Yes it would be nice to know which sort of error (cock-up vs. wrong decision in hindsight) but it's a step in the right direction that they admit an error at all.
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"?
In my opinion, you can only force someone off the track if they are significantly along side you and you then keep moving over. In this instance Rosberg was behind on the outside & had plenty of time to back out of the overtaking move when he could see the space closing.
Hamilton had already been mugged by Ricciardo at that point, knew that it was Rosbergs only chance & defended brilliantly.
It's a shame that Rosberg didn't show the same hunger to overtake people like Vergne earlier in the race as he did in the last 10 laps. If he had there would be no arguments over team orders or the overtaking manoeuvre as he would have been way up the track and gone.
There seem to be several teams where bad luck afflicts one driver much more than the other. It's too small a sample to apply statistics so we're left with gut feeling and a sense of unfairness - and wondering it it really is all just random.
When mechanical problems are concentrated on one of two identical cars or one driver is much more prone to be the innocent victim of other driver errors it just doesn't feel random.
/rambling
I think the first thing that we have to accept is that a lot of "random" problems probably aren't actually random at all.
Even if the cars do start off identical, you've got 2 different drivers who'll manipulate the car in different ways and that can be responsible for different levels of reliability.
One driver might be harder on the tyres, more aggressive in their gear-changes or use of the clutch, brakes or throttle, drive over the kerbs more, not hit their marks in the pit-box etc and that'll often be the cause of reliability issues.
Course, teams have simulators for a reason and, while it's true that Hamilton might have been responsible for his brake-failure in Canada, for example, you've got to wonder why the team didn't flag this up as a potential problem after all the sim' work that Hamilton will have done prior to the race.
Beyond that, you're always going to get simple mistakes creeping into things and those are the truly random failures.
Course, it could be argued that proper testing and analysis stands a better chance of discovering random faults before they lead to catastrophic failures.
Last weekend, for example, if Hamilton's car was leaking fuel then it must, surely, have been pumping more fuel for a given engine-output than was expected.
Ideally, somebody should have noticed that on the telemetry or Hamilton, himself, might have noticed he was using more throttle for a given output than expected and stopped the car before it was engulfed in flame.
It's certainly true to say that you're talking about far too small a data set to form any meaningful conclusions about "fairness" or "randomness" of failures but it'd also be naive to dismiss things as being "random" without stopping to consider, objectively, whether more could be done to detect a similar fault in future.
Speaking as somebody who's done a fair bit of testing stuff in the construction industry, I've lost track of the number of times we've seen "unexpected" catastrophic failures of things but then, when you review all the data, you can definitely see signs that indicate that something was wrong before the failure occurred.
You just have to make sure you learn all the lessons that experience provides.
Stupidly forgot to record this and only managed to get the last 15mins or so of Skys' highlights without any post-race discussion.. But from what I could see I must agree with most on here (and now bizarrely with Toto who seems to be having an argument with himself) that it was easily the wrong call to ask Lewis to make way. I also find it odd that they decided that they (Merc team) would broadcast that transmission aside from the fact that they shouldn't have been asking it in the first place.
A great race yesterday.
What can you say about Ricciardo? he is making Vettel look *very* ordinary, mechanical problems not withstanding.
Very pleased for Alonso, he's been plugging away all season with that Lame Pony, its great to see him get some reward for it.
Great stuff from Lewis, strange call from Mercedes but I suspect they expected it to be ignored which is why it came from engineer rather than Toto... any way you cut it.. pitlane to podium is a hell of a drive and that's what people should be concentrating on.. forget all the other bollocks because that's all it is... bollocks
lastly, anyone who truly believes that Mercedes are deliberately sabotaging Lewis are clearly mentalists. Lewis runs closer to the edge than Nico, he's bound to fall off it occasionally , its how he recovers, that's what's important.
pitlane to podium is a hell of a drive and that's what people should be concentrating on.. forget all the other bollocks because that's all it is... bollocks
lastly, anyone who truly believes that Mercedes are deliberately sabotaging Lewis are clearly mentalists. Lewis runs closer to the edge than Nico, he's bound to fall off it occasionally , its how he recovers, that's what's important.
More rambling based on the above...
I think there's an interesting divergence in the team developing there, as a result of the driver's differing styles.
If we take Hamilton on his best day as "100%" then Rosberg gets given a race strategy, goes out and drives at "80%" in every situation, without any dramas, holds to the strategy and comes away with a haul of points befitting his drive.
