Mercedes drivers told to obey team orders in future

[Doc Austin]

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mercedes-drivers-told-to-obey-team-orders-in-future

What a load.

[Hawkmoon]

Mercedes are right in insisting that their drivers do as they are told. The drivers are employees like any other and should respect the wishes of their employer.

Having said that, they are digging a hole for themselves by saying on the one hand that Hamilton was right to defy them in Hungary but on the other the drivers must obey orders. That's the kind of muddled thinking that got Red Bull into trouble several times during the Vettel-Webber era. Ferrari never have this problem as the drivers seem to know that the team must be obeyed. The drivers don't always like it but they seem to do it anyway.

Mercedes need to pick a stance and stick to it. Either the drivers are free to race or they're not. A foot in either camp will only lead to trouble.

[Duncan]

I don't see anything as really unclear here.

What Toto seems to be saying is that Hamilton didn't ignore the order; the order was to let Nico through, not to slow down. Hamilton's position (and I agree) is that Nico never made any attempt to pass, and was never close enough to make such an attempt, so a decision to obey or ignore the order never arose. I didn't see any instance of Hamilton making a defensive move at that point in the race.

Toto did also explicitly say that there would never be an order to lift off the gas. Let's hope so...

[TheFamousEccles]

The whole "drivers/racers as employees" thing stinks like untreated sewerage. Granted, they get paid squillions to do this, and the team/manufacturer has marketing and image issues to manage, but this is racing ferchrissakes! If it wasn't for superego driving many of these pilots to excel, they wouldn't have a show in the first place.

Besides, ALL publicity is good publicity - and having two big names trading blows in front of millions of viewers (asuming F1 still draws millions of viewers, they seem to be doing their utmost to rain on their own parade) is pretty good TV. Merc have - barring any sudden zombie apocalypse - got the constructors crown in the bag. That's what pays the big bucks. The WDC is just a side show, so let them squabble and fight, er, race that is.

[Mifune]

Ferrari never have this problem as the drivers seem to know that the team must be obeyed. The drivers don't always like it but they seem to do it anyway.

.....Or conversely Ferrari never have this problem as they pitifully rarely have a situation where both of their drivers are neck and neck with one of them being a dead cert for the WDC
Ferrari would love to have Mercs problems!

[Hawkmoon]

.....Or conversely Ferrari never have this problem as they pitifully rarely have a situation where both of their drivers are neck and neck with one of them being a dead cert for the WDC
Ferrari would love to have Mercs problems!

For the last few years that's been true but for most of the team's history they have had a clear driver hierarchy and it's been rather successful.

[truefan72]

For the last few years that's been true but for most of the team's history they have had a clear driver hierarchy and it's been rather successful.

the success came from schumacher, a superior car ( borderline illegal at times) and a lot of assistance by the FIA.
It really didn't matter who was in that other car. Ferrari were going to win the WDC and WCC anyway. the team orders were put in place to ensure MSC dominance and success and had little to do with the overall team success. As left up to their own, Barrichello would have had more wins and a much tighter challenge to MSC. Especially from 2002-2004, what was the point of team orders? that car was beyond dominant. Therefore I say team orders rarely work or are effective and if you look at how they are employed that strategy, then it was never about benefitting the team ,but more about benefitting the one driver. Even if issuing them were patently ridiculous and meaningless.

And with ferrari it stretched far beyond race strategy, it was also the effort devoted to each car, what parts were being given and pretty much having the #2 as a test rabbit, often compromising their own weekend and race just so it could benefit MSC. that level of slant will thankfully never happen again. And as much as i respect the quality of Alonso's driving and skill, he is probably the only guy left on the grid who would wish for that kind of scenario and setup within the team. He certainly did in 2007 and was provided that 2009-2010, and had and implicit understanding of that during his alonso/massa pairing When massa was clearly a #2 and at times got some mysterious pit calls etc, that only served to help alonso and not maximizing the team points. Now vettel enjoyed those kind of benefits too for a number of years, but in a more subtle way.

Late in a season with no chance of success and a championship on the line for your teammate, then I can certainly see teams employing a few strategic calls, etc, which a teammate most often is more than happy to oblige. But i remember MSC not helping out irvine whatsoever, because he wanted to be the first to win the wDC with ferrari in that era, even if it meant compromising the team and teammate.

I for one hate team orders, and they should not be part of the sport. like i said if asked to help a teammate out here and there, then ok, but it should not be an order. And it is funny how only F1 teams think that it is a teamsport, when really it is an individual sport with 2 cars for each participating team. I partly blame it on the entire payout structure of F! which should be geared towards driver performance than team performance. By that same matrix, the top teams will still get most of the prize money and any kind of benefit from finishing higher than rivals, but the actually tethering of the cash windfall to the overall team performance is rather foolish. Establish a proper revenue sharing system and focus more on the drivers championship. That is what most people watch it for.

[Bagwan]

Ferrari did everything they could , in those Shoe years , to win .
They did not relent until they had it won , and Rubens , despite being derided constantly , should instead be lauded for his loyalty to the team , at least when he wasn't whining about it .

They took their best shot , which they felt was with a one-two scenario .
They were ruthless , and took a lot of stick as such , but they were very successful .

It looks cruel to most people , but that true loyalty and self-sacrifice just isn't lauded in today's society .
But then , there wasn't necessarily a lot of real "sacrifice" in Hamilton letting his team mate by , as there would still have been a battle at the end .

Lewis did manage to keep Nico well behind , but he would have likely been better off to have managed his tires instead . He might have had a chance against both Alonso and Ricciardo .
If he got them between himself and Nico , they could have mounted most of his defense for the win .

That's the scenario I was hoping for in those last few laps .

[Hawkmoon]

the success came from schumacher, a superior car ( borderline illegal at times) and a lot of assistance by the FIA.

It goes beyond the Schumacher era. Villeneuve was told to hold station behind Scheckter at Monza in '79 because Scheckter was the team's number one. Collins gave up his car so Fangio could win the title in '56 because the Argentinian was number 1. Driver hierarchies are a part of F1's DNA and Ferrari have embraced that method more than most teams.


It really didn't matter who was in that other car. Ferrari were going to win the WDC and WCC anyway. the team orders were put in place to ensure MSC dominance and success and had little to do with the overall team success. As left up to their own, Barrichello would have had more wins and a much tighter challenge to MSC. Especially from 2002-2004, what was the point of team orders? that car was beyond dominant. Therefore I say team orders rarely work or are effective and if you look at how they are employed that strategy, then it was never about benefitting the team ,but more about benefitting the one driver. Even if issuing them were patently ridiculous and meaningless.

Ferrari felt the best way to win was to backup Schumacher with a 'lesser' driver. The results speak for themselves.


And with ferrari it stretched far beyond race strategy, it was also the effort devoted to each car, what parts were being given and pretty much having the #2 as a test rabbit, often compromising their own weekend and race just so it could benefit MSC. that level of slant will thankfully never happen again. And as much as i respect the quality of Alonso's driving and skill, he is probably the only guy left on the grid who would wish for that kind of scenario and setup within the team. He certainly did in 2007 and was provided that 2009-2010, and had and implicit understanding of that during his alonso/massa pairing When massa was clearly a #2 and at times got some mysterious pit calls etc, that only served to help alonso and not maximizing the team points. Now vettel enjoyed those kind of benefits too for a number of years, but in a more subtle way.

Late in a season with no chance of success and a championship on the line for your teammate, then I can certainly see teams employing a few strategic calls, etc, which a teammate most often is more than happy to oblige. But i remember MSC not helping out irvine whatsoever, because he wanted to be the first to win the wDC with ferrari in that era, even if it meant compromising the team and teammate.

Schumacher came back from injury in Malaysia in '99 and put it on pole by almost a second. He then let Irvine past in the early laps and proceeded to make life hell for Coulthard who was third. After the pit stops Schumacher was again ahead of Irvine and again let him past. Irvine won. How is that not helping Irvine whatsoever?


I for one hate team orders, and they should not be part of the sport. like i said if asked to help a teammate out here and there, then ok, but it should not be an order. And it is funny how only F1 teams think that it is a teamsport, when really it is an individual sport with 2 cars for each participating team. I partly blame it on the entire payout structure of F! which should be geared towards driver performance than team performance. By that same matrix, the top teams will still get most of the prize money and any kind of benefit from finishing higher than rivals, but the actually tethering of the cash windfall to the overall team performance is rather foolish. Establish a proper revenue sharing system and focus more on the drivers championship. That is what most people watch it for.

I have no problems with team orders and I think F1 is a team sport. Golf is an individual sport. F1 takes hundreds of people behind the scenes and dozens on race day to achieve success. It's the very definition of a team sport.

[Doc Austin]

I just wish the teams were honest about it and were not telling us how the drivers were allowed to race while privately telling one to move over for the other.

There was a time team orders were specifically banned. I remember when Coulthard moved over for Mika at Australia one year the FIA was ready for a tribunal, but it was diffused by the drivers saying it was an agreement between the two men and the team had nothing to do with it.

If one of your drivers is a not in the championship hunt and the other is, I believe the low man's main job should be to get out of his teammate's way and the race the hell out of everyone else,

Either have team orders or don't. Just stop jacking us around.

