Belgian GP Thread - Containing Spoilers of Race & Qualifying

[Fernando]

First topic message reminder :

The 2014 Belgian GP preview: Everything you need to know about this weekend's race!
The F1 action resumes after the summer break at the legendary Spa-Francorchamps circuit.
So read on below as Sky Sports Online provides your one-stop shop for everything you need to know about the grand prix weekend.

The 2014 Belgian GP in a nutshell
Track: Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps. Permanent circuit.
Race start time: 1pm UK time Sunday (2pm local).
Laps: 44.
Track length: 7.004 km.
Tyre allocation: Medium (white) and soft (yellow). 
DRS Zones: Two with separate detection points – pit straight and Kemmel Straight.
Driver steward: TBA.
Lap record: Sebastian Vettel - 1:47.263 (Red Bull; 2009).
2013 pole: Lewis Hamilton - 2:01.012 (Mercedes).
Form guide
Kimi Raikkonen is the most successful of the current drivers in Belgium, having won the race on four occasions. However, he still trails Michael Schumacher who is out in front with six victories.
Sebastian Vettel is the only other multiple winner amongst those on the 2014 grid having stood atop the podium in 2011 and 2013.
2013 result: 1. Sebastian Vettel (Red Bull); 2. Fernando Alonso (Ferrari); 3. Lewis Hamilton (Mercedes); 4. Nico Rosberg (Mercedes); 5. Mark Webber (Red Bull); 6. Jenson Button (McLaren); 7. Felipe Massa (Ferrari); 8. Romain Grosjean (Lotus); 9. Adrian Sutil (Force India); 10. Daniel Ricciardo (Toro Rosso).
Last five winners in Belgium: 2013: Sebastian Vettel (Red Bull); 2012: Jenson Button (McLaren); 2011: Sebastian Vettel (Red Bull); 2010: Lewis Hamilton (McLaren); 2009: Kimi Raikkonen (Ferrari).
Pirelli will bring the white-marked medium and yellow-banded soft tyres to Spa-Francorchamps – a step softer with both compounds than last year.
“Spa is one of the most epic circuits of the year, and a track we know well from our experience of GT racing at the Spa 24 Hours too,” Pirelli Motorsport Director Paul Hembery said. 
“This is because of the length of the lap, meaning also that strategy is a very big factor in Spa: there is more time to be won and lost by being on the right tyre at the right time than at many other venues. It’s the sort of race where, under the right circumstances, it’s absolutely possible to go from last to first – and that always makes for a very exciting grand prix.”“An adaptable tyre is the key element, able to work equally well within the very wide range of track and weather conditions that we often see in Belgium. Despite the fact that tyre wear and degradation is traditionally high at Spa – the result of the multiple energy loadings put through the tyres – we have been able to nominate the soft tyres here as well as the medium for the first time since 2011, with the softer option liable to be the preferred choice in qualifying due to a significant time gap. 

[CaledonianCraig]

Rosberg has a DNF and a race where his brakes basically failed.

Yet Hamilton has all the bad luck. Sorry Craig, can't have it both ways

Not sure where I have said Hamilton has had all the bad luck? Anyways even if that were the case he trails Rosberg by 29 ponts whilst Vettel trails Ricciardo by double that figure.   

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

So Vettel's one bad year (where as pointed out he's had car issues) will override the four world titles. That's some strange old logic that

[Gerry SA]

Vettel was so damn good that the FIA had to change the rules to stop him winning...

Much like Schumacher after his 5 back to back titles in 2000-04. 

How'd you stop someone destroying the record books?

Ah yes change the regs. 

Vettel will be back and will win plenty more titles.

[CaledonianCraig]

So Vettel's one bad year (where as pointed out he's had car issues) will override the four world titles. That's some strange old logic that

No it is not one bad year for Vettel that does it. Alonso has had many shabby years but he still manages to beat his team-mate. Check it out and you'll see I am correct and the same goes for other drivers seen as all-time greats. They have all had bad seasons as in a car not quite up to winning titles but they still maintain the overall pace to be able to beat their team-mate who has the same technology.

[bogbrush]

Except when Alonso blew it against a complete rookie.

Too easy.

[CaledonianCraig]

Except when Alonso blew it against a complete rookie.

Too easy.

If you are referring to 2008 - he finished level with Hamilton so no he never lost to him.

