Sebastian Vettel, Ferrari, Monaco, 2017

Vettel leads Ferrari one-two in Monaco

2017 Monaco Grand Prix summaryPosted on | Author Will Wood

Sebastian Vettel took his third victory of the season at Monaco ahead of team mate Kimi Raikkonen and Daniel Ricciardo.

Vettel successfully employed an overcut in the pits to jump ahead of Raikkonen and secure his second victory around the streets of Monte Carlo.

Ricciardo took the final podium position for Red Bull, ahead of Valtteri Bottas’s Mercedes and Mas Verstappen. Lewis Hamilton finished seventh, behind Carlos Sainz Jr’s Toro Rosso.

It was a clean start, with Raikkonen leading from the start, ahead of team mate Vettel and Valtteri Bottas’s Mercedes in third.

There was little in the way of action during the opening phase of the race, save for Nico Hulkenberg retiring his Renault with a suspected gearbox problem.

With a one stop strategy the only logical option, Max Verstappen and Valtteri Bottas were the first of the front runners to pit for super soft tyres. Raikkonen pitted soon after, allowing Vettel and Daniel Ricciardo clear air to attempt an overcut.

Staying out ultimately proved to be the right decision for Vettel, who was able to push hard enough to resume ahead of his team mate into the lead of the race. Ricciardo too took advantage of traffic for Bottas and Verstappen and was able to leapfrog both into the final podium position after he too pitted for super soft tyres.

Vettel pulled away from Raikkonen, until the Safety Car was deployed following an accident between Jenson Button and Pascal Wehrlein that left the Sauber driver propped up on its side against the Portier barrier.

The race resumed with 12 laps remaining, but despite Ricciardo making contact with the barrier at St Devote, there were no position changes in the top ten.

Vettel duly took the chequered flag ahead of his team mate and Ricciardo. Bottas led Verstappen home, ahead of Carlos Sainz and Lewis Hamilton. Romain Grosjean, Felipe Massa and Kevin Magnussen rounded out the points.

2017 Monaco Grand Prix reaction

    Check back shortly for more race reaction

160 comments on “Vettel leads Ferrari one-two in Monaco”

  1. I’m not a fan of Vettel, but I believe that he would have won the race whichever strategy he was given. Whether he was given Raikkonen’s strategy or his overcut one, his pace was far superior to Raikkonen, meaning that he would have won either way. In the first stint, you could tell that he was nursing the tyres, he was able to close in at will whenever he wanted. And his pace during those 5 laps I think supports that theory. Moreover, I think that Vettel is just quicker around here than KR this weekend in general. Over one lap in qualifying, KR had the better lap, giving him pole, but Vettel would probably have the better overall pace, which is why I predicted something like this to happen in the race, simply because Vettel would certainly be quicker. In the second stint, Raikkonen was nowhere near him, further providing evidence for that. People may blame Ferrari for favoring Vettel, but I think that Vettel would have won the race either way, and deserved it. People might argue that Vettel should have been brought in a lap after KR, but seriously, do you believe Vettel’s side of the garage would oblige? They also couldn’t have foreseen Vettel not being held back by traffic while Raikkonen would. Just give credit where credit is due. Brilliant pole from Raikkonen though, not taking that away from him. I think that the difference between him and Vettel today just showed how brilliant a lap it was yesterday to beat him.

    1. “I believe that he would have won the race whichever strategy he was given.”
      It’s a race, not a qualifying – pace doesn’t ive you anything if you don’t actually overtake the car ahead.

      1. @damon But you don’t need to overtake the car ahead to get ahead. Today’s race showed that. If Vettel was put on the SS before Raikkonen, given his pace on the first few laps of his second stint when he was over 1s a lap quicker than Raikkonen, we can say that Vettel would have undercut Raikkonen anyways. He was only 1s behind before Raikkonen pitted.

      2. @damon What he means is that even with the undercut, Seb would’ve been fast enough in clear air to jump his team mate during the pitstops.

        I have to say that even though Kimi dropped his pace rapidly before the pit stop, Vettel had tremendous luck with traffic, specially with Ericsson. He pitted juuuust as Seb was catching him, allowing more time with a clear view ahead. Kimi had Pascal ahead and that didn’t help at all. Without those variables, the result could’ve been different.

    2. Agree. Pitting Vettel first would have meant Vettel being ahead as well probably as he was much faster, and would have raised even more eyebrows.

    3. Vet was quicker I agree but old US were still better than new SS. Quite a few drivers showed that today. I’m going to stick with original theory of Ferrari engineering this win for Vettel.

      1. @ivan-vinitskyy Original theory. Pat Symonds who’s a convicted cheater put some sense on Croft and Brundle, it was no team orders.

      2. @ivan-vinitskyy May very well be true, but look at Red Bull. They did the same to Verstappen, and I don’t believe that they favor Ricciardo over him.

      3. I’m going to stick with original theory of Ferrari engineering this win for Vettel.

        What a load of unadultrated BS. If Ferrari had pitted Vettel first, he would have won by an even bigger margin and there is every likelihood that Ricciardo would have leapfrogged Kimi.

