another car when it is alongside! Whether Seb actually did that, or whether he started with Kimi behind him, I’d have to check!

Seb crashed out of Turkey in 2010 because of this; he did so again in Singapore last year! Think there needs to be clarification – ‘You cannot weave into a car that is alongside!’ Remember how Michael nearly put Rubens into the wall in Hungary?

We have the halo to protect drivers heads (not before time), but sticking in the wall cannot be classified as safe!


There is still one thing about this mystery switch or whatever on the Ferrari steering is.

After hearing Will Power explain push to pass and why he seems to have more than anyone he explained that using no more than 3 seconds coming out of a turn was just as good as holding it down.

Now I think this switch or lever is to control the deployment of the KERS. I don’t think Mercedes has this in an easy to use place. They want the computer to decide when to harvest and deploy.

Now some of this computer stuff needs to go IMO.


The thing I struggle to understand is why RBR had no intention of using the soft tyre in the race despite this clearly being Ricciardo’s preferred compound all weekend


Hamilton could have probably got a better time on the soft vs. the ultra soft.


I would imagine they were backing MV but he blew it.


At least they both had a chance.


Sincerely, I don’t get it: In Australia Pundits and Experts were moaning the fact Kimi got an inferior strategy right off the get go, when in fact as the faster of the two Ferraris, he got the first pit stop- as is usually the case. And, Vettel was left out on worn tires to try and salvage something. Thanks to the Safety car, he did. Now in China, those same pundits are moaning Kimi again pulled the short straw, again being left out too long, just as Vettel had been in Oz.

What gives? This is totally inconsistent, or am I missing something, other than fan-boy hypocrisy?

Where the Ferrari pit wall totally blew it in China was allowing themselves- Vettel, to be undercut by Bottas. To make matters worse, they failed to bring Kimi in when the Safety car was deployed.

#Ham fans: to make a big deal now of #5 swooping across the bow of your team mate really is nothing new. Your guy did it all the time against ROS, and it was perfectly fine and justified. As did Schumacher, Senna and a whole bunch of other pole sitters. It is the prerogative of the pole sitter to pick his line out of the starting box. Always has been, and always will be..


Well why didn’t they bring KR in then.


In Australia, The Mercedes was the faster car, the Red Bulls were nowhere (Kimi came out of his first pit stop ahead of the Bulls) and Hamilton was alone out front. Ferrari had two options – Try to undercut Hamilton with one driver, and keep the other driver out in hope of a safety car. So on the first possible lap (Lap 18) they tried the undercut with Kimi ( It was the better strategic option to try it with Kimi as he was closer to Hamilton so the undercut had a higher chance of working if Mercedes took time to respond), and left Vettel out in hope of a Safety Car, knowing full well that Vettel would still be third if the move did not work.

You can technically argue that, since Australia has a high chance of a safety car and Ferrari was lacking pace, the better race strategy option for drivers – was the car left out(Vet) not the one going for the undercut (Kimi). This strategy would have got Vettel in front of Kimi while at worst ensuring a Kimi/2:Vettel:3 finish. However, this choice gave them the best chance of a win (Pitting left Hamilton vulnerable to Vettel for 4 laps, and not pitting lost them the win to Kimi which was a much harder choice than the other way as Vettel is the main Championship rival).

In China, this was not the case, the race pace of the top six cars was close, and leaving Kimi out lost him places to Hamilton and Danny (losing valuable points in the Championship battle to Lewis), and Kimi on worn tyres would have trouble blocking Bottas, leave alone block him in such a fashion as to allow Vettel to overtake.


Yes you are missing something, at least 50% of the race, arguably more, by not grasping the strategy calls. The best question to ask yourself is why. So in Australia why did they pit Kimi first, it had nothing to do with ideal strategy or lead driver or even faster driver, it was purely to force Merc to pit early to cover the undercut. Ferrari new Merc would have to cover Kimi and Kimi would still be behind Ham, therefore this strategy could never give an advantage to Kimi. The strategy for Seb was a long stint that would allow a softer tyre at the end of the race. That plus the fact Merc had to pit early means Seb would have a massive tyre advantage in the last part of the race and therefore a chance for the win. The VSC was just a bonus.

Here Kimi was left out so long that he was passed by the leaders, in other words a complete pit stop behind. It is almost impossible to make a winning strategy from that position without a great deal of luck.


“It took a couple of laps for the Race Director to throw the Safety Car”

I think Charlie and his Angel, Bernd Mayländer are influencing the outcome of races. Too long in power? It ain’t good.

By the way, why is the safety car always Mercedes? For how many years now, I don’t remember!


