Or as I said in the rest of the post I made you have conveniently ignored; the team strategists at Mercedes thought Rosberg had a better chance of acquiring more points at that moment in time. This is something a few others on this thread have highlighted.
Probably because almost everybody else here accepts that a 174 point lead in the constructors championship means that Merc' aren't in a position where they need to be applying team orders simply to maximise their overall race points.
If that's the case, seems like Hamilton would have been daft to comply and the team would be wrong to ask.
Is it not more likely, though, that the team were actually concerned that Rosberg was going to end up 7th or summat?
Rosberg had serious issues overtaking Vergne earlier in the race so I think the above is exactly the point. They thought Rosberg might have issues trying to overtake Raikkonen and especially Bottas (remembering how Bottas held Hamilton back last week) so were trying to get the jump. Unfortunately (for Rosberg) Hamilton wasn't playing ball. Fortunately (for Hamilton) it didn't particularly matter. Hamilton did cost the team a higher finishing position via Rosberg but in the great scheme of things I think the team got the result they expected - maybe they thought they would get ahead of Alonso but I think Ferrari played a clever strategy with him.
Probably because almost everybody else here accepts that a 174 point lead in the constructors championship means that Merc' aren't in a position where they need to be applying team orders simply to maximise their overall race points.
Missed the ****ing point again. Engage your brain, Si.
Having witnessed Rosbergs interview post qualifying, where he showed obvious delight in the fate that befell Hamilton, whilst adding that it was a shame that it meant he would not be able to race Hamilton on the track, and then, getting into a race despite the odds, he whinged like a spoilt toddler that Hamilton wasn't letting him gon past. The shocking thing was that the 'bosses' obviously felt the same way, and told Hamilton to let him go past!!!
Good for Hamilton for ignoring the 'order'. And good for him for beating Rosberg in the race, fair and square, despite having started from the pit lane, whilst Rosberg started on pole!!
It shows who is the superior driving, IMO.
Missed the ****ing point again. Engage your brain, Si.
Well, what exactly is the "****ing point" if it isn't that Hamilton was being asked to do something that assisted Rosberg at his own expense or that he was being asked to do something to assist the team?
Merc had screwed the strategies when they put hamilton on prime tyres.
Hamilton overtook rosberg in the pit window and had legitimate track position but was not given the best strategy to get him over the line, when he pitted.
rosberg was screwed when he was stuck behind hamilton, who was given a sub optimum strategy.
Merc have always said the splitting strageties is to give the drivers a chance to race towards the end but today it didnt. The duel was at the point when hamilton was given a team order
Though I think Toto might have put his foot down had Hamilton's car not caught fire yesterday.
Yes, I agree that Toto cut Hamilton a bit of slack because of that (added to the fact that Hamilton has suffered from no-fault mechanical issues more than Rosberg this season).
Probably because almost everybody else here accepts that a 174 point lead in the constructors championship means that Merc' aren't in a position where they need to be applying team orders simply to maximise their overall race points.
Precisely and succinctly put. Further - such team orders when not necessary for the team are a slap in the face to the disadvantaged driver and cause ill-will. Hamilton's had a run of bad luck recently and getting orders from the team to throw the race when there's no realistic team advantage will make him less likely to fight for them in future and may adversely affect the overall team result.
I reckon Bernie is paying someone to "fix" Hamiltons car for quali, knowing there will be one helluva show come race day - good for the sponsors! Hamilton has made up 40-odd places in the last 3 races - quite an achievement!
Seems to me Nico lost the race when he allowed himself to get stuck behing Vergne for so many laps losing buckets of times and burning up his tyres so forcing into an extra stop strategy. A good driver in the best car would have been past and away in short order as Lewis showed. Why should Lewis be furthered hindered by Nico's inability to get past a much slower car?
Seems to me Nico lost the race when he allowed himself to get stuck behing Vergne for so many laps losing buckets of times and burning up his tyres so forcing into an extra stop strategy. A good driver in the best car would have been past and away in short order as Lewis showed. Why should Lewis be furthered hindered by Nico's inability to get past a much slower car?