    4. @mashiat I agree. I think SKY is disgusting, Croft above all and even Brundle, and they laughed and giggled on top of it, they were a disgrace, and have turned many people against some witch hunt. Fake news. Ferrari raced today, they didn’t do a Bottas/Hamilton in Bahrain. Ferrari just pitted Raikkonen after Ver and Bot to ensure track position and possibly the win, but both Seb and Ricciardo who stayed out managed great pace and the both might’ve leapfrogged Raikkonen. Ferrari couldn’t pit Seb before Raikkonen for the risk of not clearing Sainz, and if so waiting too long for the pit stop of the leader, getting the first pit stop to Vettel and preferred pit stop could have favoured Vettel, not to mention it was all traffic dependent.
      It was clear after about 8 laps, Raikkonen started to struggle with his rears, I don’t know if Raikkonens poor pace is related to the much higher temperatures today but Ferrari took the normal strategy, somehow though Vettel made the overcut. I’m gutted I have a soft spot for Raikkonen but he didn’t had the pace to keep the lead after the pitstop.

      1. Completely agree, shocked by Sky’s commentary today. even Christian Horner confirming that Vettel would have won in any situation, under- or overcut. Vettel was simply faster.

      2. Classifying giggling as a ‘disgrace’ and ‘disgusting’ is a bit of an overreaction.

        1. It wasn’t just a case of them giggling, it was their blatant attack on the Ferrari strategy for a number of laps after they realised that Seb had managed to ‘pass’ Raikonnen. Not only did this take away from Seb’s superb pace (and Ricardo as well really) after Raikkonen made his stop.

    5. (@mashiat)
      Everyone knows Ferrari openly have a 1-2 driver status. That’s why they kept Kimi on (who’s long past his best) to not be a threat to Vettel, a driver who had just got slaughtered by Ricciardo.

      They always give Kimi worse strategy, just today it was a bit more blatant and sickening.

      1. Let’s not forget that 1 lap earlier, the undercut basically worked with Verstappen and Bottas, with Verstappen set to rejoin ahead of Bottas if not for his slow stop. So the evidence was suggesting that the undercut would work, so you can’t really blame Ferrari, as they put Raikkonen on what looked like the better strategy at the time. Fact of the matter is, Vettel was so much quicker than Raikkonen, he would have gone past with either the undercut or the overcut. And if Ferrari used the undercut on Vettel, what would Raikkonen fans be thinking now? From your comment, you seem to suggest that Ferrari should have pitted Vettel first. Now THAT would be blatant and sickening. Raikkonen was simply too slow and did not deserve this win.

  2. Also, are we currently on a 3 race streak (for Monaco) of the 2nd placed person being incredibly unhappy?

    1. No. Vettel in 2015 looked happier than the winner Rosberg if anything.

      1. @david-a Sorry, forgot that LH finished 3rd that year. Let’s say that for the 3rd consecutive year, the podium contained a very unhappy person. Maybe even 4 since Lewis wasn’t very happy in 2014 after qualifying.

    2. @mashiat
      4th if you include Hamilton in 2014.

  3. I’m still very disappointed about the way it played out for Max. He was stuck behind BOT al race and his team gave him a slow pit stop while they attempted to undercut him.

    RIC was the 3rd guy that lucked into the podium.

    1. @anunaki Red Bull did not ‘give’ VES a slow pitstop, and RIC did not ‘luck’ into the podium. If anything RIC deserved it more than either Bottas or Verstappen as his few laps in clean air were way faster than anything any of the three had managed before.

      1. well Max lost 0,7 seconds in the pit stop to BOT. And he didn’t get any laps at all in free air during the race because he was stuck behind BOT. Well, you could argue he got 1 on his brand new SS tyres.

        The call to get him in to undercut BOT could’ve worked if the pit stop was spot on.

        Because this wasn’t the case RIC was able to close the gap to BOT in free air.

        It’s not really fair to assume Max wouldn’t have been able tot go as fast as RIC. He was faster al weekend

        1. @xtwl

          What Patrick said.

          I’d also like to add Red Bull’s strategy made no sense as they knew Verstappen would get stuck behind Sainz even if he had jumped Bottas with the undercut. They should have waited with the stop until Sainz had been cleared. But I suppose they wanted 3rd place more than they wanted to give Verstappen a logical strategy.
          If they had cleared Sainz and failed to undercut Bottas with Verstappen than Ricciardo wouldn’t have had any chance whatsoever to do the overcut.

          1. Red Bull used Verstappen to make Bottas pit, so Ricciardo would get into clean air. In the end it paid off for them, only not for Verstappen, also because his stop was slower than Bottas’.

        2. Max lost time because his car wasnt properly aligned in the box, pit guys had to readjust!

  4. Sviatoslav (@)
    28th May 2017, 14:45

    This is why I hate Ferrari.

    1. @sviat Indeed, terrible smh.

    2. What Red Bull do today between Riccardo and Verstappen Pits?
      Same strategy of Ferrari !!!

      1. Exactly. If Ferrari deliberately swapped their drivers around, so did Red Bull.

    3. The faster guy won and that hurts you.

      1. This and only this

    4. You hate them for not doing team orders?

      1. I guess that person wanted them to order Vettel to stay behind lol. He must hate Red Bull for doing the same strategy too.

        1. ResultantAsteroid
          28th May 2017, 23:13

          +1

    5. idiot talking

  5. Monaco needs to be scrapped of the calendar, boring race.

    1. Was thinking something similar today but no. My thinking is practice and quali are better entertainment value than the race. Not sure what can be done to make the race better. Unless it’s wet its always this short on overtakes.

    2. @revelations Then just don’t watch it.

      I love Monaco, One of my favorite circuits/races of the season.