[Guest]

GSC, I know the luck debate is too boring for you to talk about but it will be the decisive factor in this years title. Are you stating that Hamilton/Rosbergs bad luck has been equal this year?

[CaledonianCraig]

I must say (just watched the talked about incident on video) and do think it is a mountain out of a molehill to me. Just looks like an unfortunate incident to me and at first watch didn't look malicious in any way to me.

[bogbrush]

Except when Alonso blew it against a complete rookie.

Too easy.

If you are referring to 2008 - he finished level with Hamilton so no he never lost to him.

Ah, that really won't do. You didn't say he never lost, you said he always beats them. Nope.

And he finished 3rd, on places. To a debutant. Ah well.

[CaledonianCraig]

Except when Alonso blew it against a complete rookie.

Too easy.

If you are referring to 2008 - he finished level with Hamilton so no he never lost to him.

Ah, that really won't do. You didn't say he never lost, you said he always beats them. Nope.

And he finished 3rd, on places. To a debutant. Ah well.

Fair enough but never beaten so readily like Vettel is this season. I am still waiting for the answer as to why that is for an all-time great?

[CaledonianCraig]

And just out of interest if Nico seals the title this year and Mercedes remain a dominant force and he can stitch together another one or two world titles a la Vettel would people here then regard him as an all-time great?

[GSC]

Like I say John, **** happens.

If Rosberg has a DNF and Hamilton takes the title despite being 26 points behind beforehand in the last race who's lucky?

[Guest]

Vettel is not San all time great. Perform in another team, without newey & win six or seven titles, then your an ATG. He's getting shown up massively, at first it was mechanical reasons, now it's just pure pace & race craft. What's happening is just what most people thought would happen to Vettel without the woeful webber.

Rosberg ATG, do me a favour. Hasn't even wrapped on up yet, far from it

[Guest]

All hypothetical stuff, I'm talking about what's happened, fact you won't answer the question, says all I need to know about the luck debate.

[Gerry SA]

Craig 

I know you think Paul Di Resta is an all time great...

Anyway Vettel's greatness is secure. 

Only 4 men have won 4+ world championships. 

Schumacher x 7
Fangio x 5
Prost x 4
Vettel x 4

Vettel is the only to win his first four titles back to back. Vettel is the youngest world champion, double champion, triple champion and quadruple champion.  

Vettel will beat Ricciardo this season.

[GSC]

If Rosberg has 4 WDC he's in the conversation. However that's at least 3.5 years off.

If making Hamilton the moral title leader makes you happy so be it. I prefer to use the actual standings

[mystiroakey]

Again you won't answer the very simple question.

[CaledonianCraig]

Craig 

I know you think Paul Di Resta is an all time great...

Anyway Vettel's greatness is secure. 

Only 4 men have won 4+ world championships. 

Schumacher x 7
Fangio x 5
Prost x 4
Vettel x 4

Vettel is the only to win his first four titles back to back. Vettel is the youngest world champion, double champion, triple champion and quadruple champion.  

Vettel will beat Ricciardo this season.

First up statement one is nonsense and sheer fabrication on your behalf.

Second point is correct. And the list you have is correct however those were won in differing circumstances especially Vettel's which were won in effectively a two horse race for three seasons with one of the horses ridden by Webber prone to lacking the necessary quality, hunger and desire (at the end) and all-round pace to be called any sort of a challenger.

When Vettel wins a world title in a team either not with the masterful design of Adrian Newey or with a true competitor as a team-mate then I'll reconsider my position. All I can add is we all have our own scales and ways of rating how great a driver is and obviously our scales differ. I would not call Celtic one of the best teams in the world just because they have won so many titles as when you look into it deeper their titles came in so many seasons devoid of valid/strong contenders and that is the circumstances I see how Vettel won his titles. I may have drivers down as all-time great that you and others may not agree with which is fair enough.

[bogbrush]

Did I just step back in time a year into Craig waffling on about the conditions he'll place on Vettel? And on a thread about today's race?

I understand Seb checks in to hear his verdict.

Myself, I just can't decide - is the the youngest ever race winner and four World titles that decides it, or Craig setting out the Official Conditions for All Time Greatness. It's just so tough.

[GSC]

Reading between the lines, Rosbergs probably said something similar to although it was early and an unlikely overtake I tried it to prove a point that I wasn't backing down.