Hamilton, in contrast, is more likely to be driving at "100%" (unless, of course, he's half a minute in the lead or summat) and, as you say, that's when there's less margin for error and mistakes happen and then, because of this, the team need to be able to revise the strategy on the fly and if they don't make a good job of any recalculations, Hamilton doesn't get the best result and he feels like the team has let him down.
How many times, this year, have we either heard Lewis moaning that the team have made poor decisions or, alternatively, seen Hamilton making a decision by himself which turned out to be a bad idea?
I kinda wonder if, perhaps, Merc' are used to the Rosberg mentality, where the driver just goes out and follows the strategy exactly, and they're struggling a bit to adapt to a driver who needs more dynamic strategy calls?
Also, related to that, I get the impression that Lewis has probably made a few bad calls himself, probably because he's been wondering if the team are going to suggest something and then, when they don't, he insists on doing that thing simply 'cos he thinks it's something they haven't considered.
I think there's an interesting divergence in the team developing there, as a result of the driver's differing styles.
If we take Hamilton on his best day as "100%" then Rosberg gets given a race strategy, goes out and drives at "80%" in every situation, without any dramas, holds to the strategy and comes away with a haul of points befitting his drive.
Hamilton, in contrast, is more likely to be driving at "100%"
I think the main problem has been Lewis having to play catch-up after the first race of the season. 25 points is a massive deficit to have to make up when you have the best two cars by far, and even though he did it eventually, he probably had to drive on the limit to do it, taking more out of his car in the process. And then, it went pear-shaped again so he's having to play catch-up all over again!
Even if he catches Nico again after the next two races, this could come back to bite him later in the season as he's used more engines, gearboxes etc. than Nico, so he's going to struggle to win the championship now, IMO. It will be fun watching him try, though!
I think the main problem has been Lewis having to play catch-up after the first race of the season. 25 points is a massive deficit to have to make up when you have the best two cars by far, and even though he did it eventually, he probably had to drive on the limit to do it, taking more out of his car in the process. And then, it went pear-shaped again so he's having to play catch-up all over again!
Even if he catches Nico again after the next two races, this could come back to bite him later in the season as he's used more engines, gearboxes etc. than Nico, so he's going to struggle to win the championship now, IMO. It will be fun watching him try, though!
I agree in every respect.
I'm fairly sure that if the situation were reversed that Nico would not be as close because ultimately he doesn't have that "do or die trying" mentality.
I agree in every respect.
I'm fairly sure that if the situation were reversed that Nico would not be as close because ultimately he doesn't have that "do or die trying" mentality.
I think that's true plus he doesn't have Lewis's sheer pace.
Strange because Nico's dad couldn't have been more different. The first GP I saw live was Keke's first win, the 'Swiss' GP at Dijon in 82. A terrible year F1 wise for me, being a huge Gilles fan, but Keke was the next best thing, flat out sideways brilliance.
Strange because Nico's dad couldn't have been more different. The first GP I saw live was Keke's first win, the 'Swiss' GP at Dijon in 82. A terrible year F1 wise for me, being a huge Gilles fan, but Keke was the next best thing, flat out sideways brilliance.
S'funny, I tend to think of them as being very similar, in attitude if not in driving style.
I think Rosberg sr only won a single race in his championship year.
At the time it was said that the key to his WDC was that he was always there or thereabouts, even though guys like Prost, Lauda and Watson were more likely to be occupying the top step of the podium on any given Sunday.
Certainly seems like that's a lesson that's been drummed into Rosberg jr.
S'funny, I tend to think of them as being very similar, in attitude if not in driving style.
I think Rosberg sr only won a single race in his championship year.
At the time it was said that the key to his WDC was that he was always there or thereabouts, even though guys like Prost, Lauda and Watson were more likely to be occupying the top step of the podium on any given Sunday.
Certainly seems like that's a lesson that's been drummed into Rosberg jr.
To me they could hardly be more different, both in temperament and driving style. Keke was a macho, balls out car control maestro, and drove for wins rather than accumulating points. This doesn't sound like Nico at all. Keke's consistent podium finishes but only the one win in 82 were due more to the Williams generally not being the quickest car, although it was obviously pretty reliable. Many events also transpired for him to be world champion. Tragedy, with Gilles' death and career ending injury to his treacherous teammate, and of the other cars which were faster, Prost and Arnoux took points of each other at Renault (notably at Paul Ricard), and the same happened to an extent at McLaren. The Brabham turbo on its day was probably the quickest of all but very unreliable.