[truefan72]

I have no problems with team orders and I think F1 is a team sport. Golf is an individual sport. F1 takes hundreds of people behind the scenes and dozens on race day to achieve success. It's the very definition of a team sport.

F1 isn't a team sport and for that fact almost every racing series worldwide, isnt; a teamsport.
I do not consider the support staff as part of "the team" anymore than I consider the trainer, waterboy, press secretary, pr manager, massage specialist and team doctor part of the football team.

In fact in my opinion there is only one type of racing structure that I consider a team and that is the shared drive series like LeMans, and a few others.
Every other series is about the driver and the car, and if it takes 100 people to setup the car or 10, that doesn't change the nature of the sport.
car A doing well doesn't depend on car B, and if Car A retires from the race, doesn't mean car B does. they are not a team by any definition.
In fact, come P1 on Friday, both sides of the garage can actually not need to talk to each other until the chequered flag on Sunday and it would not adversely impact either car.
It has been and always will be about the drivers. with (what used to be a somewhat irrelevant) Constructors trophy, which F1 teams take way too seriously. The only thing they need to tell their drivers is not to take each other out. It assumes that 2 professional drivers would not be capable of minding each pther when they have to do so for 20 other competitors. SMH

Like I said, the individual efforts of the drivers is what ultimately earns the trophy and not some sort of strategy.
And even the term "team orders" is slightly misused. because in 99% of the situations it is not about helping the team but more about aiding a particular driver, usually to the detriment of the other. Giving up your car for the designated #1 driver is not helping the team. it is helping Ascari. or Schumacher, and all those strategies were to benefit MSC and not necessarily Ferrari.

It has been proven several times over that a team can succeed without team orders if they have a solid car and decent drivers. Senna/Prost Alonso/Hamilton Rosberg/Hamilton Hill/Villeneuve Prost/Hill...etc
just by default they will win the WCC.

[jens]

It is worth remembering that Massa also ignored team orders in Malaysia.

As the saying goes, drivers have to obey orders, because they are employees. And even if the call doesn't make sense, they still have to obey like in army - you don't start discussing whether the decision is good, you just go for it.

But we have seen lots of times (not only in top teams, but even in midfield) that drivers take the matters into their own hands if they feel the call doesn't make sense. We may discuss whether this is right or wrong, but that's what they do. And this is interesting psychology. Driver also has got a message - "hey I am racing for a result and I don't want to get my race compromised by a strange call".

From the top of my head even my personal favourite Jarno Trulli disobeyed a team order at Suzuka 2006, because he wanted to finish ahead of Ralf, while Ralf was considered to have a shot at beating someone else too, who eventually finished ahead of the pair.

I think there are many-many instances we even don't remember or don't know about. But that's life. Teams may make the calls, but in the end drivers decide, how much sense the call makes. A bit of democracy.:)

Drivers may back down if they feel they put the intra-team harmony at great risk or are even their job is at risk. IIRC Barrichello in Austria 2002 was told that they might need to review his contract if he disobeyes - this was told over the radio. As a result he gave up. Also Rosberg may have thought in Malaysia 2013 that perhaps for in-team harmony he needed to give up now for the long-term benefit. Because Hamilton was still new to the team and Rosberg didn't want to alienate from the team so quickly. But as by now Rosberg has established much better himself in the team and a real competitor to Hamilton in WDC, I think he is more likely to disobey in the future.

[truefan72]

It is worth remembering that Massa also ignored team orders in Malaysia.

As the saying goes, drivers have to obey orders, because they are employees. And even if the call doesn't make sense, they still have to obey like in army - you don't start discussing whether the decision is good, you just go for it.

But we have seen lots of times (not only in top teams, but even in midfield) that drivers take the matters into their own hands if they feel the call doesn't make sense. We may discuss whether this is right or wrong, but that's what they do. And this is interesting psychology. Driver also has got a message - "hey I am racing for a result and I don't want to get my race compromised by a strange call".

From the top of my head even my personal favourite Jarno Trulli disobeyed a team order at Suzuka 2006, because he wanted to finish ahead of Ralf, while Ralf was considered to have a shot at beating someone else too, who eventually finished ahead of the pair.

I think there are many-many instances we even don't remember or don't know about. But that's life. Teams may make the calls, but in the end drivers decide, how much sense the call makes. A bit of democracy.:)

Drivers may back down if they feel they put the intra-team harmony at great risk or are even their job is at risk. IIRC Barrichello in Austria 2002 was told that they might need to review his contract if he disobeyes - this was told over the radio. As a result he gave up. Also Rosberg may have thought in Malaysia 2013 that perhaps for in-team harmony he needed to give up now for the long-term benefit. Because Hamilton was still new to the team and Rosberg didn't want to alienate from the team so quickly. But as by now Rosberg has established much better himself in the team and a real competitor to Hamilton in WDC, I think he is more likely to disobey in the future.

which leads me right back to team orders being useless and unnecessary IMO.
this whole talk of driver's being an "employee" is also a false narrative as tot her status.'Drivers have always been the most important factor in the team ,save the cars themselves. Their status with the team is a pretty unique situation.
They are not employees in any conventional sense and stating as much give folks the false relation to their own employee status at work.
Especially with the bigger teams. Those drivers are more like partners to their team than purely another employee subject to the same rules. They command the most astounding contracts for a reason.
Alonso is as important to Ferrari as ferrari is to him. and some might argue that he is more important to their fortunes than what they provide him. Alonso, like every other top driver in a top team is there for one reason. Win the WDC and cement their names in the halls of glory. Same with kimi, vettel at RBR, and Hamilton at mercedes. most top drivers are not at an outfit to be a dutiful employee but more like an ambitious and hired gun, so instrumental, in fact, that the entire car is built around their needs and strong input. Drivers, who are there to win races and championships provided solid machinery.
and that is what makes the barricello situation so sad. and at least 2 of the MSC WDc's rather hollow as he was unchallenged. To me that's what made the senna/prost rivalries fascinating, and why the rosberg/hamilton championship intriguing. the introduction of foolish team orders threatens to ruin it. Especially when it was done to favor one driver at the detriment to his closest rival, who drove a better race to that point and was asked to effectively slow down and allow a slower driver past him who had shown no ability to overtake vergne or hamilton.
Like I said, team orders are always to the benefit of one driver rather than the actual team in 95% of the incidents.

lets take massa/alonso incident form germany.
there were pretty good odds that massa was going tow in that race and alonso was not going to pass him. given clean air and the lead, massa is a pretty good lights to flag winner.
If it were a matter about the team and WCC then massa was already in the elad and Ferrari was going to maximize their points haul anyway.
But it was about helping alonso, and nothing else. And the massa was clear to massa for the rest of the season.

[Whyzars]

In this era of the DRS and fuel rationing why would any team bother with team orders. All they can serve to do is p*ss off drivers and fans.


They have enough tricks in their toolbox to slow a driver with a simple radio message. Fuel maps, tyre temps, battery chargers.

Once the faster team mate is within the DRS range the pass is impossible to defend against and predictably dull.


F1 is its own worst enemy sometimes. It should ban team orders outright with a nod and a wink given to a pit controlled "slow" button... :p

[journeyman racer]

A terrible essay from truefan. A complete misunderstanding of motorsport/F1. So many holes, I cbf picking at them all (at least, atm). With the possible exception of Hamilton, I'm not sure what he's a "truefan" of.

[Mark]

No personal attacks please. Truefan made some good points.

[journeyman racer]

He made no good points at all.

" team orders being useless and unnecessary" - Wrong. Team orders are a not useless. They enable the team/constructor/manufacturer to maximise their results.

"Those drivers are more like partners to their team " - Wrong. They are not partners, unless they have a stake in the team. Drivers are there for their own benefit, and the team/constructor/manufacturer's take advantage of this notion for their own benefit. They are employees, but are not subject to typical conditions of employment.

"at least 2 of the MSC WDc's rather hollow as he was unchallenged" - Laughable

"Especially when it was done to favor one driver at the detriment to his closest rival, who drove a better race to that point and was asked to effectively slow down" - Was not asked to slow down. Hamilton tinfoil hat brigade at full bore. :rolleyes:

"team orders are always to the benefit of one driver rather than the actual team in 95% of the incidents." - Wrong. Team orders do benefit one driver, so that the team benefits, 100% of the time.

"lets take massa/alonso incident form Germany" - Fair dinkum, imagine bringing this up? Even a person who has no interest in F1, could understand that scenario. Alonso was still a chance to win the WDC. Massa was not. However, Alonso was sufficiently far enough behind, that he needed everything to go his way til the end of the season. It was clear. Massa as a little fortunate to be in front in the first place, due to the awkward positioning of Alonso and Vettel in the first corner. Ferrari had gone overboard with team orders in Austria 02, but it was a fair and reasonable moment to ask for team orders to be implemented in Germany 10.

In the absence of any serious chance Ferrari had of winning the WCC, it was to their benefit that they kept Alonso's chances of winning the WDC. Even a person who has no interest in motorsport, can understand that. But apparently "the fans" don't get it.

Just a complete failure to understand that it's the team/constructor/manufacturer, the entrant, that participates in a "motor race". The drivers is there for the car/team, not the car/team is there for the driver.