      1. @stefmeister Why should i not watch it ?, i need to to come to my conclussion right ?.

      2. @stefmeister imagine going into a restaurant to order food and your food comes cold and bland. You complain to the chef and he simply says, “if you dont like, then just dont eat it.”

        She’s not insulting Monaco for the sake of insults. She’s criticising it to try to improve the sport she loves; constructive criticism. If you disagree with her, fine, say that, but dont be so passive-aggressive about it.

        1. @revelations @stefmeister @smartez If we got rid of every track that was complained about by someone we’d have none left. Monaco is one of my favourite tracks but that doesn’t mean I want all tracks like that.

          The perfect calendar should have a variety of tracks from Monaco to Monza to Austria to Baku so there’s something different for every car, Driver and fan.

        2. Spa needs to be scrapped of the calendar. As a spectator you only see the cars some 40+ times.

      3. @stefmeister, I too like Monaco, traditionally it’s not full of overtaking but full of close racing with cars being constantly harried to produce mistakes, but with high deg tyres and high downforce dependent cars it has succumbed to the malaise of tyre management/pitstop strategy racing. How much more exciting may it have been if run on harder tyres with no mandatory pit stop ?

    3. Maybe hit some more of that 420 before watching next year.

  6. Ferrari obviously wanted Vettel to win unlike everyone else. But truth be told Vettel was SO MUCH faster on the supersofts. Ferrari avoided team-orders rather smoothly.

  7. I think Ferrari just showed a deft play of strategy to hand it to Seb. Its an unpopular win with most Kimi fans as on track I am pretty sure Seb couldn’t have made it onto to top spot.

    1. Absolute tosh

    2. Agreed. Given the sophisticated systems Ferrari employs, they would have been entirely aware of where Kimi would filter out – behind Button and Wehrlein, who proved difficult enough to lap first time around. The Red Sea parted for Seb Vettel and he was then given two extra laps on the quick US tyre to cement his advantage. I understand why Ferrari did it, given Vettel’s place in the championship, but Raikkonen drove beautifully all weekend and was not justly rewarded.

    3. ‘Hand it to him’ bwahaha. Stop watching F1 please

  8. It’s so easy for fans to criticise what Ferrari intentionally or unintentially did. But I’m sorry, Kimi is not a championship contender. He never has been for a few years. Hamilton was out of position and Vettel needed to capitalise. Vettel is the championship contender, he’s the one versing Hamilton, not Raikkonen. Whether you like that or not, stats dont lie.

    I dont like what Ferrari did if it was intentional but I wouldve done the same, and if you had any sense you wouldve done the same. If you wouldnt, thats how championships are lost. Sorry but I’m not sorry. Kimi is not fast enough, so get out of the way.

    1. if its all about the championship then get in that car someone capable of being a championship contender and double your chances. If they don’t, and keep Kimi then don’t sabotage him with inferior strategy. He may have been slower today but its the strategy that lost him the win.

      1. Ferrari dont do that for the same reason Mercedes havent done it this year; two drivers in the same team capable for the championship is usually disastrous. Look at how Hamilton and Rosberg ended up. Ferrari want one great driver for the championship, and another to help out enough for the constructors, and that’s what they got

        1. You’re asking me to have a look? go look yourself… no one got even close to points of Ham and Ros. When Ham had a day off Ros could be counted on and vice versa. Taking away Merc advantage that’s still a stronger team than what Ferrari had the past 3 years.

          1. no one got even close to points of Ham and Ros. When Ham had a day off Ros could be counted on and vice versa.

            Yes, I’m sure that was all down to what exceptional drivers Hamilton and Rosberg are and had nothing to do with the fact that they were driving the most dominant cars ever seen in F1.

            Hamilton’s the exact same driver now he was in 2014-1016. The only difference is he’s in a competitive but no longer dominant car.

          2. I find it easier to ignore Ivan

      2. Kimi would have lost regardless. If Vettel had been given the first stop the outrage would have been massive as Raikkonen was the leading car. Ferrari did the best they could.
        If you want to blame someone blame Raikkonen for not pulling away from Vettel when he had the chance. That would have secured him the win.

        1. Exactly what I was thinking. Kimi had his chance to pull away but he never did.

    2. “It’s so easy for fans to criticise what Ferrari intentionally or unintentially did.”

      No, it isn’t. It takes some real self-deception and bias for people to complain about what Ferrari did, when what they did was to simply let their two drivers race.

      1. Your discussing something that never happened

    3. I like Kimi and wanted him to win today but if I was in charge of Ferrari, I would have made 100% sure that Vettel won. Team orders are legal and a part of the sport. I wish they weren’t but until recently, the sport didn’t care what I (fans in general) thought.

      We’ll always have this issue though because some feel F1 is a competition where 20 drivers race against each other and some feel F1 is a competition where 10 teams race against each other.

  9. If Raikonnen wanted to win, he should have gone faster in the first stint, plain and simple. Since he couldn’t build a gap, he lost.

    1. nonesense. They let Vettel 5 laps longer out on a tyre that is approx. 0,7 per lap faster than the one Kimi got. Plus Kimi was in traffic after his stop. The same thing happened with Bottas, Verstappen, Ricciardo. Ricciardo coming out on top. VER on the radio: “What a *** disaster” Overcut strategy was the one to go today… Kimi would’ve won the race easily if Seb pitted before him or 1/2 laps after him.