Maybe that’s the real wingman:)


why is the safety car always Mercedes?

That’s easy…..$$$$$


Have re-watched the Chinese GP recordings (with the sound off). Has anyone else noticed that on the long, head-on shots of the cars on the S/F straight in right light and with the lighter colored helmets the “halo” front bar creates the appearance there are cartoon-like eyeballs located in the cockpits ?


Yes I’ve noticed it too! Here’s my post to a Feb 26 article:


It’s not so much that the halo is ugly, but it has the effect of making the cars look like child toys, like cars in the animated movie Cars (2006).

Take a look at the photo of the Toro Rosso. Great colour, but it just does not look like a real-size racing car. It’s almost as if the beams of the halo are human eyebrows and you can see eyes in the openings! I discovered this effect is strongest in cars having the same colour for body livery and halo: STR, Ferrari, FI. Presumably because our brains want to see features of a human face as soon as that is possible. The effect is far less disturbing when the halo has a different color (Renault).

My advice to the teams: please please go for a different colour for the halo!


James, awkward question- with the planned upgrades Renault are planning to implement this season, do they really want to show their hand to Red Bull if “they” are off to Honda? With the bad feelings that Red Bull has towards Renault in the last 2 seasons, I would imagine Renault wouldn’t be too upset if Red Bull changed!


As a Ferrari fan since years, it was painful to watch how front-row lock out can be so badly unexploited, yet again after Bahrain which was, let’s face it a very narrow victory that could have easily been a 3rd place.

I think the crucial point there was Seb swerving on the start. I seriously do not understand he really thought losing first lap to Kimi would compromise his race. We all know they would probably try an undercut anyway to give him a chance but what is crucial for this guys is to come 1-2 into the first corner, whatever the order and control the race like they did so in Monaco or Hungary last year. First part of the season should be all about team effort and massing this points and eating up from the opponents. What they did in china is comparable with breaking Massa gearbox seal to give Alonso better starting grid options – which was harsh bu acceptable in penultimate race of the season.

As much as I accept the fact that Seb is on overall a margin better in delivering results than Kimi, I really hope the ice man will deliver at least 1 victory for the reds before he, most likely, goes after this season.


It seems to me, Ferrari’s biggest fault is trying to back 1 car from the very start of the season.

This has occasionally worked in the past, but sometimes because they only had 1 horse to back.

Sorry for the worn phrase, but Kimi is an enigma. When the car suits him, he is still mightily quick, & as is apparent this year, the changes made to the SF71 suit Raikkonen perhaps better than they suit Vettel.

If not for Vettel’s start line swerving habit, Ferrari could have been in a 1 – 2 position for the majority of the race, & at least left China still leading the WCC, but as Vettel is the chosen horse to back, Ferrari have made a terrible blunder which has cost them dearly. They cannot blame the Safety Car, as it benefited them in Australia.

As much in life is swings & roundabouts, Ferrari should back both cars, to easily gain a grip on the WCC by letting the faster driver on the day collect the spoils, & not bother choosing a single driver till F1 heads to the Americas.

I believe Ferrari’s habit of sacrificing Kimi, or any No.2 driver, is costing them wins, points, respect, & fans.

If Vettel was asked to move aside for Raikkonen, the radio outbursts would be deemed unfit for publication, yet it may be the big slice of humble pie that is so obviously needed.

Vettel’s attitude, Ferrari politics, Mercedes blunders & Verstappen’s youth is all playing into the hands of a grinning Australian.

Danny Ric for WDC.


“If Vettel was asked to move aside for Raikkonen, the radio outbursts would be deemed unfit for publication, yet it may be the big slice of humble pie that is so obviously needed.”

Actually, he’d just ignore them. Ask Mark Webber. “Multi21 Seb, multi21?”


Oh, you mean Seb deprived Webber of an entitled win. Multi-21 was being used to clearly gift Webber the win.


I suppose Silverstone 2010 was a gifted win for Webber too?


@ BobW…clearly you have no idea of the facts behind ‘multi21’because if you did you wouldn’t post such a clearly mistaken comment. Thwe agreement pre race was simply this, the car that was leading the race post the final pit stop would not be challenged for the lead. That was the genesis of the term ‘Multi 21’ indicating that Webber was in the lead. Why do you think that Vettel apologised profusely post race?


James, excellent analysis as always. Considering Hamilton was in front of Ricciardo and would have been perfectly timed to nip in the pits before the red bulls as the safety car come out, is there a good chance he would have won the race? If Mercedes had been as bold as red bull?