Some people just don't get it. I suspect because it interferes with their romantic, theatrical notion of motorsport. There's a grey area with team orders. There are grey areas just with motorsport. The fact that it has to be explained, is further proof of people just not having the understanding of the higher/est levels of motorsport. It's because the "theatregoing" F1 fan exists, that F1 gets more and more cheapened. It's ridiculous.

The driver is there for the car. Not the car is there for the driver.

[jens]

I personally do think drivers are "employees" as such and have to listen to the employer. However, drivers as employees are of very high importance (not only driving, but also marketing) and their relationship means the employer must be quite flexible to make their relationship work well.

You can imagine this with any business if there was a very high caliber specialist, whose wisdom and skills have significantly contributed to the success of the company. If the employer/owner deems said employer valuable, he must be more flexible to follow his wishes not to push him away and let the company lose an important asset.

I think in any business it is important to understand psychology and egos - how to motivate and get most out of the people rather than create bad feelings and friction.

That's why it is easier to impose team orders on a clear #2 driver, because they are more easily replacable and team can more easily say "hey you obey or we sack you". And driver has no other option, because if he wants to remain in a good team, he will have to be a good team player.

However, you have to be more cautious with your lead drivers if you don't want to lose them. And due to success they have greater egos too... and greater negotiating position.

Team principal may have power to impose orders, but basically he has to be wise in regards to when and why to do these, because employees are also human beings with feelings and strange calls can create complications. You wouldn't want that. So wise calls are needed.:)

[jens]

One of the most curious/strangest team orders I can remember, was Jerez 1997. Basically like with Barrichello in 2002, Coulthard was threatened over the radio that he had to let Häkkinen past or his "contract would be reviewed", which meant the possibility of a sack. It was a call that didn't make sense to many - they weren't driving for the championship and Häkkinen wasn't on a different strategy.

The only reason for the call was that Ron Dennis wanted to "boost Häkkinen's confidence" so that the Finn would finally have a Grand Prix win. Usually team orders are used for practical reasons - either to make a strategy work (BMW Sauber Canada 2008) or for the championship fight (many cases). But in this case it was just to make a driver feel good and better. Obviously Coulthard didn't want to risk his position within McLaren as the car was coming good and he obeyed.

Why did Ron Dennis feel it to be so important for Häkkinen to win a random race and risk losing in-team harmony and good working co-operation with DC? Especially before the great years that were to follow? After all, at that time (by 1997) Häkkinen hadn't proven to be better than Coulthard yet, and they were pretty close. So there was no clear case for preference. Häkkinen had lost 3 race wins due to car failures during 1997 though and maybe Dennis sentimentally felt he owed a win for the Finn, who had already lost so many due to misfortune.

[Hawkmoon]

F1 isn't a team sport and for that fact almost every racing series worldwide, isnt; a teamsport.
I do not consider the support staff as part of "the team" anymore than I consider the trainer, waterboy, press secretary, pr manager, massage specialist and team doctor part of the football team.

In fact in my opinion there is only one type of racing structure that I consider a team and that is the shared drive series like LeMans, and a few others.
Every other series is about the driver and the car, and if it takes 100 people to setup the car or 10, that doesn't change the nature of the sport.
car A doing well doesn't depend on car B, and if Car A retires from the race, doesn't mean car B does. they are not a team by any definition.
In fact, come P1 on Friday, both sides of the garage can actually not need to talk to each other until the chequered flag on Sunday and it would not adversely impact either car.
It has been and always will be about the drivers. with (what used to be a somewhat irrelevant) Constructors trophy, which F1 teams take way too seriously. The only thing they need to tell their drivers is not to take each other out. It assumes that 2 professional drivers would not be capable of minding each pther when they have to do so for 20 other competitors. SMH

Like I said, the individual efforts of the drivers is what ultimately earns the trophy and not some sort of strategy.
And even the term "team orders" is slightly misused. because in 99% of the situations it is not about helping the team but more about aiding a particular driver, usually to the detriment of the other. Giving up your car for the designated #1 driver is not helping the team. it is helping Ascari. or Schumacher, and all those strategies were to benefit MSC and not necessarily Ferrari.

It has been proven several times over that a team can succeed without team orders if they have a solid car and decent drivers. Senna/Prost Alonso/Hamilton Rosberg/Hamilton Hill/Villeneuve Prost/Hill...etc
just by default they will win the WCC.

F1 is very much a team sport. The only difference between F1 and football is that there is inter-team competition between drivers in F1, something not present in football. To suggest that the support staff aren't part of the team is ridiculous. If that were the case then Newey, Byrne, Brawn, Barnard, Chapman, Murray and all the rest of the great engineers in the sport's history have meant nothing. Without a competitive car the driver is almost powerless. How many times has a pitstop decided the outcome of a race? Too many to mention. The pit crew have a direct impact on the result of a race. How can they not be considered part of the team? There may only be two members of the team on the track but the rest of the team's personnel have more input into the result than the non-competing staff of any other sport. As I said, F1 is the epitome of a team sport.

Do the teams not share in the glory of a WDC win? Do they not covet that prize more than the WCC? Why were Ferrari so disappointed in 2008 despite having won the WCC? Why were McLaren so jubilant despite having lost the WCC? Winning the WDC is not just a prize for the driver so ensuring your driver wins the WDC benefits the team as much as it does the driver, a point on which I think you'll agree.

Your last point about teams not needing team orders is fair enough. However, in each of your examples (bar Alonso/Hamilton) the team had a dominant car. They could afford to let their drivers compete. A case can be made that McLaren would have won the 2007 championship if they had used team orders. Letting Alonso and Hamilton take points off each other let Raikkonen and Ferrari steal the WDC from under their noses.

[driveace]

So is it being done as Mercedes want Rosberg to become World Champion this year ?
Or what other reason can they be thinking of?
We want to see a true RACE ,not a manufactured race decided by the owners of the team ,how is Hamilton supposed to feel if he is catching Alonso by 1 second a lap and stands a chance of leading the race ,to be told to slow and let his team mate past ,who cannot even run at the same pace? He let's his team mate past ,then his team mate is running a second a lap slower than he himself was ,Is he allowed to re overtake his team mate who is now hindering or sit behind and be overtaken by faster cars catching them both up

[AndyL]

Why did Ron Dennis feel it to be so important for Häkkinen to win a random race and risk losing in-team harmony and good working co-operation with DC? Especially before the great years that were to follow? After all, at that time (by 1997) Häkkinen hadn't proven to be better than Coulthard yet, and they were pretty close. So there was no clear case for preference

The only answer to that question I can come up with is that Ron Dennis moves in mysterious ways.

[journeyman racer]

So is it being done as Mercedes want Rosberg to become World Champion this year ?
Or what other reason can they be thinking of?
We want to see a true RACE ,not a manufactured race decided by the owners of the team ,how is Hamilton supposed to feel if he is catching Alonso by 1 second a lap and stands a chance of leading the race ,to be told to slow and let his team mate past ,who cannot even run at the same pace? He let's his team mate past ,then his team mate is running a second a lap slower than he himself was ,Is he allowed to re overtake his team mate who is now hindering or sit behind and be overtaken by faster cars catching them both up

I suppose it doesn't matter how any times you tell someone...

[journeyman racer]

Jerez in 97 was a last grasp attempt at getting Hakkinen a win, before a long off-season. You take a win any way you can, particularly when you haven't yet won, or it's infrequent. Nobody knew, at the time, Hakkinen was going to win the next two titles.

[Hawkmoon]

Jerez in 97 was a last grasp attempt at getting Hakkinen a win, before a long off-season. You take a win any way you can, particularly when you haven't yet won, or it's infrequent. Nobody knew, at the time, Hakkinen was going to win the next two titles.

Why did Hakkinen deserve the win more than Coulthard?

[airshifter]

One of the most curious/strangest team orders I can remember, was Jerez 1997. Basically like with Barrichello in 2002, Coulthard was threatened over the radio that he had to let Häkkinen past or his "contract would be reviewed", which meant the possibility of a sack. It was a call that didn't make sense to many - they weren't driving for the championship and Häkkinen wasn't on a different strategy.

The only reason for the call was that Ron Dennis wanted to "boost Häkkinen's confidence" so that the Finn would finally have a Grand Prix win. Usually team orders are used for practical reasons - either to make a strategy work (BMW Sauber Canada 2008) or for the championship fight (many cases). But in this case it was just to make a driver feel good and better. Obviously Coulthard didn't want to risk his position within McLaren as the car was coming good and he obeyed.

Why did Ron Dennis feel it to be so important for Häkkinen to win a random race and risk losing in-team harmony and good working co-operation with DC? Especially before the great years that were to follow? After all, at that time (by 1997) Häkkinen hadn't proven to be better than Coulthard yet, and they were pretty close. So there was no clear case for preference. Häkkinen had lost 3 race wins due to car failures during 1997 though and maybe Dennis sentimentally felt he owed a win for the Finn, who had already lost so many due to misfortune.

This situation was more complex than it seemed. I have a book with many statements from Ron Dennis that contradict what became known as the truth.