Hamiltons probably gone to the media with some half baked plan to unsettle Rosberg by inciting a media frenzy about Rosberg intentionally crashing him out. I can't really see Hamilton coming out in a calm manner and talking to the media if Rosberg had actually said he hit him on purpose.

Mercedes have managed this poorly. You can't promote letting them race wheel to wheel, even going to bat for Hamilton when he ignored being told to let Rosberg through in Hungary then throw Rosberg under the bus because he tried an unlikely move early in the race. This has been escalating all season, and a coming together was always going to happen, regardless of what agreements they had. Simply unavoidable.

Can't quite see the same shambles if Ross Brawn was still in charge. And the end result is Ricciardo is now 35 points behind Hamilton. Fairly laughable management.

[CaledonianCraig]

Did I just step back in time a year into Craig waffling on about the conditions he'll place on Vettel? And on a thread about today's race?

I understand Seb checks in to hear his verdict.

Myself, I just can't decide - is the the youngest ever race winner and four World titles that decides it, or Craig setting out the Official Conditions for All Time Greatness. It's just so tough.

Friggin' heck erase the youngest race winner please as that is irrelevant and just a factor of circumstance and no great proof of any greatness. Jeez do we pull the youngest international footballer of all-time out and claim him as an all-time great? Of course not. As for the four world titles - everyone knows the circumstances of those wins. And I am not so sure why you are so bothered by my scale. You, no doubt, have your own ways of judging greatness other than just titles won surely? If not then you are as good as crowning Celtic as one of the greatest football team in the world due to the masses of titles they have won.

[GSC]

Did I just step back in time a year into Craig waffling on about the conditions he'll place on Vettel? And on a thread about today's race?

I understand Seb checks in to hear his verdict.

Myself, I just can't decide - is the the youngest ever race winner and four World titles that decides it, or Craig setting out the Official Conditions for All Time Greatness. It's just so tough.

Friggin' heck erase the youngest race winner please as that is irrelevant and just a factor of circumstance and no great proof of any greatness. Jeez do we pull the youngest international footballer of all-time out and claim him as an all-time great? Of course not. As for the four world titles - everyone knows the circumstances of those wins. And I am not so sure why you are so bothered by my scale. You, no doubt, have your own ways of judging greatness other than just titles won surely? If not then you are as good as crowning Celtic as one of the greatest football team in the world due to the masses of titles they have won.

What. That makes 0 sense. The comparison would be the youngest driver to race in F1 not the youngest winner  

[CaledonianCraig]

Okay put it another way the youngest capped player to play in a winning side. Still means not one jot in terms of whether they are or become an all-time great at the end of the day. As I said we all have our own scales but it is a pity some people can't accept that.

[mystiroakey]

People do forget this is a team game.

well down to vettel, but more plaudits have to go to Newey.

Just like schuy had Brawn. Just like Button had Brawn,,


If Ricardo wins this title this year(which could actually happen, not that likely but a distinct possibility)

he can thank Mercedes management... Same thing happened when Kimi won and alonso and LH tripped over each other at McLaren.

Rarely do we see Championship wins when its more to do with the driver, its usually due to the team acting as a team or the team self destructing as a team

[CaledonianCraig]

Yes mysti that sums things up pretty well. For me the all-time greats shine even if things aren't in favour for them.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Okay put it another way the youngest capped player to play in a winning side. Still means not one jot in terms of whether they are or become an all-time great at the end of the day. As I said we all have our own scales but it is a pity some people can't accept that.

What does football have to do with judging an whether someone is an all time f1 great? Just out of interest

[CaledonianCraig]

In every sport all-time greats come do they not. We all have our own scales (whatever the sport) and using an achievement based on youth is not one I would use in a scale (as BB wants to throw Seb being youngest race winner). In any sport someone can come through and have success at a young age but that is no qualification or guarantee of being an all-time great.

[CaledonianCraig]

To better explain my stance on this - just say Seb was to have a storming second half to this season and somehow won the title it, for me, this would be far more impressive feat in any GOAT debate than all of his previous four world titles put together.

[bogbrush]

Craig, what the Hell are you rambling on about?

This is a thread about Sundays race, and a crash, and you're on here making your very own car crash about what you think makes another racer.

Honestly, the other day I showed you had no idea of what Bernie Eccleston had done with TV rights yet you returned 6 days later with another piece of incoherence.