      1. You forget the leader has 1st choice on pits? You forget Kimi was ASKING to come in? You forget his lap time was sucking? Please…

        1. Kimi asked that when to box and they just said box box..He did not apply that box me immediately..they just boxed him and let seb go on doing extra lap..kimi was only loosing because of back markers otherwise it would not have been like this.. And when he came out he was behind traffic and lost valuable time. After that when came out it was clear there was no way he could win. They played their overcut very cleverly. No doubt kimi was so disappointed. Kimi pit stop was also slow 3.1 sec to vettels 3.4 sec.

      2. All I’m hearing is “Kimi was so slow today that Ferrari would have needed to intentionally sabotage Vettel’s race to give him a chance to win.”

        The one in front has the choice of pit stop timing. Verstappen’s race wasn’t ruined because of under or overcut but because he got stuck behind Bottas due to a slow stop, otherwise he could have done the same pace as Ricciardo.

        Besides, with Kimi’s pace today Vettel could have stopped first and he probably would still ended up in front, traffic and all.

      3. Don’t forget the diffrence between seb and kimi in the 1st stint and then in the second one. Seb bascially took off… Kimi simply wasn’t able to keep up. He was practically backing up seb in the first place… Right into the hands of Bottas. Sky said “they’ve told kimi to step on with it…”

    2. Exactly!if he had built a 5 sec gap he would have won with any strategy.

  10. On team radio Raikkonen asked if Ferrari were going to pit him this lap. That doesn’t mean he asked for the stop like Chandhok said, more likely it was the team. Also he came out in lapped traffic which Ferrari obviously knew would happen. Meanwhile Vettel was flying in clean air.
    I honestly don’t know what was actually intended by Ferrari in the single most crucial point of the race.

    1. And I was watching the C4 coverage btw, not Sky

    2. Raikkonen was in clean air before his stop and couldn’t go as fast as Vettel could afterwards. I know people wanted Kimi to win but Seb was so much faster today, it wasn’t even close.

      1. What’s the point of going faster before the stop? Do you think there is anything to gain other than wear out your tires and leaving your self vulnerable? Do you think Vettel had the same reasons to go faster?

        1. “What’s the point of going faster before the stop? ”

          To build a gap?

        2. What’s the point of going faster before the stop?

          Opening up a gap to the guy behind you so you don’t get jumped in the pit stops? The only way Kimi could have won this race was if Ferrari had ordered Seb to let Kimi win.

        3. To build up a buffer so Vettel could not over/undercut him, obviously.

          I mean seriously, “leaving yourself vulnarable”? Monaco is a racetrack where people can have a 4 second per lap better pace and STILL not overtake. Vettel would never have been able to pass Kimi on track, no matter what Raikkonen did. The only place Kimi could lose place was in the pits, so if he would have been able to build a gap, he would have.

        4. @ivan-vinitskyy

          What’s the point of going faster before the stop?

          To prevent an overcut.

      2. Vettel was not in clear air. He was onto the back of Ericsson almost immediately, and just got lucky that Ericsson pitted just when Vettel started losing some time.

        1. @mike-dee THIS +1000

          Everyone seems to have forgotten that both Ferraris were catching Ericsson which risked both losing track position to the Bottas/Verstappen fight. It made sense to pit Kimi at the time as he was losing massive amounts of time whenever he approached back markers. Seb to a large extent got lucky that Ericsson pitted as he caught him enabling him to put in the laps to overcut Kimi.

    3. Then he could have done what VET did on other races, keep pushing

  11. javier javier
    28th May 2017, 15:00

    Haha, Christian horner…. Ferrari didn’t do wrong… Undercut or overcut… Vettel would have won.. the pace was too great

  12. Of course Vettel was super fast when it counted.
    But the SS took it long to heat up. So it was obvious that the Ferrari that stayed longer would win.
    Ferrari gave a big help to Seb. Kimi returned to the circuit behind backmarkers. Ferrari couldn’t see that?

    1. You should work on the pitwall

      1. I would a better job as Raikkonen strategist.

        1. Would you make him quicker in traffic?

        2. “Then Vettel opened a 12 second gap…” I’ll just leave that here

  13. I’ve never seen anyone as close to tears as Raikkonen. That 2d place must have hurt a lot!

  14. Why is monaco called as the “most prestigious race in formula one” when there are many other great circuits?

    1. Monaco is like a celebrity who is known for… being a celebrity.

      1. Michal (@michal2009b)
        28th May 2017, 15:18

        @damon
        Monaco is hailed as the greatest race because of celebrities indeed, not because of racing. Dry Monaco race is nothing special.

      2. TIL I learned Monaco is a Kardashian.

    2. I think people like you need to have a go in, say, an f4 car on this track and imagine what it’s like to do 78 laps in a car with 6 times the power.

      Than come back to me and say the track is nothing special.

      I understand it can be boring to watch as this is a race between the best drivers in the world who rarely make a mistake so overtakes just don’t happen often. But to say the race is nothing special is simply quite retarded.

      1. The onboards were great this year at Monaco.
        So fast! it was making me dizzy.
        Wasn’t it Piquet that said racing at Monaco is like racing a bicycle around your living room.

      2. It’s exciting to watch the cars during quali but it’s not that in the race. Personally i would love if the drivers have an oppurtunity to pass a slower car in front. Otherwise its like watching wrc, to see how drivers tackle the challenging narrow circuit.