The gifted win is mostly true, and Dennis states that it was simply a confidence booster as Mika had raced hard but never scored a win yet. But part of it was also staying out of the way of the championship fight, as they had told Frank Williams they would do so. Mika was scheduled to pit first due to qually. But Coulthard ended up running in between MS and Jacques, so they pitted DC early to get him out of the way of Jacques. This disadvantaged Mika, so in the second round of stops they switched strategy back to sort of even the field.

In the book I have, Dennis makes it very clear that he did not threaten to sack DC if he didn't move. The only mention he claims to have made about contracts was that the McLaren contracts stated no team orders would be given when a driver still has a mathematical change of winning the title. Since that chance was out the window for both drivers, team orders were within their contracts.

[Doc Austin]

Unless I have my years mixed up, Coulthard had to move over for Mika at the very next race, the following year at Melbourne. Of course the circumstances were different because it was the result of an agreement between Mika and David, but Coulthard's gall bladder was probably ready to explode by then.

[N. Jones]

Dumb.

Hamilton is trying to win the Driver's championship. Him moving over to allow his team and Championship Leader, is just plain stupid.

[zako85]

^

Great post. I agree. When a team has a clear leader then team orders are admissible (and so Germany 2010 or similar is perfectly acceptable). But when a championship battle is still going on, it's baffling to me that the team can give orders. Stupid team order, just like Red Bull's order last year in Malaysia.

[dj_bytedisaster]

Dumb.

Hamilton is trying to win the Driver's championship. Him moving over to allow his team and Championship Leader, is just plain stupid.

The team doesn't give a flying expletive about that. Team interests come first as they are the ones who sign the paycheque. That's what people used as an argument to blast Massa in Malaysia and Vettel last year at the same location.

[Mia 01]

No teamorder = the driver can do all strategi and planning by himself. In Lewis case this is maybe true, who am I to tell.

[dj_bytedisaster]

No teamorder = the driver can do all strategi and planning by himself. In Lewis case this is maybe true, who am I to tell.

IN Mercedes' view it wasn't a team order to change the result to a more favourable one. Lewis was on a two-stopper, ROS on a three-stopper, so all Lewis had to do was to stay within 20 secs of Nico. There had been a clear agreement at Merc - when the cars are on different strategies, they don't interfer with each other, and Lewis broke that agreement and cost ROS unneccessary time.

[driveace]

Where was that stated,that when they are on different strategies they don't interfere with each other ?Who told you about "The Clear Strategy" ? Paddy told Lewis to let Nico past,at no time did Lewis refuse to let him past at that point in the race .Lewis said "When he is near enough he can come past" But Nico was never near enough to take that advantage so really in that part of the race Nico was not held up .When Nico pitted and came out with new tyres,it was then a race to the finish ,and at this point there were NO team orders or requests to Lewis,and he defended his position to the end of the race as any RACING driver would have done in his position.
Nico,s problem seemed to be with Charlie bringing the safety car out ,in Nico,s eyes at the wrong time .But Charlie can see all the race on cameras where as Nico only see,s what's happening around him !

[Bagwan]

IN Mercedes' view it wasn't a team order to change the result to a more favourable one. Lewis was on a two-stopper, ROS on a three-stopper, so all Lewis had to do was to stay within 20 secs of Nico. There had been a clear agreement at Merc - when the cars are on different strategies, they don't interfer with each other, and Lewis broke that agreement and cost ROS unneccessary time.

I totally agree , dj , and fully believe Lewis was being a wee touch too paranoid .
They told him plainly that he'd destroy his tires racing Nico , yet he made sure he stayed ahead .
Even ol' one ear said they shouldn't have asked him to slow down to let his team mate past , when slowing down is exactly what they wanted , so he would have enough tires to battle near the end .
A little less wear and he might have been able to keep Ricciardo behind him , and have a stab at Fred for the win .

He clearly held his team mate behind to destroy his strategy , and destroyed his own at the same time , costing points , likely from both cars , for his team .
He pi$$ed off the team , and the team mate , for third .

But , he beat his team mate , so it was all worth it .
Sure it was . I'm tellin' ya .



By the way , dj , I think our Mia was trying to(maybe just a touch sarcastically) suggest that perhaps Lewis doesn't think he needs strategists , and can do it all himself .

[Storm]

The team doesn't give a flying expletive about that. Team interests come first as they are the ones who sign the paycheque.

But how were team interests threatened here? Lets say Hamilton gives way and Rosberg moves up but has to stop again - most likely ends up behing LH again after his stop. so no change for the team points there - infact Hamilton might well have moved up a place by then.

[henners88]

I totally agree , dj , and fully believe Lewis was being a wee touch too paranoid .
They told him plainly that he'd destroy his tires racing Nico , yet he made sure he stayed ahead .
Even ol' one ear said they shouldn't have asked him to slow down to let his team mate past , when slowing down is exactly what they wanted , so he would have enough tires to battle near the end .
A little less wear and he might have been able to keep Ricciardo behind him , and have a stab at Fred for the win .

He clearly held his team mate behind to destroy his strategy , and destroyed his own at the same time , costing points , likely from both cars , for his team .
He pi$$ed off the team , and the team mate , for third .

But , he beat his team mate , so it was all worth it .
Sure it was . I'm tellin' ya .



By the way , dj , I think our Mia was trying to(maybe just a touch sarcastically) suggest that perhaps Lewis doesn't think he needs strategists , and can do it all himself .
Considering Rosberg made the final stop and was hounding Hamilton at the end suggests Lewis made the right call. He kept his team mate behind him and prevented him from winning the race. Of course it was worth it. He closed the gap slightly in the championship and the team agreed he was right to stop Nico passing and they admitted they shouldn't have asked. Paranoid fans rather than paranoid drivers. ;)

[Bagwan]

Considering Rosberg made the final stop and was hounding Hamilton at the end suggests Lewis made the right call. He kept his team mate behind him and prevented him from winning the race. Of course it was worth it. He closed the gap slightly in the championship and the team agreed he was right to stop Nico passing and they admitted they shouldn't have asked. Paranoid fans rather than paranoid drivers. ;)

No , henners , they didn't say he was right .
They said they weren't happy with what he did , but understood why he did it .

Then , they explained to both guys that orders are to now be obeyed , though , only one guy really needed to be reminded .

[henners88]

No , henners , they didn't say he was right .
They said they weren't happy with what he did , but understood why he did it .

Then , they explained to both guys that orders are to now be obeyed , though , only one guy really needed to be reminded .
They didn't word it by saying they were wrong directly , but they said they shouldn't have asked it. Interpret that how you will.

Toto Wolf: "We cannot expect the drivers in the second half of the season to move over for their main competitor."

Spin it all against Hamilton all you like, you usually do.

[Bagwan]

Zetsche says this :
"It is true, however, that Rosberg and Hamilton are not to impede each other with different strategies -- for example two stops versus three stops ."

I couldn't find you the "not happy" quote , but that's a good one , isn't it ?

By the way , it's Lewis that spun , not me .
He's the one who caused this controversy by following only the orders that suited him .

And , that was a cheap shot , by the way , as you know full well that I will rail against anyone not following team orders .




They told him three times to move over .

[henners88]

It wasn't a cheap shot and there is no controversy. Things didn't work out for Nico and he was unhappy initially. They have moved on and the points gap closed a little. I hope they continue to fight for the championship without the team trying to manipulate the finishing positions. We want to see racing, not drivers waving each other through to give away points.

End of fabricated saga, onto Spa.

[rjbetty]

IN Mercedes' view it wasn't a team order to change the result to a more favourable one. Lewis was on a two-stopper, ROS on a three-stopper, so all Lewis had to do was to stay within 20 secs of Nico. There had been a clear agreement at Merc - when the cars are on different strategies, they don't interfer with each other, and Lewis broke that agreement and cost ROS unneccessary time.

So you're against what Lewis did? That comes as a huge surprise.
We still need to know why the team didn't fit Hamilton with more soft tyres, costing him unneccessary time...

Yeah it's a tough call whether he did the right thing, but things have been so uneven against Lewis this season, part of me can't blame him. He had to think of his own strategy too.

[rjbetty]

Nico,s problem seemed to be with Charlie bringing the safety car out ,in Nico,s eyes at the wrong time .But Charlie can see all the race on cameras where as Nico only see,s what's happening around him !

Nico has done pretty well with safety cars this year I think. One in Bahrain wiped out Hamilton's 10-sec lead for him, plus the lack of one in Germany helped him as much as it didn't help Lewis.

Maybe the first team order should be for Mercedes to order some more reliability, or a more balanced level of reliability for Lewis compared to his team-mate, then think about orders for Hamilton after that.

[dj_bytedisaster]

Yeah it's a tough call whether he did the right thing, but things have been so uneven against Lewis this season, part of me can't blame him. He had to think of his own strategy too.

No he hasn't. He is an employee of Mercedes. First and foremost he has to serve their interests. Putting his own ambitions over those of the team is a clear breach of contract. If any of my employees put his own ambitions over what I have in mind for the company, he would be gone.

What you can question, is the wisdom of Mercedes even asking something like that - just as my employees have the right to question my motives if I'm obstructing their ambitions, but first they have to carry out what I'm telling them, unless my request is unlawful.

I had the same reflex last year, with Vettel in Malaysia, thinking he was right to disobey. But it was the same case. Vettel disobeying the order was essentially wrong. And it was complete stupidity from RB to ask him to stay put. But he still put his own interests over those of the team and that's essentially wrong.

