Lewis Hamilton was victorious in today's Russian Grand Prix at Sochi after the Mercedes team asked their drivers to switch positions. This clearly left Bottas disappointed after the race while third placed Vettel limited the damage in a weekend that saw Mercedes as the strongest team.
mmmK.... so now it’s ok to toy with a competitors car!? I guess Ferrari wouldn’t mind if Lewis hopped into the no. 5 and see if he can figure out what all the dry ice is about while it’s in Parc Fermé?
I guess if you can't touch your openents car none said you cannot touch the tyres! lol
But seriously what are the rules about this?
I couldn’t find any... maybe one of those gentleman’s agreements
Speaking of strategy and team-orders... some thoughts.
Critical Question: Were Mercedes really that conflicted about the orders given?
Given they could have switched back at the end, my initial opinion was 'no'. However, if the plan had been from the beginning to ensure that Hamilton gets the maximum result, they could have simply boxed him first, before Bottas. They could have even explained their reasoning rather simple: They were under threat by Vettel who was 2 seconds behind Lewis and there was a bigger margin to Bottas in the lead at that point. Box Hamilton first to protect against the undercut by Vettel, then box Bottas the lap after or monitor the gap to Vettel. If Vettel boxes, box Bottas later. Worst case; They lose 2nd to Vettel, but protect Hamilton. Best case; They run in 1-2, in the correct order. Easy. A bit masked but totally reasonable and logical. No media fallout, no awkward celebrations, no difficult questions to answer. Job done.
Yet they didn't. Why? By not doing it this way, they compromised Lewis's position, which he did end up losing. He only regained it, because Vettel used up much of his ERS on that outlap and then had little to defend against Lewis later.
My hunch - is that there could be some truth that there are some concerns over reliability. Either a gearbox or engine related. If this is indeed the case, it could explain, why they decided to switch position mid race and then not switch back again before the end. Assuming this is correct, as a team, you would definitely want to mask this so that your competitors don't know about it until it's clear.
As I said, if the goal was from the beginning to have Hamilton win the race to score the maximum gap to Vettel, they could have done much more plausible by simply boxing him first.
I doubt there would be no fallout if they had switched via pitstop. It would be the same as Kimi and Vet in Monaco last year. People will always find a way to talk about something. As Max Holloway says, it is what it is.
Speaking of strategy and team-orders... some thoughts.
Critical Question: Were Mercedes really that conflicted about the orders given?
Given they could have switched back at the end, my initial opinion was 'no'. However, if the plan had been from the beginning to ensure that Hamilton gets the maximum result, they could have simply boxed him first, before Bottas. They could have even explained their reasoning rather simple: They were under threat by Vettel who was 2 seconds behind Lewis and there was a bigger margin to Bottas in the lead at that point. Box Hamilton first to protect against the undercut by Vettel, then box Bottas the lap after or monitor the gap to Vettel. If Vettel boxes, box Bottas later. Worst case; They lose 2nd to Vettel, but protect Hamilton. Best case; They run in 1-2, in the correct order. Easy. A bit masked but totally reasonable and logical. No media fallout, no awkward celebrations, no difficult questions to answer. Job done.
Yet they didn't. Why? By not doing it this way, they compromised Lewis's position, which he did end up losing. He only regained it, because Vettel used up much of his ERS on that outlap and then had little to defend against Lewis later.
My hunch - is that there could be some truth that there are some concerns over reliability. Either a gearbox or engine related. If this is indeed the case, it could explain, why they decided to switch position mid race and then not switch back again before the end. Assuming this is correct, as a team, you would definitely want to mask this so that your competitors don't know about it until it's clear.
As I said, if the goal was from the beginning to have Hamilton win the race to score the maximum gap to Vettel, they could have done much more plausible by simply boxing him first.
if it was the case of some reliability problems lewis shouldnt have been setting fastest lap after fastest laps lap after lap.. the math doesnt fit... it was purely a championship move and bottas had to take it on the chin...
The point is why would merc lie saying hamilton having blistering in rears so have to save him.. post race bottas and vettel checked for blisters in the rear wheels of hamiltons car and imgaes too confirm that they were nothing more than just two very small spots... that doesnt affect performance..
At least there is something to be angry about on this forum again, especially in a race where VER didn't hit anyone! (but VET had a great attempt to do a Schumacher on HAM in the wall)
It's amazing the stuff Vettel/Ferrari still get away with.
Vettel is still an aggressive dolt with road rage.
