• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Entertainment
  • Sport
Official Formula 1 Thread (Part 8)
<<
<
195 of 390
>>
>
crake
27-07-2014
Originally Posted by Si_Crewe:
“Well, as I said, if one driver's actions damages the other driver's race against everybody else then it's a bit spiteful but I don't think you can criticise a driver for doing something that's going to harm his own result.”

Can't think of many circumstances where a driver doesn't benefit from holding up his team mate. Even if a driver won't finish in the points, any points you deprive your team mate only helps how the overall points tally for you looks. In other words, even if Lewis was not going to score anything here, he still would have wanted to hold up his team mate to reduce the deficit.

Despite this, most drivers do the right thing for the team and obey the orders.
Fudd
27-07-2014
Originally Posted by roger_50:
“Mercedes say they allow both of them to race - they were effectively telling Lewis to allow Nico to finish ahead of him. That's not allowing them to race.

As it turned out Lewis was right - if he'd slowed down and let him through earlier he would have finished behind Nico at the end.

Can't have it both ways, either you officially allow your drivers to race or you officially nominate a priority driver and run the team that way. The team were seemingly doing the latter today for some reason.

I was happy to see Lewis put his foot down here actually. Nip it in the bud right now, otherwise he just weakens his position in the team.”

They're trying to do best by the team. Letting Rosberg though when asked would have probably resulted in a 1 and 4. Or possibly 1 and 3 as Hamilton could have driven his own race instead of looking in his mirrors for a large part of it. I don't think it was putting one driver above the other - if roles were reversed I think they would have asked Rosberg to move. Would he have done? Well, I highly doubt he will if it happens again now.
crake
27-07-2014
Originally Posted by Si_Crewe:
“If the team are that bothered about gaining every possible point for the Constructors championship I'd suggest they start by addressing their reliability issues.”

It's OK to ignore team orders if you've had a couple DNFs??? Interesting logic. Thank you for your contribution.
d'@ve
27-07-2014
Originally Posted by allthingsuk:
“I'm inclined to agree. Yes, Hamilton pretty much stopped Rosberg from winning the race and disobeyed a team order. He wouldn't have disobeyed it if Brawn had said it. But unfortunately, to be a world champion, you have to be a bit nasty and ruthless. If Rosberg won, he would have extended the gap by 10 points if Hamilton was 3rd, if not more. Those are crucial points he can't afford to lose.

Yes, he may not have played the team game and yes, I'm slightly critical of it, but he's closed the gap and that's all that matters to him. He'll take a bit of flak short term for the longer-term gains - a little bit like Vettel in Malaysia last year.”

So... Toto allowed Lewis to get away with it because they felt the team owed him one. That's what his Sky interview sounds like, to me.

Good call by the team boss, in the circumstances. They can now say the slate is clean.
roger_50
27-07-2014
Originally Posted by Fudd:
“They're trying to do best by the team. Letting Rosberg though when asked would have probably resulted in a 1 and 4. Or possibly 1 and 3 as Hamilton could have driven his own race instead of looking in his mirrors for a large part of it. I don't think it was putting one driver above the other - if roles were reversed I think they would have asked Rosberg to move. Would he have done? Well, I highly doubt he will if it happens again now.”

That's all fine - but you can't have all that and also say you allow the two drivers to race eachother. ie, do what's in their individual best interests to stay ahead of their teammate.

I'd be absolutely fine with Lewis slowing down if that was the team policy. But it's not.
Fudd
27-07-2014
Originally Posted by allthingsuk:
“I'm inclined to agree. Yes, Hamilton pretty much stopped Rosberg from winning the race and disobeyed a team order. He wouldn't have disobeyed it if Brawn had said it. But unfortunately, to be a world champion, you have to be a bit nasty and ruthless. If Rosberg won, he would have extended the gap by 10 points if Hamilton was 3rd, if not more. Those are crucial points he can't afford to lose.

Yes, he may not have played the team game and yes, I'm slightly critical of it, but he's closed the gap and that's all that matters to him. He'll take a bit of flak short term for the longer-term gains - a little bit like Vettel in Malaysia last year.”