@ Leon Spiccia

Fair enough, Ricciardo should have won Monaco 2016, hopefully karma works it’s magic and rewards him with success at Monaco 2018


@ BigHaydo

Agreed that since the hybrid era Red Bull has been lacking speed on the straights due to Renault, however, Red Bull has been noted by the experts to have the best chassis most seasons especially in the second half of the season, this is the reason why the team goes well on street circuits


Cheers. But by the same token, the Merc is making time over the Red Bull every time the car goes in a straight line – which on many modern circuits is a lot! As good as the RBR chassis is, it makes it’s time in the corners, which can also sometimes be tyre-limited. The rate of development in the RBR chassis isn’t in doubt (except perhaps in 2015!) but if it doesn’t get a strong enough push it will bleed lap time regardless.


@ jungle

Aah yeah Monaco 2016 was really unlucky for Ricciardo considering Monaco is the crown jewel of F1



True, just like all drivers, Ricciardo needs a championship capable car but the problem still is if Ricciardo has a teammate faster than him in qualy, this would limit his options to success


@ goferet…not necessarily so.


Not ideal GF, but it hasn’t restricted him too much so far. I think Max is probably the best qualifier in the field and he’s a net 1/10 slower. Ric would qualify just fine in red or silver.


Come on!! We have the all time pole position record holder on the grid and MAX is the best qualifier? When he’s got 72 more poles I may take that seriously. He’s not even got 1 yet for crying out loud. I think the fact he regularly out qualifies RIC may be the reasoning for your strange comment though. For the record…RIC is distinctly average in qualy…max beating him doesn’t make him the best. I don’t expect you to swallow it but Lewis is far and away the best qualifier on the grid. He’s the best qualifier of all time…period.


The real reason Daniel won is the secret ride-height settings he learned from the Los Angeles Lowriders, which allow him to leap ahead of the other F1 cars.


I bacame Mclaren fan when I began watching F1, I’m also a precautious tifosi of sorts mainly because of many great drivers there through history, but would have loved them more if they hadn’t spent the new millenia destroying any sence of real racingspirit in the team, although they where miles ahead of everyone. But first and foremost I’m a fan of drivers that have something special to show. Fast, brave, smart and if they have a character it wont hurt. I believe this applies to most of F1 fans. I recognize that Ferrari have such a rich history and been there when the plenty left, on the other hand they could afford to. And no team should be untouchable in F1, the spirit will go on without any specific team if the show is good. If Ferrari say they want to leave then they should leave. The same goes for any team that cant see that’s the fans who bring the money in the end, and it’s they who have stuck around since the beginning of the automotive era. F1in it’s so called new era, should, if they want to live up to that, make sure the racing and the fans is what’s most important. Not even fans can agree on what regulations etc would be the best, but I bet one thing most fans do want. A certain degree of fairness and coherency, in rules, enforcing the rules, drivers to race on equal terms within their teams, homlogized engines so teams get the same engine as others, including the works team. All this can be achieved if someone strong enough enforce it. After all, maybe, that is one thing at least the vast majority of fans would agree on; good, fair hard racing without bull and I dont mean Red;)



Well played old boy well played!


It’s worth keeping in mind that Mercedes kept Bottas out as a mobile chicane to disrupt Vettel at Barcelona last year, one race after Bottas’ maiden win. Talk about demoralising…

So Ferrari’s tactics with Raikkonen aren’t without precedent!


Not at all alike. There Bottas was running 3rd, quite far behind the leading two. He was comfortably 3rd, such that he could pit and remain 3rd. Hence, his result was not hampered, whereas Kimi’s was last race.

Only one driver has been on the front row in every race: Kimi. Yet he’s always finished lower than his grid slot each time.


It an obvious conspiracy being perpetrated by the deep state and the FIA. They are out to keep Kimi down.


That is hardly similar. With the collision between Verstappen, Kimi and Bottas, 2 drivers were out and Bottas himself was carrying some damage (he finally retired with an engine failure), so risking Bottas’ race was not risking a lot, and the chasing cars were quite far back. Also one pit stop still remained in that race , so closing up had it’s advantages.

Even then the move only worked because there was a VSC (which is extremely rare in Barcelona) and Ferrari made a late blunder (James had called it an open goal – )

In this race sacrificing Kimi’s race meant that Hamilton would be 3rd/4th, that is sureshot 5 or 2 points lost in the championship battle against a very remote chance of Vettel winning.


