This was my commenting a FB post with some fellow F1 followers last night:Although I'm a follower of F1 it's always been my opinion is a competitive "extreme tech" business rather than a sport. Driver skills must be the most important component - on the basis that the best drivers will be employed to drive the best cars - but advantages are gained and races won or lost by team tactics, technical innovations, efficiency or mistakes in operations, etc as well as driving skills. Looks like this race was pretty evenly matched in terms of driver skills but Hamilton had a faster car while Red Bull managed to get fresh tyres fitted during the SC period to give an advantage for the last lap. You've gotta be sorry for both drivers: Verstappen's win will be tainted by accusations that race rules weren't applied fairly; Hamilton must feel he was robbed at the last minute. So perhaps it's interesting that it's now in the hands of those other important team members: THE LAWYERS who must assess if the rules were correctly applied and adjust the result if not. Proves my point that it really is a business? Perhaps they could agree out of court that the drivers are equal and they have to share the championship! Nah, that's definitely an "oink, flap, thud" moment :-)As my mate Dave said, it's interesting that Mercedes just happened to have a lawyer with them ... perhaps Horner was right when he said we're missing Charlie Whiting? But this is F1, there's been other controversies over wins with Hunt/Lauda, Senna/Prost, Schumacher/Hill, ... still, next year's going to be interesting when Hamilton's not only battling Verstappen but will have his team mate Russell snapping at his heels.
Michael Ixer ● 1280d