Seems to me Nico lost the race when he allowed himself to get stuck behing Vergne for so many laps losing buckets of times and burning up his tyres so forcing into an extra stop strategy. A good driver in the best car would have been past and away in short order as Lewis showed. Why should Lewis be furthered hindered by Nico's inability to get past a much slower car?
Was considering pointing out the same thing myself.
Rosberg sat behind Vergne for a bunch of laps, losing time to the leaders, and then, when he finally gets out of the way, it took Hamilton something like half a lap to pass Vergne and then, later on, people get upset 'cos Hamilton isn't willing to do something to help Rosberg recoup that time, even though it'll damage his own result?
Seems like some people need a bit of a reality check about what constitutes fairness and Rosberg, for his part, needs to realise he has to put the effort into winning the championship.
Gotta say, though, would have given a lot to be a fly on the wall at the Merc' post-race debrief today.
great race today really wanted alonso to win but to finish 2nd was some achievement and well done Lewis hope he wins title
I know I'm biased but I wanted Hamilton to win just cos' winning from a pit-lane start is something that's never been done before and it looked like he had a great opportunity to achieve it.
Wouldn't be surprised if that (along with the whole "team orders" thing, of course) was why Lewis looked a bit cheesed-off post-race.
Me too. If I was Nico I would be asking the strategy guys why they had not worked out that it was a bad idea to stay behind Vergne.
See, again, I get the impression that the whole Merc' race-strategy department lost the plot a bit today.
It seemed like they just kinda dismissed Hamilton as being "somewhere behind" and left Rosberg to to be "mister cautious" on the basis that he needs to get points in the bag and getting wiped out in the wet would damage his title chances.
And then, after both the safety-cars, it seemed like they just kinda woke up, panicked, and then came up with a plan that'd recover Rosberg's lost time at Hamilton's expense... and then wondered why Hamilton didn't want to cooperate.
*EDIT*
Course, it's easy to say that with hindsight and it wasn't quite so clear during the race but, y'know, that's why they pay these guys the big bucks.
...
And then, after both the safety-cars, it seemed like they just kinda woke up, panicked, and then came up with a plan that'd recover Rosberg's lost time at Hamilton's expense... and then wondered why Hamilton didn't want to cooperate.
*EDIT*
Course, it's easy to say that with hindsight and it wasn't quite so clear during the race but, y'know, that's why they pay these guys the big bucks.
Exactly - but the teams back in the garage are definitely human, as McLaren proved when they alone thought it would rain, misreading the radar, and kept poor ol' Jenson out there on intermediates - ruining his race in the process!
I think the real problem is something that Lewis had pointed out a few races ago; Merc only have one strategy team working for both drivers, who has to balance what the drivers do and also the interests of the team as a whole. The problem with this is that one driver may be asked to sacrifice his race for that to happen, which is just silly.
It seems that Merc are finally realizing the issues with that setup, even though it may have worked out ok at the start of the season.
But on the whole, I was quite impressed with Merc. They slipped up a wee bit in the race, telling Lewis his brakes were just cold when in fact, they'd told him to use the wrong setting on the brake-by-wire system. But getting the car functioning and competitive after the Quali fire was pretty dammed impressive.
Not only that, but actually trusting Lewis on changes to strategy such as him believing the tires were ok. That is something that would never have happened at McLaren, which the drivers having to stick rigidly to what the pit wall told them. It's nice to see Lewis starting to respond to that trust and developing some confidence in his own judgements.
Why was Hamilton allowed to run Nico off the road at turn 2? He (HAM) was nowhere near the racing line so should have left a car width space to his right. But he deliberately continued on in a "straight" line beyond the apex so that Nico had nowhere to go except the grass.
Isn't that considered to be "forcing a car off the track"?