[henners88]

Well what's done is done, he can't take back what he did and the team can't reverse the silly call. They all messed up and thankfully Lewis got something out of it. I disobey my boss a lot and usually argue my point until we reach an agreement. Drivers disobeying their teams is not new and will continue in future.

If Lewis breached his contract, I'm sure Mercedes breached too for hampering his challenge when I'm sure they promised him a championship when they signed him. Handbags at the end of the day and they need to let these guys race, sod the comfortably placed team in the championship. That's a foregone conclusion.

[dj_bytedisaster]

I disobey my boss a lot and usually argue my point until we reach an agreement. Drivers disobeying their teams is not new and will continue in future.

Then I'm wondering how your boss runs his business. Democracy doesn't really work in a business, as he is the one who carries all the risk and resposibility, so he needs to call the shots. That's what people often misunderstand - The company is MINE and so is the risk. If I muck it up, my employees lose their job and their incomes. So I seriously have no use for employees, who think they know better than me an think they can take risky decisions in contradiction to my orders.
It's not as crass at Merc of course and the teams existence doesn't hinge on Lewis obeying the team's orders. But it certainly will have an impact on the atmosphere. You could see it last year at RB. The relationship between VET and the team was visibly soured for quite some time and a strained relationship to the team is what Lewis needs the least.

[AndyL]

No he hasn't. He is an employee of Mercedes. First and foremost he has to serve their interests. Putting his own ambitions over those of the team is a clear breach of contract. If any of my employees put his own ambitions over what I have in mind for the company, he would be gone.

I think you may have a rather rose-tinted view of your employees. When they have a choice between doing what's best for the company and what's best for their own career, which do you think most people are choosing most of the time?

[Mia 01]

I would not be suprised if, when its time to choose the strategi before a race, Nico will have the call first, all times. It´s only fair, afterall, he is the one obeying orders.

Ohhh, forgot about pitting to.

[AndyL]

No he hasn't. He is an employee of Mercedes. First and foremost he has to serve their interests.

Actually I guess it's pretty easy to see whether this is true or not. Lewis chose his own priorities over those of the team, and has he been sacked? No. So as it turns out, he can do that.

[dj_bytedisaster]

I think you may have a rather rose-tinted view of your employees. When they have a choice between doing what's best for the company and what's best for their own career, which do you think most people are choosing most of the time?

If what they choose is against my orders, they can do what's best for their career somewhere else, as they will be dismissed. It's as simple as that. I do of course try to not order something which I know is against the interests of my employees, but there are situations where it is unavoidable. Which is why Merc have to question themselves why they ordered something without strict necessity that they knew would be against lewis' ambitions. But that doesn't give Lewis' the right to simply disregard anything he doesn't like. What will it be next time? He thinks he's called in too early, stays out, blows a tyre and costs the team valuable points?

[BDunnell]

Then I'm wondering how your boss runs his business. Democracy doesn't really work in a business, as he is the one who carries all the risk and resposibility, so he needs to call the shots. That's what people often misunderstand - The company is MINE and so is the risk. If I muck it up, my employees lose their job and their incomes. So I seriously have no use for employees, who think they know better than me an think they can take risky decisions in contradiction to my orders.

Just the sort of attitude that both makes too many workplaces horrible environments, and leads to companies going down the toilet. Very often the employees know how to do things a hell of a lot better than their bosses — after all, it's been said that the people who become bosses rise to the top precisely because they are expendable in terms of actually doing the work.

[BDunnell]

If what they choose is against my orders, they can do what's best for their career somewhere else, as they will be dismissed. It's as simple as that. I do of course try to not order something which I know is against the interests of my employees, but there are situations where it is unavoidable. Which is why Merc have to question themselves why they ordered something without strict necessity that they knew would be against lewis' ambitions. But that doesn't give Lewis' the right to simply disregard anything he doesn't like. What will it be next time? He thinks he's called in too early, stays out, blows a tyre and costs the team valuable points?

He was right on this occasion; the team was wrong. There need be no sanction. Let the drivers get on with driving. That's what they're extremely well paid to do.

[BDunnell]

I think you may have a rather rose-tinted view of your employees. When they have a choice between doing what's best for the company and what's best for their own career, which do you think most people are choosing most of the time?

Exactly.

[driveace]

Hello BD ,have you been away for a while ?
Nice to see you back .
Let's get this straight ,Lewis was told to let Nico past ,Nico could not get near enough,or fast enough to pass without Lewis slowing by 2 seconds a lap ! He was only a short distance behind Fernando ,and probably have passed him ,had he not been sidetracked by the message from Paddy !Merc then issued NO team orders to Lewis after Nico came out with new tyres? If they were that bothered about Nico catching both Dan and Nando ,and probably passing them ,then why no team orders then ? They realized the mistake of asking Lewis to slow earlier

[henners88]

Then I'm wondering how your boss runs his business. Democracy doesn't really work in a business, as he is the one who carries all the risk and resposibility, so he needs to call the shots. That's what people often misunderstand - The company is MINE and so is the risk. If I muck it up, my employees lose their job and their incomes. So I seriously have no use for employees, who think they know better than me an think they can take risky decisions in contradiction to my orders.
It's not as crass at Merc of course and the teams existence doesn't hinge on Lewis obeying the team's orders. But it certainly will have an impact on the atmosphere. You could see it last year at RB. The relationship between VET and the team was visibly soured for quite some time and a strained relationship to the team is what Lewis needs the least.

Well I'm pretty good at my job and my boss wings it most of the time. I'm an industrial designer and he's a mechanical engineer by trade so he's good at the workings if our projects but not the aesthetics. We often clash and swear at each other but ultimately we know that we each know better in our fields. My boss doesn't run our department, the employees do and he gets the credit and the flack in equal measure. It works. At the end of the day as an employee I am out for myself, nobody else. We work as a team for success, but this has a largely selfish motive too, to get more money. ;)

I'm not too worried about Hamilton's relationship long term. If he wins the WDC and then moves to another team, I won't be losing sleep over it.

[Mia 01]

Most people don´t disobey orders from their boss/company and moore so, not in front of a very big TV audience and get away with it scot free. Add to that that the audience knows that you are doing it for your own only and are payd zillions from the team on top of that.

[jens]

Nice discussion.:p:

As with everything, a lot depends on situation, but also on personalities and how open they are. One of the most strict examples is army - there you have to obey, because if you started democratically debating about decisions, you'll lose the war, while others are attacking. So you have to follow orders regardless of how good or bad they are.

In businesses it is more open and it is in the interest of the business if the owner is able to use as much wisdom of his employees for the good of company as possible. So discussing about things can be good for universal well-being. Obviously there are some nuances of leadership (especially if it is a big company), of which the employees aren't and can not be experts at, so these decisions have to be made by the employer. And there can be some unique and critical situations, which demand quick decision-making, for which you also don't have time to have a democratic discussion.

[Bagwan]

He was right on this occasion; the team was wrong. There need be no sanction. Let the drivers get on with driving. That's what they're extremely well paid to do.

That's right , let them get on with the driving , but leave the decisions on strategy to the team .

They didn't ask him if he was destroying his tires, but they warned that he would if he kept racing Nico .

They could see a one, two , instead of a three, four , and didn't care which driver was ahead .

[Bagwan]

Nice discussion.:p:

As with everything, a lot depends on situation, but also on personalities and how open they are. One of the most strict examples is army - there you have to obey, because if you started democratically debating about decisions, you'll lose the war, while others are attacking. So you have to follow orders regardless of how good or bad they are.

In businesses it is more open and it is in the interest of the business if the owner is able to use as much wisdom of his employees for the good of company as possible. So discussing about things can be good for universal well-being. Obviously there are some nuances of leadership (especially if it is a big company), of which the employees aren't and can not be experts at, so these decisions have to be made by the employer. And there can be some unique and critical situations, which demand quick decision-making, for which you also don't have time to have a democratic discussion.

F1 is war , and Merc have won some battles , but not the war , at least not yet .

[dj_bytedisaster]

Just the sort of attitude that both makes too many workplaces horrible environments, and leads to companies going down the toilet. Very often the employees know how to do things a hell of a lot better than their bosses — after all, it's been said that the people who become bosses rise to the top precisely because they are expendable in terms of actually doing the work.

Sorry mate, but socialism doesn't work. I must know, I was born in East Germany. I own a company, if it goes bust I am to blame, so I call the shots. I do value the input of my employees, but if they think they can disregard me and just do their own thing without risk, because the risk is mine. They're gone. period.

[dj_bytedisaster]

F1 is war , and Merc have won some battles , but not the war , at least not yet .

Unless you've ever been in a warzone, don't use that word. F1 is a playground for rich kids with a strange sense of entitlement. War is where people get killed. Don't be ridiculous.

[Bagwan]

Unless you've ever been in a warzone, don't use that word. F1 is a playground for rich kids with a strange sense of entitlement. War is where people get killed. Don't be ridiculous.

Chill out , man .

I'd prefer any war to be waged on tarmac , rather in in any "war zone" you're talking about .

Take your "ridiculous" to someone else's door .

[dj_bytedisaster]

I'd prefer any war to be waged on tarmac , rather in in any "war zone" you're talking about .