Regarding Ferrari strategy one could see that it would not work neither for Seb nor Kimi. I was crazy, Seb screwed it up by not being fast enough ( The start, going wide I hear also into pits) letting Bottas by. So the reaction to that was monumental in exaggeration and panicking. The thing is that that kind of job (roadblock etc) almost anyone on the grid could do. But Ferrari want Kimi there for some reason. They know he’s fast. I for one don’t think he ever lost hes speed from one year to another (Lotus to Ferrari) alhtough he’s not at the same level as in his brilliant years (Mclaren and some of Ferrari). God knows how they reason in Maranello but I can guess that one thing they want is Kimis’ credibility, his fanbase (he’s immensely popular among fans), however that is just what will fire back at them with the politics they deploy at the moment and for some time now.


I have followed F1 since the young JYS appeared on the scene racing at Crystal Palace in London. I am also a very long term supporter of Ferrari. Yet in China I fail to understand the logic of SV, clearly no.1 in the team, attemping to remove his team mate in turn one. The ‘team’ attitude is so very limited, the team understand that even less. I really do hope SV has more than a few failures this year, and Kimi is allowed to race and be a winner again, not just a supporter. Team attitude is such a positive thing …. ask DR. Even though it would nice to see DR in a Ferrari, I agree with some previous comments – it would most likely not be a happy experience. Sad!


@ Malcb…staying at Red Bull would be even worse considering the stated aims of both Marko and Horner and endorsed my Mateschitz.


Ken, don’t you just love the duplicity of Ubersturmbahnfurer Marko. Just a couple of months ago he seemed quite happy to let Dan walk. Now he’s telling Toto Wolff that he’ll fall flat on his face if he tries to poach Dan. Perhaps Mateschitz has got in on the act and ordered him to stop Dan from falling into the hands of the enemy.


@ Adrian…Yes, i see the exact same thing. How these guys can actually front up with such glaring inconsistencies is beyond me! Regarding the Ricciardo contract situation i really am perplexed. Obviously DR has reasons for saying that he has ‘options’ but just what are they? The pressure on him ATM is intense and Red Bull are not going to make it easy for him. Hopefully he gets to leave and move into a team that will promote his prospects instead of designating him as a second class racer alongside the ‘chosen one’. Not once have i heard Horner or Marko suggest, even vaguely, that they would push hard for Ricciardo to achieve a WDC. It’s all Verstappen/Verstappen/Verstappen and i find that all rather disappointing.


Ask Ruebens Barichello how he felt getting chopped, squeezed, and made to give up positions to MSC. He was doing it at Ferrari before Seb.


Hi Malcb,

I have always found the culture of Ferrari quite puzzling at times, polar opposites to Williams/Head mentality in many respects…..and then Ron Dennis of course as a another poster mentioned recently “lock in both Senna and Prost so no one else can have them”! All of which make up what is the F1 circus I guess.


@ The Skeptic

No doubt, Ricciardo and Red Bull made their own luck in China, however, even the best gambler can hit perfect sixs at every throw of the dice


I agree with all the comments about Ferrari, and if they want to exit the sport I just say bye-bye and I hope the door doesn’t hit you in the ass as you exit. Personally I thought Kimi didn’t do a whole lot to slow down but Botta as he came up on him. And I think if I was in the same situation I would’ve just gone F them and let Bottas pass. I would like to see Kimi walk away in the middle of the season right after Monaco, just walk away and leave them scratching their heads and their asses……bye-bye .


Hi James, is it true that the Ferrari PU is now equal to that of Mercedes? IMHO Red Bull only had a chance this race because of the safety car and the switch to softs. They were truly the 3rd best team this week, purely in terms of race pace.


And the results of ill-treatment of Kimi?

Ferrari is now behind in WCC, 4 good drivers closing in on Seb in WDC, and the only red on the podium is Kimi.

Isn’t Karma a … good thing.


Jeez, it ain’t rocket surgery! NASCAR figured it out somewhere back in the Stone Age. When the caution light (safety car) is actuated the pits are closed for one or two laps until the cars are collected behind the pace (safety) car. How come all the high faluttin’ intellects at FIA and F1 haven’t figured this out yet?


And what about the poor guy that just about to pit when the safety car comes out? There will ALWAYS be winners and losers from safety cars there’s little that can be done to prevent it. Level as is I say. Over the season it will pretty much even out but if not… get, that’s racing. If it ain’t broke…


It was a rule (that the pits would close) during the refuelling era. It was scrapped because, depending on the timing of the safety car incident, some cars would have no option but to run out of fuel or pit and incur a penalty. These days, as we all know, refuelling has been scrapped too.


It was a rule (that the pits would close) during the refuelling era. It was scrapped because, depending on the timing of the safety car incident, some cars would have no option but to run out of fuel or pit and incur a penalty. These days, as we all know, refuelling has been scrapped too.

Top Tags
SEARCH Strategy