It's a shame that Rosberg didn't show the same hunger to overtake people like Vergne earlier in the race as he did in the last 10 laps. If he had there would be no arguments over team orders or the overtaking manoeuvre as he would have been way up the track and gone.
He had brake problems at that point and maybe was nursing it throughout the race.
Worth noting that Rosberg had been told that Lewis would let him pass, and was holding back expecting a lift on the straight.
Its reasonably relevant, why risk the car if you think the guy in front is going to move over.
Why would Rosberg think for a moment that Hamilton would move over when he was a second behind, losing at least a couple of seconds in the process? He is fully aware that Hamilton isn't bonkers enough to potentially throw away points (to either himself or other drivers).
Rosberg must have realised very quickly that unless Toto or Paddy got involved, it wasn't gonna happen! One thing Rosberg and Hamilton have in common is that neither of them is stupid.
Why would Rosberg think for a moment that Hamilton would move over when he was a second behind, losing at least a couple of seconds in the process? He is fully aware that Hamilton isn't bonkers enough to potentially throw away points (to either himself or other drivers).
Because the team told him he was going to be let through.
Because the team told him he was going to be let through.
But as a driver you still need to think I need to get into position to make the pass, so as not to disadvantage his team mate too much. Like Martin Brundle was saying Lewis would lose at least 2 seconds dropping back as it was, and with Rosberg further back he would have lost more time.
To me they could hardly be more different, both in temperament and driving style. Keke was a macho, balls out car control maestro, and drove for wins rather than accumulating points. This doesn't sound like Nico at all. Keke's consistent podium finishes but only the one win in 82 were due more to the Williams generally not being the quickest car, although it was obviously pretty reliable. Many events also transpired for him to be world champion. Tragedy, with Gilles' death and career ending injury to his treacherous teammate, and of the other cars which were faster, Prost and Arnoux took points of each other at Renault (notably at Paul Ricard), and the same happened to an extent at McLaren. The Brabham turbo on its day was probably the quickest of all but very unreliable.
Keke's 1985 Silverstone pole lap has gone down in F1 folklore as possibly the most bonkers lap ever. The first lap ever over 160mph average speed and the fastest single lap until 2002. A friend of my Dad's was a marshal at Woodcote and he said they literally ducked when Rosberg came through the chicane as he basically ignored it was even there. They changed the layout of Woodcote by the next Silverstone GP in 87.
Let's dispel the myth that team-mates are driving identical equipment. Even apart form the elements that are down to driver preference (Lewis' preference for Brembo brakes for instance) or development parts where the team may only have one new wing the manufacturing process dictates that there will be tiny but measurable differences between the mechanical and electrical parts that make up the cars within a team. All parts that make it onto a car have to pass a QA process where very accurate tolerances are measured but even within those parts that pass there will be differences in quality. Some teams historically have admitted to ensuring one driver received the best parts which will have had a direct impact on reliability. It's pretty obvious that Red Bull did this with Vettel over Webber and that Lotus have been doing it with their drivers.
I'm not sure you could say Mercedes have been supplying the better parts to Rosberg, though. It's possible that they have a policy of giving Rosberg the better parts but I would expect that at Mercedes the quality is such that there wouldn't be a major difference. That said it's pretty clear that reliability issues are creeping in as the season progresses and if Hamilton bears the brunt of them it would be possible this is the reason. It could also be down to his driving style being that bit harder on the car.
He had brake problems at that point and maybe was nursing it throughout the race.
Worth noting that Rosberg had been told that Lewis would let him pass, and was holding back expecting a lift on the straight.
So, how do you reckon that actually went down?
Rosberg caught up with Hamilton, despite apparently having "dodgy brakes", and then sat behind him, making no attempt to pass, then the team got on the radio to Lewis to tell him to let Rosberg through, got on the radio to Rosberg to tell him that Lewis would let him through and then Rosberg carried on sitting behind Hamilton, not making any real attempt to pass, for 9 laps?
You think that Hamilton, Vettel, Raikkonen or Alonso would have sat there, for 9 laps, like a shag on a rock?
Vettel disobeys team orders and he gets slated in this thread and the media. Hamilton does the same, and everyone makes excuses for him including the media.