War - by definition means means killing people. I'm sick of people waging that word like it's the most normal word in the world. I've carried a dozen dead friends and quite a few dead and wounded Americans out of the line of fire. in Somalia in the early nineties and it makes me physically sick, when people talk about war, for whom the most distressing experience in life was that the espresso machine was jammed.

We are talking about motorsports here - a couple of spoiled kids, who never had to work for a living, driving cars really fast. What's wrong with words like 'battle' or 'rivalry'. War my ass - you kids never saw war.

[journeyman racer]

lol But how am I supposed to make cappuccinos then?

[henners88]

That's right , let them get on with the driving , but leave the decisions on strategy to the team .

They didn't ask him if he was destroying his tires, but they warned that he would if he kept racing Nico .

They could see a one, two , instead of a three, four , and didn't care which driver was ahead .
A one, two was worse for Lewis than a three, four because it would have extended Nico's lead. These guys are raking in points for the team and their results obviously reflect this. Lewis was put in a position where he had to make the decision to give away or defend a position of getting more points than his team mate. There was no prior agreement to let the other through, they just had their strategies agreed. Both were able to continue to plan, but Nico lost out due to the SC, whereas Lewis benefitted. The team attempted to maximise an advantage they saw for Nico and this would have affected the championship for Lewis.

Team orders are necessary but are rarely popular with one driver or the viewing public. Lewis demonstrated his thirst for the championship and the team need to step up to the plate to give both drivers an equal chance of success and equally reliable cars. I'm not suggesting the team have favoured one over the other but they have two drivers eager for the championship and one has had marginally more mechanical failures than the other. This breeds frustration and the team need to rectify that before it goes out of control. Drivers want to win driver titles first and constructors second. The team have a different view on this maybe, maybe not. Both are worth a lot of money for all parties and the audience only cares for one. The market value also adds to the Mercedes brand, as we we'll know.

[Storm]

Unless you've ever been in a warzone, don't use that word. F1 is a playground for rich kids with a strange sense of entitlement. War is where people get killed. Don't be ridiculous.

By that logic, unless you have ever been in a F1 car, lets not talk about F1 either... 2-seaters do not count :p:

Bagwan just used a common enough phrase in the English language, so you lecturing him on how war is bad (obvious) and how most of us haven't been in an actual war is churlish.

[dj_bytedisaster]

By that logic, unless you have ever been in a F1 car, lets not talk about F1 either... 2-seaters do not count :p:

Bagwan just used a common enough phrase in the English language, so you lecturing him on how war is bad (obvious) and how most of us haven't been in an actual war is churlish.

Last time I checked, F1 was an entertainment, war certainly is not. I simply object to using the word war in connection with entertainment, because it makes people insensitive to what that three letter word actually means.

[journeyman racer]

F1 is a motorsport competition. It is not entertainment, but some find it entertaining. As for the war bit, I don't have to explain that.

[Bagwan]

War - by definition means means killing people. I'm sick of people waging that word like it's the most normal word in the world. I've carried a dozen dead friends and quite a few dead and wounded Americans out of the line of fire. in Somalia in the early nineties and it makes me physically sick, when people talk about war, for whom the most distressing experience in life was that the espresso machine was jammed.

We are talking about motorsports here - a couple of spoiled kids, who never had to work for a living, driving cars really fast. What's wrong with words like 'battle' or 'rivalry'. War my ass - you kids never saw war.

You're going off topic for a war of words , and I'm not interested , thanks .

[Bagwan]

A one, two was worse for Lewis than a three, four because it would have extended Nico's lead. These guys are raking in points for the team and their results obviously reflect this. Lewis was put in a position where he had to make the decision to give away or defend a position of getting more points than his team mate. There was no prior agreement to let the other through, they just had their strategies agreed. Both were able to continue to plan, but Nico lost out due to the SC, whereas Lewis benefitted. The team attempted to maximise an advantage they saw for Nico and this would have affected the championship for Lewis.

Team orders are necessary but are rarely popular with one driver or the viewing public. Lewis demonstrated his thirst for the championship and the team need to step up to the plate to give both drivers an equal chance of success and equally reliable cars. I'm not suggesting the team have favoured one over the other but they have two drivers eager for the championship and one has had marginally more mechanical failures than the other. This breeds frustration and the team need to rectify that before it goes out of control. Drivers want to win driver titles first and constructors second. The team have a different view on this maybe, maybe not. Both are worth a lot of money for all parties and the audience only cares for one. The market value also adds to the Mercedes brand, as we we'll know.

One thing we seem to disagree on , henners , is that Lewis could have won , had he not held Nico up .
I think he would have had a really good chance to keep Nico behind him at the end .
But , you don't seem to have much faith in that idea .

[Bagwan]

Double post .

[BDunnell]

War - by definition means means killing people. I'm sick of people waging that word like it's the most normal word in the world. I've carried a dozen dead friends and quite a few dead and wounded Americans out of the line of fire. in Somalia in the early nineties and it makes me physically sick, when people talk about war, for whom the most distressing experience in life was that the espresso machine was jammed.

We are talking about motorsports here - a couple of spoiled kids, who never had to work for a living, driving cars really fast. What's wrong with words like 'battle' or 'rivalry'.

With you completely on that. One hears far too much immoderate language these days — 'tragedy' and 'disaster' when no deaths are involved, for example.

[BDunnell]

That's right , let them get on with the driving , but leave the decisions on strategy to the team .

I tend to believe that drivers should be able to get on with both, without the constant interference from the pit wall. Sometimes with Massa one used to wonder whether he could make it round a single lap without Rob Smedley's assistance.

[BDunnell]

Sorry mate, but socialism doesn't work. I must know, I was born in East Germany. I own a company, if it goes bust I am to blame, so I call the shots. I do value the input of my employees, but if they think they can disregard me and just do their own thing without risk, because the risk is mine. They're gone. period.

I don't wish to lecture you on the differences between communism and socialism, nor on why greater employee input is not in itself socialist, but the above response suggests it might be worthwhile. And please don't call me 'mate'.

[henners88]

One thing we seem to disagree on , henners , is that Lewis could have won , had he not held Nico up .
I think he would have had a really good chance to keep Nico behind him at the end .
But , you don't seem to have much faith in that idea .
I don't think Lewis could have won the race no. I think had Nico got past, he would have made up time on his newer tyres and been a real hassle for Lewis in the final stint earlier than he actually was. I can't extent on that more than I already have multiple times here already.

[Firstgear]

One thing we seem to disagree on , henners , is that Lewis could have won , had he not held Nico up .
I think he would have had a really good chance to keep Nico behind him at the end .
But , you don't seem to have much faith in that idea .

You're assuming Lewis held Nico up, but did he? Before the team order, Nico was catching Lewis quite rapidly. After Nico got relatively close, Lewis was either holding Nico up, or he sped up to match Nico's pace - and was therefore not holding him up. Their lap times should tell the story.

- If Nico's lap times increase after he gets close to Lewis, he was being held up and maybe Lewis should've let him past.
- If Lewis's lap times decrease, that tells us he made the decision to take the risk of ruining his tyres to avoid having to let Nico past.

I haven't looked at lap times, but Lewis's reply on the radio to the team orders tell me it's probably the second scenario I've listed.

[Bagwan]

You're assuming Lewis held Nico up, but did he? Before the team order, Nico was catching Lewis quite rapidly. After Nico got relatively close, Lewis was either holding Nico up, or he sped up to match Nico's pace - and was therefore not holding him up. Their lap times should tell the story.

- If Nico's lap times increase after he gets close to Lewis, he was being held up and maybe Lewis should've let him past.
- If Lewis's lap times decrease, that tells us he made the decision to take the risk of ruining his tyres to avoid having to let Nico past.

I haven't looked at lap times, but Lewis's reply on the radio to the team orders tell me it's probably the second scenario I've listed.

Had he kept the same pace , as Nico approached quickly , he would have been holding him up .
The pace he was keeping was more in tune with what the team wanted , as they wanted his longer stint on harder tires to get him to the end with some pace left in them .

As it was , though , Lewis sped up as he got close , and it prompted a reminder at the same time as the team order , which was to not race Nico because it would destroy the tires .

So , Lewis , technically , didn't hold him up at all in that sense .

Perhaps I should have written it as "held him behind" .

And , as it was , he didn't end up able to even really get a look into passing the Ferrari , a car with far less pace in it .
It was a great drive from the back , but , in my opinion , he could have played it smarter and had a real chance at the win .

[Firstgear]

Sounds like a pretty fair assessment Baggy. So Nico has no real complaint because he wasn't slowed by Lewis.

Lewis had to choose between a good chance at keeping Nico behind, or a slim chance at a win. His choice shows us that the WDC is more important to him than an individual win. Can't blame him for that.

[truefan72]

Had he kept the same pace , as Nico approached quickly , he would have been holding him up .
And , as it was , he didn't end up able to even really get a look into passing the Ferrari , a car with far less pace in it .
It was a great drive from the back , but , in my opinion , he could have played it smarter and had a real chance at the win .