I long ago realised you don't have any knowledge of what you talk about (you walked into this thread and announced no great like Alonso would ever fail to trounce a young rival, obviously you had no idea he'd raced with the debutant Hamilton and lost to him). As GSE just observed, you now think winning a race = getting picked in a team. But the really funny thing is that you'll do it again. And again.

[mystiroakey]

BB don't be a wrong un .....

[CaledonianCraig]

No the other day you claimed you had proved me wrong on every point I had made and I countered that with evidence that proved that was not true which you had no retort to so quit the pretence eh?

The only thing you ever realize BB is that you are always right and anyone who has a differing view is open to disrespect. Pretty pathetic stance really. Instead just agree to disagree and move on. You have your perceived ideas of greats of sport and I have my own and each of us decide by our own means. That is how I see things but because it does not mirror your idea of greatness you claim it to be a lack of knowledge. Leave it out eh and stick to discussing and leave out the insults.

[bogbrush]

The guy talks nonsense mystiroakey, in the end there's nothing left to say. The other day he told me Eccleston acquired his influence by doing well for the teams on negotiating TV rights for them having spent months dragging off BE but when the facts are pointed out he just bounces on.

No Craig, I didn't say that. I told you that on a single important piece of how BE gained control you were about as wrong as it was possible to be throughout discussion of that factor Now, again, you show you can't read a post. You really don't read properly, that's the kindest explanation I can give.

[CaledonianCraig]

Err you said six days ago? It was 19 days ago so you are wrong on the timescale. This is the topic you are on about:-

https://www.606v2.com/t53924p50-sounds-like-pandering

And note no retort to where you got blown out after claiming I was wrong on everything.

And note you did say wrong throughout. In anyone's eyes that means in all areas.

[bogbrush]

Blown out.

I'll give you this Craig, you can certainly waffle on until others stop posting. After humiliating themselves over showing their ignorance of the history of BE & F1 anyone else would drop the thread, but you have astonishing power to bounce along like nothing happened. And well done on not being wrong on everything, I'd said you were wrong throughout which doesn't mean on everything (God, does that really have to be explained?).

[CaledonianCraig]

Well it is there on that thread for all to read. I'd sooner waffle on on threads than insult though eh. Do carry on like you always have as nothing will stop you mores the pity.

[dyrewolfe]

Reading between the lines, Rosbergs probably said something similar to although it was early and an unlikely overtake I tried it to prove a point that I wasn't backing down.

Hamiltons probably gone to the media with some half baked plan to unsettle Rosberg by inciting a media frenzy about Rosberg intentionally crashing him out. I can't really see Hamilton coming out in a calm manner and talking to the media if Rosberg had actually said he hit him on purpose.

Mercedes have managed this poorly. You can't promote letting them race wheel to wheel, even going to bat for Hamilton when he ignored being told to let Rosberg through in Hungary then throw Rosberg under the bus because he tried an unlikely move early in the race. This has been escalating all season, and a coming together was always going to happen, regardless of what agreements they had. Simply unavoidable.

Can't quite see the same shambles if Ross Brawn was still in charge. And the end result is Ricciardo is now 35 points behind Hamilton. Fairly laughable management.

Wearing my tinfoil hat, I'd wager Rosberg did it intentionally. We know after Monaco he's not above dirty tactics to get one over on Hamilton and exchanging a chunk of front wing for a race-ending puncture might well have seemed a worthwhile trade, if it meant extending his championship lead.

If it had been any other two drivers, I'd probably say "unfortunate racing incident". But it wasn't, so the suspicion remains...

If Rosberg was trying to prove he can race wheel-to-wheel as well as Hamilton, he should have saved everyone the trouble. His other botched overtake attempt where he locked up massively and ruined his tyres, proves he can't. Like a certain other German, he's fine leading from the front, but not so good when he has to pass other cars.

Glad both Wolff and Lauda came out in defence of Lewis. It was a reckless and needless move to pull, so early in the race and cost Mercedes at least 15-18 points in the Constructors' title (not that they really need them, mind you).

A lot of people are saying its down to poor management and criticising the team, but largely these are the same people who have so far praised Mercedes for letting Rosberg and Hamilton race freely.

For my money, the blame lies solely with the drivers (or in this case Rosberg). These guys are the best drivers in the world and are expected to have a measure of race craft and common sense, in addition to their abilities to drive powerful cars very fast.