Disobeying team orders is a serious offence, we have not heard the last of this. Toto may have said we "owe Lewis one", but that was just PR speak. Behind closed doors he would have had the book thrown at him. I would not be surprised if in a future race, when the drivers are in a similar position, Rosberg wont have to move over for Lewis.
Great race though, although it doesnt make up for some of the dross we have had in the previous races. Well dont to Ricciardo, for the win, he deserved it. Alonso bringing that piece of junk home in second, just goes to show he is a class driver.
Let's dispel the myth that team-mates are driving identical equipment. Even apart form the elements that are down to driver preference (Lewis' preference for Brembo brakes for instance) or development parts where the team may only have one new wing the manufacturing process dictates that there will be tiny but measurable differences between the mechanical and electrical parts that make up the cars within a team. All parts that make it onto a car have to pass a QA process where very accurate tolerances are measured but even within those parts that pass there will be differences in quality. Some teams historically have admitted to ensuring one driver received the best parts which will have had a direct impact on reliability. It's pretty obvious that Red Bull did this with Vettel over Webber and that Lotus have been doing it with their drivers.
Just to pick up on that (again) the most obvious difference will, of course, be down to the regulations which say that teams are only allowed to use a specific number of engines, gearboxes and (AFAIK) battery packs per year.
And the condition of those items, in turn, will depend on how hard they've been used by the driver in previous races so, in this case, you've got a bit of a vicious circle going on whereby Hamilton is going to be driving the car harder to beat Rosberg, thus causing more wear to the parts and increasing the likelihood of further unreliability.
Including the results from Hungary, Rosberg is now averaging almost exactly 18 points per race.
So, although all the points he scores will help Hamilton, the only way he'll actually beat a guy who's averaging 2nd-place finishes is to finish ahead of him... which (usually) means finishing first.
Doesn't leave much room for complacency.
Well, much as I struggle to believe that any driver is put at a deliberate disadvantage, I think the pundits on Sky are being a bit obtuse in the way they're dismissing claims of "conspiracies".
I mean, it's all very well saying "Mercedes want to win the constructors championship so they'd never sabotage Hamilton's car" or "Why would a team pay Hamilton millions and then damage his car so he couldn't win" and that's all probably very true.
It also completely ignores the possibility of a single individual who's a Rosberg supporter doing naughty things to Hamilton's car.
And also, dare I say it, there's always the possibility of somebody in the Merc' garage having the sort of political views which mean he finds the idea of a black guy beating a "pure aryan" unthinkable.
To be clear, I really can't believe that sort of stuff would happen, or I'd like to think that is the case, at least.
I just think it's a bit narrow-minded to dismiss the "conspiracies" based solely on whether it's likely that Merc', as a team, would indulge in such antics.
On that note, as well, although it's probably (hopefully) completely unfounded, I suspect that, as a black guy in a sport filled with white people, and in a German team, there probably are some rather dark thoughts in the back of Lewis' mind at times, which can't be helping things.
This has something I would expect from Forza Ferrari...a disgusting post. Yes, you have tried to cover your ass (poorly). If you dont belive it, why even post it? Its obvious whilst you may not believe it, there is a niggling though at the back of your mind, that this rubbish could be true.
A few facts for you, the team is based in England, most of the pit crew and mechanics are English. If anyone would be having problems its Rosberg, not Hamilton. You are also questioning the professionalism of the pit crews the mechanics, that in itself is poor form. These are the same guys that work long hours and work bloody hard. I would love to see their reaction, if you were to ever suggest such a thing to them. I would be surprised if you were able to walk away.
Hamilton has problems in two different areas. Thus this implies two different set of people worked in the area where a problem occurred. You dont have a team that works on say brakes and the electronics. You have specialist in each area, who work on that area. Two different areas, suggests two different people/teams that would mean one person would not be involved in both areas (in a hands on capacity).
As for one person tampering with the car, that is so absurd its laughable. I am sure, there are several camera trained on the cars and the parc ferme area, that would catch anyone tampering with any car. I am not sure how easy it is to tamper with the fuel line or change a break disc, but I would imagine its not a quick and easy task for one person to carry out. So if someone was tampering, they would have been spotted by someone.
As for saying people are narrow minded for dismissing conspiracy theories....how narrow minded are you to post such rubbish? A lot more so.
I never though I would read such a post from you. You really should be ashamed of yourself.