  15. Basically Ferrari couldn’t let Raikkonen win one little race. Yes Vettel was faster and will be their main title challenger, but, you know, karma etc. The points Vettel would have lost by Ferrari letting Raikkonen win after his pole can be lost in many worse ways. Did they weight the cost of denting Raikkonen’s enthusiasm to help Vettel and the team later?

    1. Raikkonen didn’t deserve it. Wasn’t quick enough.

  16. Tinfoil hat anyone?
    Gutted for Kimi but to say Ferrari intended it?

    Red Bull made the same mistake with Max.
    Or was it fixed to get Ricciardo in front of Bottas and Max with Max losing out on two places?

    1. Are you saying Spain 2016 was fixed too lol? But in Raikkonen’s and Verstappen’s favour.

      1. Sarcasm is hard to notice when your writing something. All I’m saying is that people are going to blame Ferrari for screwing Kimi while that might not be the case.

        Point is people are now crying team orders from Ferrari while they (might) did nothing wrong. RB made the same mistake with Max and I’m pretty sure they didn’t wanted to make him lose out to Dani by that much.

      2. Everyone seems to forget that RIC had a DNF in Spain 2016

        1. Ric actually finished 4th in Spain 2016.

  17. Michal (@michal2009b)
    28th May 2017, 15:13

    It was fair. Seb was just so much faster, looking at his pace after the stops and after the SC. He well could have go for an undercut and then it will be even more crying.

  18. The only way people would not hint at team orders is if Kimi had pitted on lap 76, and Vettel on 77. Otherwise it would always be ‘unfair’ according to some,…

    @smartez says it like it is, Vettel is their championship contender, and the amount of time Vettel has spent behind Kimi in Sochi, or here, proves they are not using team orders unlike Mercedes in Bahrein.

    1. The same people acting outraged (at Ferrari not using team orders) are the ones who never saw anything wrong with Mercedes using team orders to advantage Hamilton. In fact they’re the ones demanding that Mercedes use team orders to advantage Hamilton!

      The word “controversy’ may as well be defined as “whatever result the press don’t like”.

    2. @xtwl It’s funny because if Vettel had pitted first, cut through the traffic and manged to get out in front of Kimi, people would be screaming “team orders!!!!” :D

  19. Clutching at straws. Vettel was just faster. Of the top teams only Merc have inforced blatant team orders this year. Merc have also gained a large number of points over Ferrari this year due to lucky safety car timings. Over the balance of the year hopefully this evens out as Vettel should be 40 points plus ahead of Hamilton so far, sadly only 25 points in front.

  20. I think this will do one of two things for Kimi. Either it will light a fire under him and we will see something great, or it will deflate him and he will ride off into the sunset after this year.

    I tend to see it deflating him, simply because he is at a disadvantage within the team being the secondary driver.

    1. He’s at a disadvantage in the team due to being the slower driver, not because he has any status as “the secondary driver”.

      Unlike Bottas, who really does have “secondary driver” status at Mercedes in spite of the fact that overall he’s looked as quick as Hamilton so far.

      1. bottas doesnt have secondary status…he’s just been too slow in some races.
        just because your quick in quali,doesnt mean you’ll be quick in the race.even today he was lacking pace in the race compared to redbull and ferrari.

        1. @matt i noticed that too about bottas pace this race

        2. “bottas doesnt have secondary status”

          There’s a thousand times more evidence that Bottas has secondary status at Mercedes than that Kimi has that status at Ferrari. All you have to do is pay attention to the actual races rather than the press accounts of the races.

        3. @matt

          bottas doesnt have secondary status…he’s just been too slow in some races.
          just because your quick in quali,doesnt mean you’ll be quick in the race.even today he was lacking pace in the race compared to redbull and ferrari.

          And yet somehow this statement isn’t true when applied to Ferrari!

  21. How do we get the fool “Crofty” off the Sky commentary team? He is just such an idiot with conspiracy theories, his constant licking of Hamilton’s race boots, and his phony excitement when a car comes within DRS range of another.

    1. examples of crofty licking hamiltons race boots?
      crofty definitely isnt much of a lewis fan.
      when button and lewis were team mates,crofty admitted to being more of a button fan.

    2. Crofty is needed by Sky to be the excitable & enthusiastic member of the commentary team, just like good old Murray in the past. The other side is the calm & knowledgable voice of Brundle. I believe it’s all part of a cunning scheme by Sky to make the commentary more “interesting” for the viewers.

      1. @rinodina – But that’s the problem – it sounds fake and if it’s true that Sky have asked him to act like that, it is! Crofty keeps shouting “ooohhh is he going up the inside!??!!?? Oh no” when nothing is really happening or there are double waved yellows (ie today when Vandoorne was being craned off the track).

        Murray wasn’t told to be excitable or to make the show more interesting – he was just being himself and it came across like that.

        1. Ben Edwards is better. As a Canadian viewer I have to watch the Sky feed on my sports channel.

        2. I always get the impression at the start of each GP someone presses the “Crofty” button to put him into action, and he starts his excited rant about all those cars trying to taking the first corner side by side. ;)

  22. Kudos to Vettel, his pace was superior compared to Kimi. I don’t believe in conspiracy theories here. Kimi could’ve built the gap he needed in the early part of the race if he had the pace, but he simply couldn’t deliver. Faster of the two won, and that’s it.

    On towards Canada.