Rosberg either simply had a brain-fart in his desperation to prove he can race like Hamilton, or he did it with the intent of taking Lewis out of the race. Personally, I'm leaning towards the latter...but then I am biased...

[dyrewolfe]

Some interesting stuff in Andrew Benson's post-race article:

A couple of hours later, after the two drivers had discussed the incident with Wolff and technical boss Paddy Lowe, Hamilton came out with a bombshell.

According to the Englishman, Rosberg had admitted to colliding with him on purpose.

"He said he could have avoided it," said Hamilton. "He said: 'I did it to prove a point.'"

It's pretty clear what that point was.

Well, we only have Lewis' word for it, but if true, not exactly surprising.

The German had certainly felt that Hamilton had over-stepped the mark in their battle in Bahrain in April. He was also unhappy that Hamilton had ignored team orders to let him by in Hungary.

For Rosberg, it appears enough was enough.

But deliberating crashing into Hamilton? Not so, says Wolff.

"Nico felt he needed to hold his line," said the Mercedes boss. "He needed to make a point. He didn't give in. He thought it was for Lewis to leave him space, and that Lewis didn't leave him space.

"For Lewis, it was clearly not him who needed to be aware of Nico.

"So they agreed to disagree in a very heated discussion among ourselves, but it wasn't deliberately crashing. That is nonsense.

"It was deliberately taking into account that if Lewis moves then it could end up in a crash."

Seems entirely plausible, though I'm somewhat non-plussed by that last line.

Rosberg is lucky all this came out after Sunday's race result had been declared official and the stewards sent home. Had it emerged earlier, he would certainly have been investigated.

He still could be. Under Max Mosley, the old president of the governing body, Wolff would have received a missive on his desk on Monday morning suggesting the team and Rosberg might fancy a trip to FIA HQ in Paris to explain themselves.

Mosley's successor, Jean Todt, has so far taken a less confrontational approach to such matters, but risks looking weak - and setting an awkward precedent - if he does nothing this time around.

For his part, Rosberg took quite a risk in admitting to his team that he had not sought to avoid a clash.

Mercedes have made it clear to both drivers all season that they were happy to let them race on the proviso that they do not hit each other.

That approach will now change, but it is not clear how, with Wolff admitting: "The devil is in the detail."

[Trebs]

I don't think Rosberg intended the contact. He made a mistake, and was over-aggressive but he's not going to take them both out and potentially get a penalty for deliberately hitting another car. It's a racing incident for me and the stewards have done the right thing in closing the case.

It's all Mercedes fault for allowing two equally talented drivers to go hammer and tongs with each other. It was bound to happen at some point. If Ricciardo wins the world championship, which is looking like a possibility, then the team will end up with egg on their faces because this incident has cost them 25 points. They should easily got a 1-2.

[owen10ozzy]

It's strange, whilst I agree it would be a racing incident normally the words of those involved suggest there is more to it than that.

Whether he meant to take Hamilton out on purpose is a different question, to which only he will know the answer, however Hamiltons remarks after the race..and those of Wolff...whilst contradictory to a degree essentially make the same point and that is..

Rosberg could have avoided the incident, whether he felt he needed to hold his line or not, behind all the wishy washy media stuff the German put his car in a position which he didn't need to and when he couldn't complete the overtake he left it there knowing what the possible repercussions of doing so were. Was there malice or intent to danger another racer on purpose, no most likely not, however he needlessly created a dangerous racing situation which he himself admitted could have been avoided and regardless of everything else that is a stupid thing to do for an experienced driver.

Personally I think some action has to be taken because if it isn't then you are leaving the rule books wide open to interpretation and essentially saying if there is a chance of an overtake no matter how dangerous or needless at that given time take it and there will be no repercussions no matter the outcome.

We all want to see wheel to wheel racing, but I most certainly don't want to see it at the expense of drivers lives being put in the balance anymore than they already are given the nature of the sport in the first place. Now that may sound extreme, it may sound over the top given all that came of it was a puncture but we have seen on plenty of other occasions that on another day something far more serious could have come from it.

[GSC]

Why would Rosberg intentionally hit him.

Vettel and Alonso showed on the last lap just how spectacularly that could backfire.

[Bull]

Looking at the standings right now and Riccardo could be well within with a shout at the Diver's title.