Vettel disobeys team orders and he gets slated in this thread and the media. Hamilton does the same, and everyone makes excuses for him including the media.
Disobeying team orders is a serious offence, we have not heard the last of this. Toto may have said we "owe Lewis one", but that was just PR speak. Behind closed doors he would have had the book thrown at him. I would not be surprised if in a future race, when the drivers are in a similar position, Rosberg wont have to move over for Lewis.
Great race though, although it doesnt make up for some of the dross we have had in the previous races. Well dont to Ricciardo, for the win, he deserved it. Alonso bringing that piece of junk home in second, just goes to show he is a class driver.
I get what you're saying but there are obvious differences between the two situations. Vettel put his and Webber's cars in danger by ignoring team orders, risking a 1-2 finish for the team. Hamilton may have compromised Rosberg's race by not letting him pass but he didn't put either car at risk at the time. Quite what Hamilton would have done had Rosberg actually attacked him is another matter. I suspect he would have defended and in so doing put both cars at risk and a direct comparison with Vettel/Webber would be justified.
I agree though that this probably ends any chance the team have of employing team orders for the rest of the season even if by some miracle one of the other teams mounts a serious challenge in the CC, which isn't going to happen, so it doesn't really matter anyway.
Comments
In my opinion, you can only force someone off the track if they are significantly along side you and you then keep moving over. In this instance Rosberg was behind on the outside & had plenty of time to back out of the overtaking move when he could see the space closing.
Hamilton had already been mugged by Ricciardo at that point, knew that it was Rosbergs only chance & defended brilliantly.
It's a shame that Rosberg didn't show the same hunger to overtake people like Vergne earlier in the race as he did in the last 10 laps. If he had there would be no arguments over team orders or the overtaking manoeuvre as he would have been way up the track and gone.
When mechanical problems are concentrated on one of two identical cars or one driver is much more prone to be the innocent victim of other driver errors it just doesn't feel random.
/rambling
I think the first thing that we have to accept is that a lot of "random" problems probably aren't actually random at all.
Even if the cars do start off identical, you've got 2 different drivers who'll manipulate the car in different ways and that can be responsible for different levels of reliability.
One driver might be harder on the tyres, more aggressive in their gear-changes or use of the clutch, brakes or throttle, drive over the kerbs more, not hit their marks in the pit-box etc and that'll often be the cause of reliability issues.
Course, teams have simulators for a reason and, while it's true that Hamilton might have been responsible for his brake-failure in Canada, for example, you've got to wonder why the team didn't flag this up as a potential problem after all the sim' work that Hamilton will have done prior to the race.
Beyond that, you're always going to get simple mistakes creeping into things and those are the truly random failures.
Course, it could be argued that proper testing and analysis stands a better chance of discovering random faults before they lead to catastrophic failures.
Last weekend, for example, if Hamilton's car was leaking fuel then it must, surely, have been pumping more fuel for a given engine-output than was expected.
Ideally, somebody should have noticed that on the telemetry or Hamilton, himself, might have noticed he was using more throttle for a given output than expected and stopped the car before it was engulfed in flame.
It's certainly true to say that you're talking about far too small a data set to form any meaningful conclusions about "fairness" or "randomness" of failures but it'd also be naive to dismiss things as being "random" without stopping to consider, objectively, whether more could be done to detect a similar fault in future.
Speaking as somebody who's done a fair bit of testing stuff in the construction industry, I've lost track of the number of times we've seen "unexpected" catastrophic failures of things but then, when you review all the data, you can definitely see signs that indicate that something was wrong before the failure occurred.
You just have to make sure you learn all the lessons that experience provides.
What can you say about Ricciardo? he is making Vettel look *very* ordinary, mechanical problems not withstanding.
Very pleased for Alonso, he's been plugging away all season with that Lame Pony, its great to see him get some reward for it.
Great stuff from Lewis, strange call from Mercedes but I suspect they expected it to be ignored which is why it came from engineer rather than Toto... any way you cut it.. pitlane to podium is a hell of a drive and that's what people should be concentrating on.. forget all the other bollocks because that's all it is... bollocks
lastly, anyone who truly believes that Mercedes are deliberately sabotaging Lewis are clearly mentalists. Lewis runs closer to the edge than Nico, he's bound to fall off it occasionally , its how he recovers, that's what's important.
More rambling based on the above...
I think there's an interesting divergence in the team developing there, as a result of the driver's differing styles.
