apias:

Did you just miss the part that Hamilton's tires were in worse shape than Rosberg's? Did you miss the part that they already disadvantaged Rosberg vs Hamilton (if they leave Hamilton out) Did you miss the part that the tires likely seemed fine at the moment because the track was rapidly improving, and Hamilton was clueless about the condition of his tires? Did you miss the part that Hamilton is clueless about tire strategy, generally? (Monaco, do I need t say more?) Did you miss the part that the team, not one side of the garage or the other, made the decision to bring them in, because the team, wanted a 1-2 finish, not a 1-DNF?

This whole, "Mercedes favored Rosberg" conspiracy theory only makes even a semblance of sense if you ignore all the facts -- actually, pretend that reality is 180° opposite of what it was -- like Hamilton has done. And, the only whining diva here, as usual, is Hamilton, who, just as he always does, when he's clueless or screw up himself, blames everyone around him. Hamilton is the one who needs to man up and start acting like a champion, not a schoolgirl.

 

Hmm, you hates Hamilton, you can't stand the guy, we got it. Did you not read every other link that was posted in this thread outside of your own?

James Allen is the one that speculate Hamilton had worse tire wear, but Hamilton himself didn't say so when talked about it, in fact he seems to sway the other way on the planetf1 article. Or the BBC David Coulthard article, that's already multiple sources. Not one single writer. Anyway he was also only stating the soft one has worse wear, he has no idea about the wear on the primes after they were taken off. 

Perez finished the race on his prime driving longer than anyone else, and he had it worse as he had to drive hard and dice with several other drivers for positions. 

 

 


--