Both lead drivers, Ricciardo and Vettel, were on the three-stop strategy which was predicted as being the faster strategy that day.
The lead strategy was to be in a Mercedes.
Theoretically quickest to finish might be on three stopper but this would rely on everyone being on it, luck with traffic or safety cars etc, the practicality of a three stopper beating a two stopper in 2016 was very low. maybe 10-20% I reckon.
Potentially possible with a Vettel or Kimi, maybe with Ricciardo, no way with Verstappen at that point in his career with some clumsy moves in 2015.
Both secondary drivers, Verstappen and Räikkönen, were on the two-stop strategy which was predicted as being the slower strategy that day.
Predicted slower by who? someone trying to trick another team into going to a three stopper. F1 overtakes for position in those years with the chicane layout of Catalunya were almost impossible unless there was an extreme performance difference in the cars.
Funny how you didn't mention Ferrari sabotaging Vettel's race when Ferrari did the exact same split strategy with the exact same driver priority. If Red Bull 'sabotaged' Ricciardo's race, then Ferrari 'sabotaged' Vettel's race. In truth, they didn't. Both teams got the same outcome from the same split strategy. Anybody who watched the race live can tell you this.
Sabotage is too strong a word as either strategy was technically viable. RedBull didn't sabotage Ricciardo intentionally but they gave
him a risky and very difficult strategy in order to draw the "Ferrari Fumble" strategy.
Why they wanted to is their prerogative... but they created the self-fulfilling prophecy of the commentators hysterical youngest-ever-blah-blah... I was skeptical because of the crashtappen or wallslappen jokes from 2014 and 2015 so I think it's amazing that he has gone on to become so consistent and capable in so many situations... and even more amazing that he can
still act like a precocious brat on track.
The facts of the race don't care about your patriotic fervour. Care about Piastri now rather than Ricciardo then.
"Facts" have context.
--
While we rehash history, relevant to this event, how hilarious was Lazenby bringing up 1994 Adelaide as an example of deliberate ramming, and 97 and 89... he forgot 1990 which was the worst ever.
The big pause after 94 for dramatic effect highlight how much the Brit media still hold on to their vitriol on that event. They continue to bring it up and perpetuate their narrative despite the fact that by modern standards Hill would be penalised for causing the collision as he didn't get anywhere near alongside enough to be making a genuine pass. It happened too quickly to be anything similar to this premeditated action by Verstappen. Even former drivers like Jackie Stewart said it was too late at the time but even now the commentators continue on with it to try to continue to disparage Schumacher's first championship and tarnish his reputation.
--
... and to the current day, what a cracker of a race. Verstappen's pace in two fast stints that almost brought him to challenge for second place was almost one of his best drives until random events mixed it up and the tantrums ensued.
also how amazing that in this race George was wrong to push Max off when he had a slight slide to correct, while in Miami Max "accidentally" got a little slide and that's why he unintentionally pushed Lando off the track and that was OK.
[ edit according to the commentators, we don't know about the stewards judgement, I think RedBull might have been making the right call in case ]
The Brit-press do for the most part love Verstappen so hard, "they love him soo hard" (in Albon voice please), that I laugh when I see comments about Brit-press biad against Verstappen.