If we take Hamilton on his best day as "100%" then Rosberg gets given a race strategy, goes out and drives at "80%" in every situation, without any dramas, holds to the strategy and comes away with a haul of points befitting his drive.
Hamilton, in contrast, is more likely to be driving at "100%" (unless, of course, he's half a minute in the lead or summat) and, as you say, that's when there's less margin for error and mistakes happen and then, because of this, the team need to be able to revise the strategy on the fly and if they don't make a good job of any recalculations, Hamilton doesn't get the best result and he feels like the team has let him down.
How many times, this year, have we either heard Lewis moaning that the team have made poor decisions or, alternatively, seen Hamilton making a decision by himself which turned out to be a bad idea?
I kinda wonder if, perhaps, Merc' are used to the Rosberg mentality, where the driver just goes out and follows the strategy exactly, and they're struggling a bit to adapt to a driver who needs more dynamic strategy calls?
Also, related to that, I get the impression that Lewis has probably made a few bad calls himself, probably because he's been wondering if the team are going to suggest something and then, when they don't, he insists on doing that thing simply 'cos he thinks it's something they haven't considered.
I think the main problem has been Lewis having to play catch-up after the first race of the season. 25 points is a massive deficit to have to make up when you have the best two cars by far, and even though he did it eventually, he probably had to drive on the limit to do it, taking more out of his car in the process. And then, it went pear-shaped again so he's having to play catch-up all over again!
Even if he catches Nico again after the next two races, this could come back to bite him later in the season as he's used more engines, gearboxes etc. than Nico, so he's going to struggle to win the championship now, IMO. It will be fun watching him try, though!
I agree in every respect.
I'm fairly sure that if the situation were reversed that Nico would not be as close because ultimately he doesn't have that "do or die trying" mentality.
I think that's true plus he doesn't have Lewis's sheer pace.
Strange because Nico's dad couldn't have been more different. The first GP I saw live was Keke's first win, the 'Swiss' GP at Dijon in 82. A terrible year F1 wise for me, being a huge Gilles fan, but Keke was the next best thing, flat out sideways brilliance.
S'funny, I tend to think of them as being very similar, in attitude if not in driving style.
I think Rosberg sr only won a single race in his championship year.
At the time it was said that the key to his WDC was that he was always there or thereabouts, even though guys like Prost, Lauda and Watson were more likely to be occupying the top step of the podium on any given Sunday.
Certainly seems like that's a lesson that's been drummed into Rosberg jr.
To me they could hardly be more different, both in temperament and driving style. Keke was a macho, balls out car control maestro, and drove for wins rather than accumulating points. This doesn't sound like Nico at all. Keke's consistent podium finishes but only the one win in 82 were due more to the Williams generally not being the quickest car, although it was obviously pretty reliable. Many events also transpired for him to be world champion. Tragedy, with Gilles' death and career ending injury to his treacherous teammate, and of the other cars which were faster, Prost and Arnoux took points of each other at Renault (notably at Paul Ricard), and the same happened to an extent at McLaren. The Brabham turbo on its day was probably the quickest of all but very unreliable.
He had brake problems at that point and maybe was nursing it throughout the race.
Worth noting that Rosberg had been told that Lewis would let him pass, and was holding back expecting a lift on the straight.
That's irrelevant, it's still his responsibility to get past if he wants it enough - he stayed miles back so no wonder Hamilton wasn't slowing down!
Its reasonably relevant, why risk the car if you think the guy in front is going to move over.
Why would Rosberg think for a moment that Hamilton would move over when he was a second behind, losing at least a couple of seconds in the process? He is fully aware that Hamilton isn't bonkers enough to potentially throw away points (to either himself or other drivers).
Rosberg must have realised very quickly that unless Toto or Paddy got involved, it wasn't gonna happen! One thing Rosberg and Hamilton have in common is that neither of them is stupid.
Because the team told him he was going to be let through.
But as a driver you still need to think I need to get into position to make the pass, so as not to disadvantage his team mate too much. Like Martin Brundle was saying Lewis would lose at least 2 seconds dropping back as it was, and with Rosberg further back he would have lost more time.
Keke's 1985 Silverstone pole lap has gone down in F1 folklore as possibly the most bonkers lap ever. The first lap ever over 160mph average speed and the fastest single lap until 2002. A friend of my Dad's was a marshal at Woodcote and he said they literally ducked when Rosberg came through the chicane as he basically ignored it was even there. They changed the layout of Woodcote by the next Silverstone GP in 87.