    1. Your way of thought is stupid. How do you know for a fact that on the US tires Kimi did not have more in hand? I guess you could not see he was nursing his tires till time to push when pit stop is close, but traffic hurt his tires and he didn’t get the message “push now” with his stop imminent. Ferrari favored Vettel so the optimum strategy was meant for him. Also I see that you did not see Kimi’s body language after the race, Ferrari screwed him…Kimi had PLENTY of pace left in his tires but wasn’t given the opportunity that Vettel was to push now.

      1. @scuderia_fan85 Kimi is so experienced he doesn’t need to be told when it’s time to push. I’m sure he took all out of US in first stint. He doesn’t need his racing engineering to tell him to do so, especially when Vettel was looming in his mirrors all the time. It’s true Vettel had better luck with the traffic, but traffic didn’t play any role in 2nd part of the race yet Vettel was ~1s per lap quicker than Kimi with SS.

        I’m through and through Kimi fan and still think he has more raw speed than anyone else when he gets the car to his liking. But it doesn’t hurt my pride to accept facts, and today Vettel deserved to win.

        1. When you are told to pit going through sector two, I am sure he would of wanted to have two or three laps to push and open up the gap again. That is all I am saying, I know he could of done that. Maybe he turned off on the SS and said to hell with it, it is pretty demoralizing to be treated so unfairly and have a win taken away from you.

          1. Than he should have told the team he could stay out and push harder to open a gap to Vettel.
            He didn’t.

      2. “Kimi had PLENTY of pace left in his tires but wasn’t given the opportunity that Vettel was to push now.”

        Yeah, sure /s

    2. @huhhii Great post mate. I know you are a Kimi fan and these words coming from you is refreshing to hear.

      1. @evered7 Thanks :) I’m a Kimi believer and I’d be among the first people to bash Ferrari if their strategy to Kimi would’ve been wrong or unfair in any way. Today Ferrari did nothing wrong at any part of the race and I’m amused so many people are seeing a conspiracy or team order here.

    3. @huhhii
      I think it was wrong move. I can see Kimi was not as fast as Vettel today and you can argue that Kimi should build the gap but they just need to pit Vettel one lap after and let Kimi win to lift his spirit not destroyed him like that. They will still got to lead championship points after so many years. Ferrari need Kimi more than ever in WCC battle.

      1. @ruliemaulana “they just need to pit Vettel one lap after and let Kimi win to lift his spirit”
        It looked like Vettel got more life out of US tires. I don’t see the point of intentionally pit Vettel too early and slow him down just to help Kimi boost his morale. This was F1 Grand Prix, not a charity event.

      2. So you’re arguing that Ferrari should have gifted Kimi a win which his own driving did not deserve.

        Bottas has been on the losing end of team orders by Mercedes several times in the first six GP’s. I don’t see anybody worrying about whether his spirit is being destroyed.

  23. Kimi probably left speechless at the presentation by seeing how slow he was compared to Vettel in the race in the same car. He got the pole fair and square but after the first few laps, he was barely moving forward and lost a lot especially behind Button. Allowed Bottas to close in along with the train he was leading.

    That fastest lap of 1:15.2 was it, was proof how much Vettel had in his hands. Didn’t look like Kimi could go any faster in the race in the first stint. Then came the pace after the pit stop, Vettel was sometimes a second faster than Kimi.

    The fastest car won the race. Well played Ferrari for not trying the switcheroo or asking Kimi to make way for the championship leader.

    1. You know nothing about nursing tires till the pit stop. They had a target lap number but didn’t seem to let Kimi know to push now before he pitted, in fact I think he was told to pit when he was somewhere in sector two while Vettel had two laps to push at maximum. It was just another case of favoring Vettel.

      Look at the fact the Kimi opened up the gap to 2+ seconds until hit with traffic and maybe that killed his tires, who knows. But Ferrari chose not to give him the same strategy and chance as Vettel.

      1. “Look at the fact the Kimi opened up the gap to 2+ seconds until hit with traffic ”

        Really?

      2. You’re mad at the outcome, not at the strategy. They did not favor Vettel here or at any other time this season.

        I recall this same nonsense when Vettel drove for Red Bull. In one race Webber would be pitted first and Vettel would win. “They favored Vettel!”, would be the cry.

        In the next race they’d pit Vettel first and Vettel would win. “They favored Vettel” would still be the cry. The lack of fairness and sportsmanship among F1 fans is simply appalling.

      3. Kimi was in clear air all the while. Still didn’t manage to open any sort of gap to Vettel. The pace after the pitstop also proved what was clear as daylight. Vettel simply had more in hand on race day. Maybe it is old age that is hampering Kimi. But after three years, I don’t think he wouldn’t have known that he is the rear gunner.

        If Ferrari manage to open a gap, there will be a win for Kimi later in the season. If he doesn’t like doing this, maybe he should retire.

        I have supported Kimi when many said he was having a poor season, but he needs to understand his reality.

      4. So kimi behind another car for 1 or 2 laps (traffic) is killing his tires but Vettel behind a car for 15-20laps (kimi) is not killing is tires?

        Vettel was just much faster…

      5. Did RAI really “build” a 2+ sec gap or did VET just drop back to look after his tires? A few laps before the pit-stops started, VET had closed within 1 sec of RAI who was doing 1.17s. In clear air. RIC was doing 1.16s in clean air and then VET started doing 1.15s. And RAI needed to push and do low 1.16s so he can come out in front of Sainz. He couldn’t and I agree with Horner: VET was faster and would’ve won regardless of strategy.