What flak? The media are shoved securely up Hamilton's backside. I seem to remember Vettel was pulled from pillar to post in comparison.
Si_Crewe
27-07-2014
Originally Posted by crake:
“Can't think of many circumstances where a driver doesn't benefit from holding up his team mate. Even if a driver won't finish in the points, any points you deprive your team mate only helps how the overall points tally for you looks. In other words, even if Lewis was not going to score anything here, he still would have wanted to hold up his team mate to reduce the deficit.

Despite this, most drivers do the right thing for the team and obey the orders.”

How, exactly, do you get a situation where one driver who's not in a position to score any points might hold up a team-mate who is going to score points?

Seems like the only possibility would be when one driver is being lapped, in which case they have blue flags to deal with it.

If a team is desperate for points for the Constructors championship they might be inclined to issue team-orders but it's not like Merc' are in that position and, even if they were, building Lewis' car properly might be the best improvement they could make there.
Fudd
27-07-2014
Originally Posted by roger_50:
“That's all fine - but you can't have all that and also say you allow the two drivers to race eachother. ie, do what's in their individual best interests to stay ahead of their teammate.

I'd be absolutely fine with Lewis slowing down if that was the team policy. But it's not.”

They have asked drivers to swap before based on strategy but not for pure race position.
crake
27-07-2014
Originally Posted by roger_50:
“That's all fine - but you can't have all that and also say you allow the two drivers to race eachother. ie, do what's in their individual best interests to stay ahead of their teammate.

I'd be absolutely fine with Lewis slowing down if that was the team policy. But it's not.”

Yes the drivers can and do race each other. Which all F1 fans are happy to see! But if one driver is on a different strategy on a track which is hard to overtake even with a much faster car, then it makes sense to allow the driver who needs to pit again through. Most teams do this.
roger_50
27-07-2014
Originally Posted by Fudd:
“They have asked drivers to swap before based on strategy but not for pure race position.”

But that's been in more obvious scenarios where the two drivers were clearly running two different races. They were racing eachother on this occasion.

Completely different.
Si_Crewe
27-07-2014
Originally Posted by Fudd:
“What flak? The media are shoved securely up Hamilton's backside. I seem to remember Vettel was pulled from pillar to post in comparison.”

TBH, I think the main thing that made Vettel look bad was the way he tried to weasel his way out of it afterwards.

If he'd just come out and said "It would've hurt my race to let him through so that's why I didn't do it" I can't really see how anybody could've criticised him.
Fudd
27-07-2014
Originally Posted by Si_Crewe:
“If the team are that bothered about gaining every possible point for the Constructors championship I'd suggest they start by addressing their reliability issues.”

I highly doubt Mercedes are deliberately having issues with Hamilton. Just like Red Bull aren't deliberately having reliability issues with Vettel.

Though I was entertained by your post-qualifying remarks yesterday.
roger_50
27-07-2014
Originally Posted by crake:
“Yes the drivers can and do race each other. Which all F1 fans are happy to see! But if one driver is on a different strategy on a track which is hard to overtake even with a much faster car, then it makes sense to allow the driver who needs to pit again through. Most teams do this.”

As I said above, with Lewis' old tyres and Nico with 1stop+fresh tyres, they were effectively racing eachother to the end anyway. So Lewis basically had the decision: do I want to finish in front of or behind Nico?

And with a team that officially allows both drivers to race eachother, Lewis was naturally only going to make one decision.
allthingsuk
27-07-2014
Originally Posted by Fudd:
“What flak? The media are shoved securely up Hamilton's backside. I seem to remember Vettel was pulled from pillar to post in comparison.”

Objectivity is not something the media do well at all. If they criticised Vettel for breaking team orders, Hamilton has to be criticised as well. The circumstances may have been slightly different but the fact is, he broke a team order.

As one has already alluded to, he was allowed to get away with it because of the shambles of yesterday. The team owed him something, so they're both even. I just hope Hamilton won't throw his toys out of the pram when Rosberg does the same thing. What goes around, comes around and all that.
crake
27-07-2014
Originally Posted by Si_Crewe:
“How, exactly, do you get a situation where one driver who's not in a position to score any points might hold up a team-mate who is going to score points? ”

If one driver has just pitted and finds himself behind his team mate who has not stopped and, when he does finally pit, will find himself out of the points. This is exactly why the team issues these orders, to stop a team mate on a different tyre strategy from harming the other guy's race.
Fudd
27-07-2014
Originally Posted by roger_50:
“But that's been in more obvious scenarios where the two drivers were clearly running two different races. They were racing eachother on this occasion.