I'm not sure you could say Mercedes have been supplying the better parts to Rosberg, though. It's possible that they have a policy of giving Rosberg the better parts but I would expect that at Mercedes the quality is such that there wouldn't be a major difference. That said it's pretty clear that reliability issues are creeping in as the season progresses and if Hamilton bears the brunt of them it would be possible this is the reason. It could also be down to his driving style being that bit harder on the car.
So, how do you reckon that actually went down?
Rosberg caught up with Hamilton, despite apparently having "dodgy brakes", and then sat behind him, making no attempt to pass, then the team got on the radio to Lewis to tell him to let Rosberg through, got on the radio to Rosberg to tell him that Lewis would let him through and then Rosberg carried on sitting behind Hamilton, not making any real attempt to pass, for 9 laps?
You think that Hamilton, Vettel, Raikkonen or Alonso would have sat there, for 9 laps, like a shag on a rock?
You snooze, you lose.
Vettel disobeys team orders and he gets slated in this thread and the media. Hamilton does the same, and everyone makes excuses for him including the media.
Disobeying team orders is a serious offence, we have not heard the last of this. Toto may have said we "owe Lewis one", but that was just PR speak. Behind closed doors he would have had the book thrown at him. I would not be surprised if in a future race, when the drivers are in a similar position, Rosberg wont have to move over for Lewis.
Great race though, although it doesnt make up for some of the dross we have had in the previous races. Well dont to Ricciardo, for the win, he deserved it. Alonso bringing that piece of junk home in second, just goes to show he is a class driver.
Just to pick up on that (again) the most obvious difference will, of course, be down to the regulations which say that teams are only allowed to use a specific number of engines, gearboxes and (AFAIK) battery packs per year.
And the condition of those items, in turn, will depend on how hard they've been used by the driver in previous races so, in this case, you've got a bit of a vicious circle going on whereby Hamilton is going to be driving the car harder to beat Rosberg, thus causing more wear to the parts and increasing the likelihood of further unreliability.
Including the results from Hungary, Rosberg is now averaging almost exactly 18 points per race.
So, although all the points he scores will help Hamilton, the only way he'll actually beat a guy who's averaging 2nd-place finishes is to finish ahead of him... which (usually) means finishing first.
Doesn't leave much room for complacency.
This has something I would expect from Forza Ferrari...a disgusting post. Yes, you have tried to cover your ass (poorly). If you dont belive it, why even post it? Its obvious whilst you may not believe it, there is a niggling though at the back of your mind, that this rubbish could be true.
A few facts for you, the team is based in England, most of the pit crew and mechanics are English. If anyone would be having problems its Rosberg, not Hamilton. You are also questioning the professionalism of the pit crews the mechanics, that in itself is poor form. These are the same guys that work long hours and work bloody hard. I would love to see their reaction, if you were to ever suggest such a thing to them. I would be surprised if you were able to walk away.
Hamilton has problems in two different areas. Thus this implies two different set of people worked in the area where a problem occurred. You dont have a team that works on say brakes and the electronics. You have specialist in each area, who work on that area. Two different areas, suggests two different people/teams that would mean one person would not be involved in both areas (in a hands on capacity).
As for one person tampering with the car, that is so absurd its laughable. I am sure, there are several camera trained on the cars and the parc ferme area, that would catch anyone tampering with any car. I am not sure how easy it is to tamper with the fuel line or change a break disc, but I would imagine its not a quick and easy task for one person to carry out. So if someone was tampering, they would have been spotted by someone.
As for saying people are narrow minded for dismissing conspiracy theories....how narrow minded are you to post such rubbish? A lot more so.
I never though I would read such a post from you. You really should be ashamed of yourself.
I get what you're saying but there are obvious differences between the two situations. Vettel put his and Webber's cars in danger by ignoring team orders, risking a 1-2 finish for the team. Hamilton may have compromised Rosberg's race by not letting him pass but he didn't put either car at risk at the time. Quite what Hamilton would have done had Rosberg actually attacked him is another matter. I suspect he would have defended and in so doing put both cars at risk and a direct comparison with Vettel/Webber would be justified.
I agree though that this probably ends any chance the team have of employing team orders for the rest of the season even if by some miracle one of the other teams mounts a serious challenge in the CC, which isn't going to happen, so it doesn't really matter anyway.