  24. Vettel deserved to win this because he was significantly faster. Of course Ferrari opened the door a little but Vettel earned the lead.. No question about it.

    Consider these facts:

    – Kimi’s pace was falling off just before he was called in and he was starting to back Vettel up against a charging Ricciardo, who everyone knows is very good on this track.
    – That strategy was proven right when Vettel started lapping nearly a second faster than before once he was released.
    – Ferrari’s thinking was proved right for once because after a blistering pre-stop stint, Ricciardo leapfrogged Mad Max and Bottas.
    – If they had left Kimi out longer and called Vettel in first, the latter would have been even further ahead (considering his superior pace with the SS tyres) and there was the real danger that Ricciardo would have undercut Kimi into third place.

    Ferrari were in a no-win situation here with the critics. No matter which way they did it, 2-faced hypocrites like Brundle would have cried wolf. Notice Brundle’s completely different comments when Merc ordered Bottas to let Hamilton through before. At least Ferrari made sure that Vettel had to work hard to earn the lead.

    1. The eye-popping hypocrisy of the British F1 press (and a section of the Hamilton fan base) is really something to behold.

  25. Shahryar Ai
    28th May 2017, 15:59

    Ferrari did favor Vettel. There is no doubt on that. BUT Raikkonen could have avoided it by being more aggressive before pitting. Had Ferrari not favored Vettel, Kimi would’ve have won but marginally. Vettel is a faster driver hence the luck and the team favors him. Unfortunately for Raikkonen, he has to do much better and more importantly do it consistently to get equal treatment.

    1. How is giving the leading driver the first pit stop – which is the normal strategy – “favoring” the trailing driver?

    2. Had Ferrari not favored Vettel, Kimi would’ve have won but marginally

      How exactly did Ferrari “favour” Vettel? It is normal form to call the leading driver in the team first for the tyre change. The team did it at a time when Kimi’s pace was clearly dipping and Vettel was being forced back onto the other three behind. So, they did the right thing in calling Kimi first and considering that Vettel put up a blistering charge after that shows that he had pace in reserve. Ferrari did not tell Kimi that “Vettel is faster than you” even though that was actually true. They gave both men the chance and it was Vettel who made the better of it.

      Kimi certainly would not have won if they had called Vettel in first. That would have resulted in Ricciardo closing even more and maybe even leapfrogging Kimi after the stops. Vettel on the other hand was significantly faster on the SS tyres and would have gone onto win. But a lot of people would then have said what you are now saying – that Ferrari favoured Vettel, which they didn’t.

      1. Shahryar Ali
        28th May 2017, 19:02

        I was 100 percent sure, Raikkonen was going to loose if he pits first. It is not always better to pit first.strategic advantage is not always the undercut. That’s why there is a term called overcut. It was always going to work in those circumstances. When your teammate is catching you because you are stuck in traffic and your team calls you to box releasing the faster driver to put hot laps, you will loose. Didn’t Ferrari know Kimi will come back in taffic? Surely they did. Vettel was a better driver today and he deserves this win but Ferrari did open the door to maximize it. I still feel Raikkonen should have won because he was on pole and in Monaco, races are won on Saturday and without Ferrari favoring vettel, Raikkonen would have won.

        1. “When your teammate is catching you because you are stuck in traffic and your team calls you to box releasing the faster driver to put hot laps”

          So Vettel was right behind Kimi only because Kimi was “stuck in traffic”, but as soon as Kimi pits, Seb is magically in clean air? Did that traffic Kimi was stuck behind all vanish? And you do realize you acknowledged that Vettel was “the faster driver”?

    3. I think the traffic the Ferraris encountered prior to Kimis pit-stop hurt him. They were held up badly and probably lost the temperature in the tyres. That allowed Bottas and Verstappen to be right on their tail thus making the threat of an undercut a real threat. Bottas was 7 seconds behind Raikkonen some laps earlier, suddenly the gap was down to 3-4 seconds.

      It didn’t look like Raikkonen was able to increase his speed again on the US-tyres so Ferrari had to counter the threat of an undercut by Bottas and Verstappen.
      In the meantime Vettel had been able to get his tyres back into the temperature window and was able to produce some great laps for the overcut.

      If Raikkonen had been able to up his pace when Bottas pitted they would have left him out on track. But when he wasn’t both he and Vettel were suddenly in danger of falling victim to the undercut. If they hadn’t pitted Raikkonen on lap 34 they would have pitted Vettel on that lap to counter Bottas/Verstappen. With the pace advantage Vettel had today the result would have been the same.
      Tough to admit for a long-standing Raikkonen fan, but sometimes things are just straight forward!

  26. Being a Kimi fan for 12 years now and having little sympathy for Seb other than being a Ferrari driver, I’d still say Vettel won this on pace. We’re forgetting we’re dealing with Ferrari here, who have screwed Raikkonen and Massa much harder with strategy over the years, so this probably was unintentional, as they usually can’t even intentionally get an undercut to work.

    1. That being said, I am happy with this 1-2 as a Ferrari fan. But I’ve become so cynical of the team we need to be beyond the British GP and still firmly in the lead before I’ll even believe that “Ferrari is back”.

  27. Had Mercedes done that today this place would filled with name calling.
    But hey, Mercedes never gave the better strategy for the guy behind when Ham/Ros were racing. Unless the first position was secure.