His real chance to win was denied, when the team didn't switch him to the faster 3 stop strategy, which would have meant him staying ahead of the red bull and probably passing the ferrari.
In the previous race they (correctly) gambled on the SC and sorta lost out a bit, but typically the mercedes team seem too dogged to switch up strategies and actually optimize their situation.
that is the whole reason for the 6 guys on the pitwall and dozens of engineers both at the track and back in the factory. It was so obvious to fans and commentators, bur seemingly oblivious to the team.
Perhaps the thing that Hamilton did wrong was not insisting on coming in for a 3rd stop, but nothing else. He did play it smart with the situation he was in and the cars around him.

Nico showed no zeal to make a proper pass, and actually was not good enough to pass vergne which probably held up Hamilton as well. and as many have said, slowing down to let rosberg bye would surely have meant him finishing behind rosberg and deliberately giving away points to his championship rival. The team has already come out and acknowledged the poor decision and mistake of issuing those orders and that Hamilton was right to pursue his race. So, yes he played it smarter and managed to finish on the podium and more importantly, ahead of his championship rival.

[henners88]

I can't remember a summer break where Hamilton wasn't the hot topic in recent years lol. Come on Spa this is boring now!! :)

[The Black Knight]

His real chance to win was denied, when the team didn't switch him to the faster 3 stop strategy, which would have meant him staying ahead of the red bull and probably passing the ferrari.
In the previous race they (correctly) gambled on the SC and sorta lost out a bit, but typically the mercedes team seem too dogged to switch up strategies and actually optimize their situation.
that is the whole reason for the 6 guys on the pitwall and dozens of engineers both at the track and back in the factory. It was so obvious to fans and commentators, bur seemingly oblivious to the team.
Perhaps the thing that Hamilton did wrong was not insisting on coming in for a 3rd stop, but nothing else. He did play it smart with the situation he was in and the cars around him.

Nico showed no zeal to make a proper pass, and actually was not good enough to pass vergne which probably held up Hamilton as well. and as many have said, slowing down to let rosberg bye would surely have meant him finishing behind rosberg and deliberately giving away points to his championship rival. The team has already come out and acknowledged the poor decision and mistake of issuing those orders and that Hamilton was right to pursue his race. So, yes he played it smarter and managed to finish on the podium and more importantly, ahead of his championship rival.

Yeah I agree with this. The team should have switched Hamilton to Rosberg's strategy. I don't get Mercedes decisions to be honest with this. It appears to me as though these decisions always subtly favor Rosberg not Hamilton. We'll see in time what happens in the second half of the season I guess :)

[The Black Knight]

I can't remember a summer break where Hamilton wasn't the hot topic in recent years lol. Come on Spa this is boring now!! :)

The best drivers usually cause the greater controversy. It was the same with Schumacher when he was at Ferrari :)

[truefan72]

Yeah I agree with this. The team should have switched Hamilton to Rosberg's strategy. I don't get Mercedes decisions to be honest with this. It appears to me as though these decisions always subtly favor Rosberg not Hamilton. We'll see in time what happens in the second half of the season I guess :)

I don't think there is some conspiracy to hve Nico win the title. but I do think that the mercedes team, especially paddy lowe, lives in some robotic mode come race day where they seem incapable to adapt to altering race conditions and situations. It is like they go into a race with a pre planned strategy and then stick to it come what may. I would also first like to give credit where it is due. Nico's side of the garage is doing a bang up job with the car and overall strategy. (of course that is once they get hamilton's setup lol). On qualy and race day, they make sure that everything is in tip top shape, even the pit stops. Meanwhile on Hamilton's side, there seems to be a lack of effort to absolutely make sure the car is right. I refuse to believe as a team mercedes is undermining Hamilton's car, but i do think that his crew are not doing their due diligence on the car, and/or making for darn sure that there are not any issues. To me this comes down to pure professionalism and skill. And this includes the pit stops too. which are mysteriously always around .5 to 1 second slower. I hope with this summer break that changes in personnel are made and others being asked serious questions about their workmanship.

I really don't think Hamilton's engineer has been of much help to him this season. He seems more like a corporate guy and doing what's best for mercedes than for hamilton. Meanwhile Rosberg's guy genuinely seems to care about Nico and optimizing his race. Whereas one guy (nico's) is actively trying to do all he can to get his driver to win the race, the other (hamilton's) seems content to feed him basic data, and only communicate when initiated by Hamilton, but mostly just waiting for edicts from wolffe and lowe. A good race engineer would have told those guys that it makes no sense to tell hamilton to move aside. he had all the race data in front of him and knew what it would have meant.

It's times like these that ones misses Brawn, who was effectively pushed to retirement to deny him the fruits of his labor in developing this 2014 car. and more importantly his management skills. (meanwhile lowe is doing interviews left and right this week, talking about how his presence has made all the difference to mercedes's fortunes...laughable)

[steveaki13]

I am a general Hamilton fan, but I would say, we seem to see lewis being on the end of these sort of controversies/bad team strategy's/falling outs an awful lot.

I remember his last couple of seasons at Mclaren, people saying Mclaren kept ruining his races, and then the Alonso thing in 2007 and now at Mercedes a feeling he is not happy with the team.

Either he is very unlucky or his attitude behind the scenes, or inter team relations are stopping his progress of challenging for titles.

Coupled with mistakes, he always seems to be on the wrong side of everything. I would think it can't just be bad luck.

[journeyman racer]

I am a general Hamilton fan, but I would say, we seem to see lewis being on the end of these sort of controversies/bad team strategy's/falling outs an awful lot.

I remember his last couple of seasons at Mclaren, people saying Mclaren kept ruining his races, and then the Alonso thing in 2007 and now at Mercedes a feeling he is not happy with the team.

Either he is very unlucky or his attitude behind the scenes, or inter team relations are stopping his progress of challenging for titles.

Coupled with mistakes, he always seems to be on the wrong side of everything. I would think it can't just be bad luck.

The common denominator is?

[steveaki13]

The common denominator is?

Exactly.

[henners88]

It's just bad luck, ask Jean Alesi about that!

[steveaki13]

Jean Alesi often got hot headed in and out of the car though too, so maybe he affected his luck and situation by flying off the handle to often?

I just believe as good as Lewis is and as much as I want him to win this title, maybe he causes himself more problems than he needs too. Especially when getting the bad mechanical luck he has had.

[henners88]

I couldn't say as I don't know what goes on behind the scenes. All I can say is the public see bad luck and the team need to rectify this or he won't be winning any titles. If Lewis wasn't getting frustrated, he shouldn't be in F1.

[steveaki13]

True he has had shocking bad luck through reliability. I hope he can still challenge and win the title.

[Bagwan]

This guy is really fast , and really fun to watch .

Having him at the back of the field , sliding by the rest towards the front has been really entertaining .
He's shown us time and time again why they chose him for that car .

It's been tough , with some poor reliability , but he's right there with his team mate , at the front of the pack .




So , it's not so bad .
And , that's all Lewis has to keep in mind .

I just think that , the poor kid from the projects gets so much smoke blown up his butt that he's gets deflated if it stops even for a moment .
Then , he goes into paranoia mode .

Maybe he does need his dad back in charge , to ground him a little .

He's blindingly fast , but seems a bit blind to the big picture now and then .



It is entertaining , though .
It's certainly one of things I like about him .

[jens]

I am a general Hamilton fan, but I would say, we seem to see lewis being on the end of these sort of controversies/bad team strategy's/falling outs an awful lot.

I remember his last couple of seasons at Mclaren, people saying Mclaren kept ruining his races, and then the Alonso thing in 2007 and now at Mercedes a feeling he is not happy with the team.

Either he is very unlucky or his attitude behind the scenes, or inter team relations are stopping his progress of challenging for titles.

Coupled with mistakes, he always seems to be on the wrong side of everything. I would think it can't just be bad luck.

You raise an interesting point. Regardless of how much greater the expectations on Hamilton are compared to his team-mates, I never expect him to dominate his team-mates. Be it Button or Rosberg. Whatever it is, it is always close in points and will most probably remain to be so. A Schumacher v Barrichello/Irvine or Alonso v Massa/Räikkönen situation never seems likely, so that already after half a year it is clear, who comes out on top.

Guess that's what Hamilton is. "Looks" supremely fast, "seems" unlucky, but that's the way he is as a driver - regardless of reasons close combats with team-mates.

I think this shows that there is more to being a "complete driver" than we can see based on just looking things. Hamilton looks fast, but look at Schumacher, who built an entire team and even era around himself. Again some people say that's lucky, but IMO there is more to it. It is an additional skill/talent/workaholism (some even say politics) off the track, that in addition to speed you build the other factors in favour of yourself as well - so that you truly dominate.

That's why some of the great drivers get bashed - people say that they were just favoured, lucky, teams revolving around them. But to me this is an additional effort, skills, traits in character in addition to on-track racing. Attention to detail that you make sure everything works in favour of you.

I believe Alesi was a bit of Hamilton - fast, entertaining, but never got the results his talent "deserved". It is very hard work to maximize the potential of your talent. Just being fast and an entertaining driver with lots of overtakes isn't enough. So Alesi-Berger was a bit like Hamilton-Button/Rosberg. Pretty close throughout the years.

To truly dominate you need everything to go in favour of you. And it doesn't come automatically, it needs huge effort. That's why Vettel's 4 WDCs are still in high regard for me, despite people now downplaying him. Whatever it was, he made sure everything worked for him.