The fact of the matter is that Rosberg was not close enough for Lewis to let past something all the commentators seemed to agree with.
Any top driver would have done the same today, with the exception of Massa
Mercs have already won the Constructors.
The race is between the drivers, well done lewis
I also agree. We're talking about 2 guys fighting for the world championship with the constructors and drivers championships virtually wrapped up - this isn't Alonso/Massa or Schumacher/Barrichello, an outright number one with a teammate with little chance of winning the world championship.
Lewis quite rightly couldn't believe he was ordered to let Rosberg pass, and as it turned out Lewis was proved absolutely right. If he had Rosberg would not only have extended his lead in the championship over him but by a big margin as he would probably have won.
I notice Toto Wolff now appears to be suggesting they got things wrong with the order to Hamilton to let Rosberg through.
Yeah, Mercedes are now pretty much saying the call was an error, along with Lauda's opinion Lewis was right. I don't think there's really much left to debate about it now - Lewis was clearly right to keep Nico behind.
Why was Hamilton allowed to run Nico off the road at turn 2? He (HAM) was nowhere near the racing line so should have left a car width space to his right. But he deliberately continued on in a "straight" line beyond the apex so that Nico had nowhere to go except the grass.
Isn't that considered to be "forcing a car off the track"?
Hamilton left Rosberg some room.
When you've got cars on track with shagged-out tyres, you can't expect them to adhere to the racing line and, as a racing driver, you have to be prepared to deal with that via radical strategies such as.... passing on the inside.
Besides, if Rosberg had shown anything like as much enthusiasm for passing Vergne, earlier on in the race, as he was showing for passing Lewis, he wouldn't have actually been in that position at all.
Yeah, Mercedes are now pretty much saying the call was an error, along with Lauda's opinion Lewis was right. I don't think there's really much left to debate about it now - Lewis was clearly right to keep Nico behind.
At the risk of sounding pedantic, it'd be nice if Merc' clarified what they actually meant by an "error".
I mean, there's errors as in "an accidental mistake" and there's errors as in "a very poor decision which we should have made differently" and it'd be handy if they clarified which happened here.
Course, I suppose it'd be easy for them to claim it was a "we just dropped the ball" kind of "error", even if it was actually the other kind so I guess it's unlikely we'll ever really know.
Comments
Probably because almost everybody else here accepts that a 174 point lead in the constructors championship means that Merc' aren't in a position where they need to be applying team orders simply to maximise their overall race points.
Rosberg had serious issues overtaking Vergne earlier in the race so I think the above is exactly the point. They thought Rosberg might have issues trying to overtake Raikkonen and especially Bottas (remembering how Bottas held Hamilton back last week) so were trying to get the jump. Unfortunately (for Rosberg) Hamilton wasn't playing ball. Fortunately (for Hamilton) it didn't particularly matter. Hamilton did cost the team a higher finishing position via Rosberg but in the great scheme of things I think the team got the result they expected - maybe they thought they would get ahead of Alonso but I think Ferrari played a clever strategy with him.
Missed the ****ing point again. Engage your brain, Si.
Good for Hamilton for ignoring the 'order'. And good for him for beating Rosberg in the race, fair and square, despite having started from the pit lane, whilst Rosberg started on pole!!
It shows who is the superior driving, IMO.
:eek:
Well, what exactly is the "****ing point" if it isn't that Hamilton was being asked to do something that assisted Rosberg at his own expense or that he was being asked to do something to assist the team?
Engage your fingers and spell it out.
Hamilton overtook rosberg in the pit window and had legitimate track position but was not given the best strategy to get him over the line, when he pitted.
rosberg was screwed when he was stuck behind hamilton, who was given a sub optimum strategy.
Merc have always said the splitting strageties is to give the drivers a chance to race towards the end but today it didnt. The duel was at the point when hamilton was given a team order
Both drivers have a reason to feel agreived today
Yes, I agree that Toto cut Hamilton a bit of slack because of that (added to the fact that Hamilton has suffered from no-fault mechanical issues more than Rosberg this season).