Completely different.”

They weren't racing each other though. Rosberg was aiming for the win. Due to tyre drop off Hamilton wasn't.
roger_50
27-07-2014
Originally Posted by Fudd:
“They weren't racing each other though. Rosberg was aiming for the win. Due to tyre drop off Hamilton wasn't.”

Completely disagree. Of course they were racing eachother. As in fighting eachother to stay further ahead of the other one.
Si_Crewe
27-07-2014
Originally Posted by Fudd:
“I highly doubt Mercedes are deliberately having issues with Hamilton. Just like Red Bull aren't deliberately having reliability issues with Vettel.”

What's that got to do with anything?

I was just pointing out that if Merc' are bleating about Lewis' actions losing them a few points in the WCC, they'd probably be wise to consider how many points unreliability has cost them and address that issue first.

Quote:
“Though I was entertained by your post-qualifying remarks yesterday. ”

Good of you to say so.
Matt35
27-07-2014
Originally Posted by Fudd:
“They're trying to do best by the team. Letting Rosberg though when asked would have probably resulted in a 1 and 4. Or possibly 1 and 3 as Hamilton could have driven his own race instead of looking in his mirrors for a large part of it. I don't think it was putting one driver above the other - if roles were reversed I think they would have asked Rosberg to move. Would he have done? Well, I highly doubt he will if it happens again now.”

If the roles were reversed then rosberg would have done what lewis did. If rosberg had been right behind then lewis would have let him past but he wasn't and he would have had to slow down and lose around 2 secs. After all the bad luck lewis has had he deserved that position and if rosberg has to be given a position then something is seriously wrong. Well done to daniel though.
Si_Crewe
27-07-2014
Originally Posted by crake:
“If one driver has just pitted and finds himself behind his team mate who has not stopped and, when he does finally pit, will find himself out of the points. This is exactly why the team issues these orders, to stop a team mate on a different tyre strategy from harming the other guy's race.”



And, in that hypothetical situation, why wouldn't the other driver just do the same thing and, thus, also be capable of challenging for points?

This makes no sense at all.
Fudd
27-07-2014
Originally Posted by Matt35:
“If the roles were reversed then rosberg would have done what lewis did. If rosberg had been right behind then lewis would have let him past but he wasn't and he would have had to slow down and lose around 2 secs. After all the bad luck lewis has had he deserved that position and if rosberg has to be given a position then something is seriously wrong. Well done to daniel though.”

It's nigh on impossible to overtake a teammate if they're at the top of the game and don't have an issue/saving fuel simply because the cars are very alike.

It's possible that Rosberg would have done the same thing but I'm sure the reaction would have been very different from Sky and on here if he had.
crake
27-07-2014
Originally Posted by Si_Crewe:
“
I was just pointing out that if Merc' are bleating about Lewis' actions losing them a few points in the WCC, they'd probably be wise to consider how many points unreliability has cost them and address that issue first.”

There is obviously a trade off between speed and reliability. Mercedes have gone for speed.
Fudd
27-07-2014
Originally Posted by Si_Crewe:
“What's that got to do with anything?

I was just pointing out that if Merc' are bleating about Lewis' actions losing them a few points in the WCC, they'd probably be wise to consider how many points unreliability has cost them and address that issue first.”

Sorry, it just sounded as though you were accusing Mercedes of not worrying about reliability. I'm sure they're desperately working on the issues they're having.
Fudd
27-07-2014
Originally Posted by roger_50:
“Completely disagree. Of course they were racing eachother. As in fighting eachother to stay further ahead of the other one. ”

But strategically they were not fighting one another. Red Bull gained points on Mercedes today, albeit minimal. But they shouldn't have done.
Matt35
27-07-2014
Originally Posted by Fudd:
“It's nigh on impossible to overtake a teammate if they're at the top of the game and don't have an issue/saving fuel simply because the cars are very alike.

It's possible that Rosberg would have done the same thing but I'm sure the reaction would have been very different from Sky and on here if he had.”

Its pretty hard to overtake on this track anyway. Its not like lewis was holding him up and rosberg still had to stop so Lewis did the right thing.
<<
<
195 of 390
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map