[bogbrush]

Normally sanctions depend on proof, and given Nico can explain his words anywhere across a wide spectrum of meaning, in what way can they punish him?
Virtually every accident arises from someone putting their car in a position they could have chosen not to, so the definition of intent would be stretched beyond reasonable understanding.

This palaver didn't start on Sunday. It began in their first race when Nico was told to hold behind Lewis when he was faster. It's been brewing from there and will only end with one of them off the team. And I doubt it'll be the German who leaves.

[GSC]

Doubt it Bull, Mercedes will basically stop their drivers racing until they lead by 30 seconds.

[owen10ozzy]

Think of it as a football challenge GSC;

Ryan Shawcross didn't intentionally set out to break Aaron Ramsey's leg, but he made the tackle knowing it was reckless, dangerous and that should it have gone wrong, which it did, then he could & inevitably did injure Ramsey.

Now their was no intent or malice, yet it was reckless and Shawcross knew the dangers of that type of challenge. The same can be said of Rosberg, while he may not have intentionally hit Hamilton, he made the move knowing the dangers of it, knowing the chances of the overtake were slim and when it didn't come off he left the car there knowing what could inevitably happen. The intent wasn't there but the recklessness was and for that he should be punished...especially given he has come out and admitted that he could have pulled out of the overtake but chose not to (a point both Wolff and Hamilton statements make).

[dyrewolfe]

There does seem to be a bit of treading a fine line between admitting to deliberately causing a collision, or simply refusing to give up on an overtake that was never going to come off.

Either way Rosberg doesn't come out of it well (except for his position in the championship).

Agree that we do want wheel to wheel racing, but not to the extent that an exciting championship battle is ruined because one of the main contenders are taken out by their rivals.

[dyrewolfe]

Why would Rosberg intentionally hit him.

Vettel and Alonso showed on the last lap just how spectacularly that could backfire.

Well, racing is all about calculated risks.

In Vettel and Alonso's case, I don't remember there being any actual contact - just going off-track for a bit and losing a place or two.

Rosberg lost a bit of his front wing, but was able to stay out and get it changed during a pit-stop. Cost him some time (and the lead) but ultimately took his main rival out of the equation...for that race at least.

He's as good as admitted he did it on purpose by telling Wolff he refused to give way and take action to avoid hitting Hamilton, so he doesn't even have the excuse of being clumsy or misjudging the move.

[GSC]

Think of it as a football challenge GSC;

Ryan Shawcross didn't intentionally set out to break Aaron Ramsey's leg, but he made the tackle knowing it was reckless, dangerous and that should it have gone wrong, which it did, then he could & inevitably did injure Ramsey.

Now their was no intent or malice, yet it was reckless and Shawcross knew the dangers of that type of challenge. The same can be said of Rosberg, while he may not have intentionally hit Hamilton, he made the move knowing the dangers of it, knowing the chances of the overtake were slim and when it didn't come off he left the car there knowing what could inevitably happen. The intent wasn't there but the recklessness was and for that he should be punished...especially given he has come out and admitted that he could have pulled out of the overtake but chose not to (a point both Wolff and Hamilton statements make).  

If you're going to hang Rosberg out to dry for a reckless overtake then theres 21 drivers queued up behind. Everyone will have done a 'reckless' overtake at some point. Imagine if Alonso and Webber had collided going up Eau Rouge, both would've been lucky to walk away.

[Guest]

Nico Rosberg says Mercedes must move on from the controversial crash between him and team-mate Lewis Hamilton in Sunday's Belgian Grand Prix.

haha. Yeah, like you did Nico after the Hungary non-incident? You couldn't move on yourself or get over it, you let it linger & then when you came back, in the very first meeting, you brought the issue up again & argued with Toto/Paddy......again. Embarrassing & you've got the cheek to try & put the Belgium issue under the carpet & for everyone to move on. Joker. You cried like a baby over the summer break, lost your cool & emotions & it resulted in you having to make a point, by taking out your own team-mate to satisfy your own personal agenda against Lewis' legitimate rights to not pull over in Hungary. Quite something that is & to go along with it, you once again showed your inability to overtake under any kind of pressure, that a genuine top level driver should have in his armory. Pathetic racer.

[GSC]

And I'm called a fanboy

[Bull]

Okay.

[Sponsored content]