[jens]

Another exhibit: Nelson Piquet. Many think he was lucky to win 3 titles and wasn't such a great driver. Some even dislike his personality. But again - he made things work for him. His co-operation with Ecclestone and Brabham was an excellent one. They were like made for each other and fitted perfectly together. I think early-to-mid 1980s Brabham-Piquet was the best case of a #1 driver situation of that era.

In contrast I mentioned Alesi. I absolutely adored him, but I have to admit in some respects he wasn't the sharpest tool in the box. I view Hamilton in the same way. I suspect Hamilton's inter-personal skills are not as good as some of the others. That's why he could have significant mood swings, and struggle to get teams revolving around him and getting the things he really needs and wants. For that one you must understand yourself, others and greater team dynamics very well to design a working environment really suitable for yourself.

This could explain Räikkönen's plight as well, who has never seemed at ease in Ferrari. They are culturally different and as communication with other people isn't Räikkönen's strength, he has never properly adapted in Ferrari.

So - for greater success in F1 you need to be a perfectionist. Being a perfectionist is not being lucky like some portray it. It is an additional depth in character that some may struggle to grasp, hence call it "pure luck".

[BDunnell]

So - for greater success in F1 you need to be a perfectionist. Being a perfectionist is not being lucky like some portray it. It is an additional depth in character that some may struggle to grasp, hence call it "pure luck".

Well, there's often a certain amount of luck involved. One thinks of Piquet's win in the 1981 championship — he was, one might say, lucky that Reutemann had such an abject final race (his car, Patrick Head has said, was absolutely fine). But you're right — it can't all be put down to luck. There is also a lot of rubbish often written about drivers who were successful through 'hard work' rather than 'natural talent', Graham Hill being a classic example. He had much more natural talent than he's often given credit for.

[henners88]

You raise an interesting point. Regardless of how much greater the expectations on Hamilton are compared to his team-mates, I never expect him to dominate his team-mates. Be it Button or Rosberg. Whatever it is, it is always close in points and will most probably remain to be so. A Schumacher v Barrichello/Irvine or Alonso v Massa/Räikkönen situation never seems likely, so that already after half a year it is clear, who comes out on top.

Guess that's what Hamilton is. "Looks" supremely fast, "seems" unlucky, but that's the way he is as a driver - regardless of reasons close combats with team-mates.

I think this shows that there is more to being a "complete driver" than we can see based on just looking things. Hamilton looks fast, but look at Schumacher, who built an entire team and even era around himself. Again some people say that's lucky, but IMO there is more to it. It is an additional skill/talent/workaholism (some even say politics) off the track, that in addition to speed you build the other factors in favour of yourself as well - so that you truly dominate.

That's why some of the great drivers get bashed - people say that they were just favoured, lucky, teams revolving around them. But to me this is an additional effort, skills, traits in character in addition to on-track racing. Attention to detail that you make sure everything works in favour of you.

I believe Alesi was a bit of Hamilton - fast, entertaining, but never got the results his talent "deserved". It is very hard work to maximize the potential of your talent. Just being fast and an entertaining driver with lots of overtakes isn't enough. So Alesi-Berger was a bit like Hamilton-Button/Rosberg. Pretty close throughout the years.

To truly dominate you need everything to go in favour of you. And it doesn't come automatically, it needs huge effort. That's why Vettel's 4 WDCs are still in high regard for me, despite people now downplaying him. Whatever it was, he made sure everything worked for him.
I can't say I agree with much of that. The examples you give of Schumacher etc are totally different situations and eras. Michael didn't build a team around himself, he had a team that gelled well for a number of reasons. He was also a cheat who all too often played the political game regardless of the damage to his legacy. He was the best driver of his generation and I felt he could have done things so much cleaner.

I always expect Hamilton to dominate his team mates and has usually done this, especially in F1. The only season where he was beaten on points was 2011 and the following season he demonstrated his talent when on form. Comparing Lewis with serial underachievers like Alesi and Berger is rather insulting, especially when they are compared to a world champion!

For a guy who has had such bad luck, a number of DNF's, and some dodgy decisions go away from his favour, he's second in the championship and only 11 points behind his team mate. For me he's put the doubters to bed this season even if they can't admit it.

[jens]

Well, there's often a certain amount of luck involved. One thinks of Piquet's win in the 1981 championship — he was, one might say, lucky that Reutemann had such an abject final race (his car, Patrick Head has said, was absolutely fine). But you're right — it can't all be put down to luck. There is also a lot of rubbish often written about drivers who were successful through 'hard work' rather than 'natural talent', Graham Hill being a classic example. He had much more natural talent than he's often given credit for.

I agree. Luck certainly plays a role as well.

For some reason people often think that the "most naturally talented" drivers have got the "right to win". Hence the calls that the "best drivers" should win titles, etc. But what about drivers, who maybe are not so naturally talented, but manage to maximize their talents in other ways and "overachieve"? In my view such achievements are fantastic. You may not be supremely gifted, but you still manage to maximize whatever you have got. But people often say that they were undeserving winners, because the "best and most talented" didn't win (due to car, luck, circumstance, favouring, whatever argument is thrown out).

[jens]

I can't say I agree with much of that. The examples you give of Schumacher etc are totally different situations and eras. Michael didn't build a team around himself, he had a team that gelled well for a number of reasons. He was also a cheat who all too often played the political game regardless of the damage to his legacy. He was the best driver of his generation and I felt he could have done things so much cleaner.

I always expect Hamilton to dominate his team mates and has usually done this, especially in F1. The only season where he was beaten on points was 2011 and the following season he demonstrated his talent when on form. Comparing Lewis with serial underachievers like Alesi and Berger is rather insulting, especially when they are compared to a world champion!

For a guy who has had such bad luck, a number of DNF's, and some dodgy decisions go away from his favour, he's second in the championship and only 11 points behind his team mate. For me he's put the doubters to bed this season even if they can't admit it.

Well, whatever it is, Hamilton does not dominate his team-mates, neither Button nor Rosberg, even if you expect so. Domination is what Alonso has done to Massa and Räikkönen. Do you expect Hamilton to collect twice as many points as Rosberg in some of the subsequent seasons? I don't think so. We have evidence of five years by now (2010-2014) that Hamilton roughly ties on the result sheets with Button/Rosberg combination. Hard data doesn't suggest he should be dominating.

By the way, there are lots of drivers, who have had lots of unluck and DNF-s, including lots of so-called underachievers. Insulting? I don't think so. Perhaps comparing Hamilton to Maldonado would be insulting, but Alesi was a top3 driver on the grid in his prime. By the way, it is not a direct driving skills comparison, more like who those people remind me.

Comparing talented drivers to a World Champion isn't insulting. As you yourself admit, circumstances often play a role in results (also either meaning winning titles or not).

Schumacher's cheating doesn't explain, why did he have such a strong standing in the team though and general influence on the sport. These are different subjects.

[henners88]

I very much doubt the other comparable drivers in Hamilton's position would dominate Rosberg either. Hamilton absolutely wiped the floor with Button in 2012 and more than made up for the previous year too. I think we have a different definition of dominating as I never look at points for my answer.

I will remind you if this at the end of the season if Lewis beats Rosberg, even if it's by a single point ;)

[BDunnell]

For some reason people often think that the "most naturally talented" drivers have got the "right to win". Hence the calls that the "best drivers" should win titles, etc. But what about drivers, who maybe are not so naturally talented, but manage to maximize their talents in other ways and "overachieve"? In my view such achievements are fantastic. You may not be supremely gifted, but you still manage to maximize whatever you have got. But people often say that they were undeserving winners, because the "best and most talented" didn't win (due to car, luck, circumstance, favouring, whatever argument is thrown out).

Saying such winners are 'undeserving' betrays, in my opinion, both a lack of appreciation of a driver's all-round talents and a lack of emotion towards the sport. One almost need not have a championship — just decide who the 'best' driver is, who thus 'should' win, at the start of the season and don't bother running the races.

[BDunnell]

Well, whatever it is, Hamilton does not dominate his team-mates, neither Button nor Rosberg, even if you expect so.

I wouldn't, because both are very fine drivers.

[BDunnell]

I can't say I agree with much of that. The examples you give of Schumacher etc are totally different situations and eras. Michael didn't build a team around himself, he had a team that gelled well for a number of reasons.

There is never one single factor at play, but it does need pointing out that Schumacher's approach in bringing a team around him and getting them to work for him, as it were, is far from unique. Jackie Stewart basically did just that with Ken Tyrrell, albeit in a different style that never excluded his team-mates. Niki Lauda tried to do it at Ferrari, and was partially successful. Mario Andretti at Lotus might be another example.

[journeyman racer]

I think this shows that there is more to being a "complete driver" than we can see based on just looking things.
Phew! A relief to know that others have figured this out. Copy and paste response to every delusional Hamilton fanboy.

[journeyman racer]

Schumacher got favouritism because Briatore liked him at Benetton. Briatore is the first team owner/manager (that I know of) who prioritised the driver's title over the constructor's. It obviously ended up being a successful. Ferrari in effect bought that part of Benetton (the key Benetton people). Ferrari just did what Benetton did, cut and paste.