    Ferrai strategy was perfect. They got what they wanted and left everyone guessing.
    They pitted Raikkonen early without really telling him to push (i assume, we don’t got the radio), put him back some cars and then Vettel with free air made his magic (kudos to him on that). Perfect result and the Ferrari army defending them. Raikkonen said he gave up after the stop, so the gap on the second part of the race doesn’t tell anything.
    Or not and i am very wrong.

    The only thing is certain is that they gave the driver behind a great chance to win.

    1. We don’t get the team radio, so it’s nothing but assumption on your part. So, invalid.

      Red Bull did the same strategy as Ferrari in this race and looking at the race between Bottas and Verstappen you can see they didn’t know whether undercut/overcut would work either. Seeing as no one’s baying for blood when it comes to Red Bull strategy in this race, who knows if there’d be name calling with Mercedes either. Well, to be fair Verstappen was pretty upset and questioned team strategy. But I guess he’s forgotten Spain 2016 (his first win) seeing as Verstappen/Raikkonen got the better strategy there and jumped Ricciardo/Vettel that day.

      1. Everyone seems to forget that RIC had a DNF in Spain 2016

        1. No he didn’t Mike, he finished fourth, as you’ve already been told. Why are you repeatedly making things up?

  28. Neil (@neilosjames)
    28th May 2017, 17:40

    I’m not really sure either way… but I’m leaning towards it being a screw-over, or at the very least an attempt to provide Vettel with the best possible opportunity at Raikkonen’s expense. I feel that way purely because Raikkonen was deliberately dropped into lapped traffic, which Ferrari knew was there. They’d never have done that if the car in second was a Mercedes or Red Bull.

    The lapped traffic cost Raikkonen the lead, not Vettel’s pace. His out-lap, during which he passed the two cars, was a 1:19.518 – 1.2 seconds slower than Verstappen’s out lap (someone we’d expect to have been a little slower). The team knew the traffic was there, and that he’d lose time passing it, and couldn’t have timed it worse. With a normal-speed out-lap, he’d have just edged ahead of Vettel because his (Raikkonen’s) pace was good after that. I think so, anyway, if you look at their positions after Vettel’s stop.

    The only alternative is that Ferrari are strategically inept and failed to notice Button and Wehrlein were there… but Raikkonen’s demeanour post-race tells me they’re probably not.

    But I suppose we’ll all have our own views. The only people who know for sure are sat in a red motorhome, and they’re happy with their 1-2 whichever version is true…

  29. RIC gets handed a podium .. again.

    Well done to Sainz.

  30. People who keep saying Ferrari was unfair to Kimi for not giving him a couple of laps to “push” are forgetting that he was responding to Bottas who was responding to Verstappen. Kimi lost it by not closing within 1 second quickly on Jenson. That’s really on him.

    As other’s have said, Vettel won on pace.

  31. This race it was hard to say Ferrari set up Vettel to win. But one thing I know is that you dont want to come out in traffic when fighting for position, more so in a place like Monaco. Seeing that Mercedes, did the same thing, one can excuse Ferrari.

  32. Ayesha khan
    28th May 2017, 19:29

    Sebu… you won the race and proved your d best…. congrats

  33. Yes Vetel, go boi! Felt sorry for Kimi, would have liked for him to win. Disgusting commentary about Ferrari conspiracy theories, shame on you and shame on anyone who believes and repeats these lies.

  34. Read this. If this is not a classical case of the Pot & Kettle analogy, I do not know what else is.

    http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/129828

    I never has much respect for Hamilton, but this proves that he is both hypocritical and stupid. No one with any self-respect would have said this load of crap especially after what happened in Spain.

    1. @loup-garou – Wow I was about to defend Lewis having read the first half of the article… I think Ferrari do favour Vettel and they should because he’s faster than Kimi! Hamilton didn’t say anything that was wrong…..

      Then I carried on reading and got to the part where he said Mercedes don’t favour him over Bottas!!! :D:D:D

  35. so many silly sausages on here. Kimi would have lost even if he had pitted after Vettel (imagine the uproar of the Kimi fangirls if that situation played out and Vettel pitted earlier). Stop crying.

    1. Kimi would have lost even if he had pitted after Vettel

      That is the simple fact that so many are refusing to accept. In fact, if Ferrai had not pitted Kimi when they did, he would probably have ended the race 3rd behind Vettel and Ricciardo.

      Kimi was losing pace in the US tyres at a time when Ricciardo was making his pre stop attack; likewise, Vettel made his pre-stop fast laps to gain advantage after KIMi made his stop. Then Kimi was slower than both those drivers on Supersofts.

  36. Why dint Ferrari pit Vettel straight after Kimi next lap? Most teams do that Vet was under no threat from behind not like he had stay out. Diff with Ric as they wanted pass a competitor. Ferrari basically put Kimi into traffic and then let Seb keep going. Any time Rosberg and Hamilton were out front they always gave priority to first guy and other guy was straight in. I can count it on one hand the amount of times Merc let them do something diff. Was Vet faster? Sure he was but Ferrari would have had a 1-2 the other way round so they would had same constructor points. Also laughable the people say Merc done anything wrong Bottas could not go forward in Spain so was teamwork and Bahrain would have been passed anyway if anything they should have done it sooner cost Ham a win same with Vet in China with Kimi. Ferrari were trying to be smart they were racing there own driver today, sad….

    How about give a boost to the number 2 that he can win a race it would help morale. Vet really does demolish these past there prime drivers dont he. Give him someone his own age

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.