Yes he was. I agree with what Hamilton did, but Rosberg was in the DRS zone on a few occasions before dropping back.
And what a great overtake that was
Was considering pointing out the same thing myself.
Rosberg sat behind Vergne for a bunch of laps, losing time to the leaders, and then, when he finally gets out of the way, it took Hamilton something like half a lap to pass Vergne and then, later on, people get upset 'cos Hamilton isn't willing to do something to help Rosberg recoup that time, even though it'll damage his own result?
Seems like some people need a bit of a reality check about what constitutes fairness and Rosberg, for his part, needs to realise he has to put the effort into winning the championship.
Gotta say, though, would have given a lot to be a fly on the wall at the Merc' post-race debrief today.
I know I'm biased but I wanted Hamilton to win just cos' winning from a pit-lane start is something that's never been done before and it looked like he had a great opportunity to achieve it.
Wouldn't be surprised if that (along with the whole "team orders" thing, of course) was why Lewis looked a bit cheesed-off post-race.
See, again, I get the impression that the whole Merc' race-strategy department lost the plot a bit today.
It seemed like they just kinda dismissed Hamilton as being "somewhere behind" and left Rosberg to to be "mister cautious" on the basis that he needs to get points in the bag and getting wiped out in the wet would damage his title chances.
And then, after both the safety-cars, it seemed like they just kinda woke up, panicked, and then came up with a plan that'd recover Rosberg's lost time at Hamilton's expense... and then wondered why Hamilton didn't want to cooperate.
*EDIT*
Course, it's easy to say that with hindsight and it wasn't quite so clear during the race but, y'know, that's why they pay these guys the big bucks.
Exactly - but the teams back in the garage are definitely human, as McLaren proved when they alone thought it would rain, misreading the radar, and kept poor ol' Jenson out there on intermediates - ruining his race in the process!
It seems that Merc are finally realizing the issues with that setup, even though it may have worked out ok at the start of the season.
But on the whole, I was quite impressed with Merc. They slipped up a wee bit in the race, telling Lewis his brakes were just cold when in fact, they'd told him to use the wrong setting on the brake-by-wire system. But getting the car functioning and competitive after the Quali fire was pretty dammed impressive.
Not only that, but actually trusting Lewis on changes to strategy such as him believing the tires were ok. That is something that would never have happened at McLaren, which the drivers having to stick rigidly to what the pit wall told them. It's nice to see Lewis starting to respond to that trust and developing some confidence in his own judgements.
Isn't that considered to be "forcing a car off the track"?
I also agree. We're talking about 2 guys fighting for the world championship with the constructors and drivers championships virtually wrapped up - this isn't Alonso/Massa or Schumacher/Barrichello, an outright number one with a teammate with little chance of winning the world championship.
Lewis quite rightly couldn't believe he was ordered to let Rosberg pass, and as it turned out Lewis was proved absolutely right. If he had Rosberg would not only have extended his lead in the championship over him but by a big margin as he would probably have won.
I notice Toto Wolff now appears to be suggesting they got things wrong with the order to Hamilton to let Rosberg through.
Hamilton left Rosberg some room.
When you've got cars on track with shagged-out tyres, you can't expect them to adhere to the racing line and, as a racing driver, you have to be prepared to deal with that via radical strategies such as.... passing on the inside.
Besides, if Rosberg had shown anything like as much enthusiasm for passing Vergne, earlier on in the race, as he was showing for passing Lewis, he wouldn't have actually been in that position at all.
At the risk of sounding pedantic, it'd be nice if Merc' clarified what they actually meant by an "error".
I mean, there's errors as in "an accidental mistake" and there's errors as in "a very poor decision which we should have made differently" and it'd be handy if they clarified which happened here.
Course, I suppose it'd be easy for them to claim it was a "we just dropped the ball" kind of "error", even if it was actually the other kind so I guess it's unlikely we'll ever really know.