It's amazing he wasn't black flagged back in that Baku incident and has done many dangerous things before and since.
At least there is something to be angry about on this forum again, especially in a race where VER didn't hit anyone! (but VET had a great attempt to do a Schumacher on HAM in the wall)
It's amazing the stuff Vettel/Ferrari still get away with.
Vettel is still an aggressive dolt with road rage.
It's amazing he wasn't black flagged back in that Baku incident and has done many dangerous things before and since.
1 example (Baku) of complete idiot brainfade, and 1 example (Russia) of aggressively defensive driving.
How does that become many dangerous things before and since? That's pure hyperbole.
He's made several mistakes, such as Singapore last year, but I don't think many, if any, qualify as being outright dangerous.
At least there is something to be angry about on this forum again, especially in a race where VER didn't hit anyone! (but VET had a great attempt to do a Schumacher on HAM in the wall)
It's amazing the stuff Vettel/Ferrari still get away with.
Vettel is still an aggressive dolt with road rage.
It's amazing he wasn't black flagged back in that Baku incident and has done many dangerous things before and since.
1 example (Baku) of complete idiot brainfade, and 1 example (Russia) of aggressively defensive driving.
How does that become many dangerous things before and since? That's pure hyperbole.
He's made several mistakes, such as Singapore last year, but I don't think many, if any, qualify as being outright dangerous.
I don't want to go too much off topic, but I'll give you two examples before and after Baku.
Remember last race when Rai was leading and Hamilton passed Vettel at the first corners after the start and Vettel wouldn't concede properly and crashed into Hamilton?
Remember several years ago when Vettel and Hamilton were in the pits side by side and Vettel tried to push Hamilton into pit crews instead of giving him space?
Vettel is a dirty driver, remember what he did to Webber?
Vettel and Ferrari were a good match...
Speaking of strategy and team-orders... some thoughts.
Critical Question: Were Mercedes really that conflicted about the orders given?
Given they could have switched back at the end, my initial opinion was 'no'. However, if the plan had been from the beginning to ensure that Hamilton gets the maximum result, they could have simply boxed him first, before Bottas.
I think you are using some hindsight bias here. In hindsight there was an undercut advantage, but at the time it as not clear whether it would be undercut or overcut.
-First of everything, can we appreciated the race Verstappen did? He literally stormed from the back of the grid to the very front. If he didn't have to pit, chances were he could have won it. I was hoping he'd do a mad dash on the hyper soft to try to catch Raikkonen again at the end. Seems he looked further ahead and turned down his engine. Smart kid.
-Leclerc proving he deserves his 2019 Ferrari seat, being best of the rest in what should be an inferior car compared to the HAAS.
-Vettel against Hamilton: IMO, Vettel did a move which Verstappen got heavily criticized for in the past, waiting for your opponent's move and then blocking at the last second. That could have easily ended up in tears if not for Hamilton's brilliant awareness and reaction time. Surely one of the WDC defining moments. Nothing happened, so I think indeed it was best to leave it unpenalized, but should this happened 1 or 2 more times after that, Vettel should have received a penalty for it. One big reason why I say this is because Hamilton was equally agressive at the start of the race, pushing Vettel on the run off (although Hamilton did leave some space for Vettel to keep 2 wheels on the track, the moment Vettel went off the course).
-Raikkonen really drove a uninspired race. At not a single point was he any value to Ferrari and/or Vettel.
-Finally, the controversy. I am on 2 thoughts: on one hand, it's logical what Mercedes did. Atleast on the short term. Hamilton winning the race creates a large buffer to the point Hamilton can wrap up the championship at the USA GP. Vettel is now dependant on misfortune for Hamilton and/or help from his teammate stealing points away from Hamilton, so Vettel cannot win it anymore on his own merit. That's a mental blow. So the logic holds up...
... But the race fan in me really did not want to see this. You want drivers to win races and WDC's on their own merit, not because the team helps out because of their own interests. A good analogy would be CEOs maximizing shareholder dividends instead of company profits: they act in their own interests without thinking about the greater good. Not everything is won through icecold logic. I also don't see how Mercedes is going to rectify this by handing Bottas a win when Hamilton has wrapped up the WDC. I can't possibly think Bottas wants to win because Hamilton moved over. And I certainly would not; that's nothing more than an empty gesture. The only way to make amends now is by having a good talk, apologizing to Bottas, promising this does not happen again, handing a very nice bonus and hoping Bottas gets again in a winning position - on his own merit!
From a neutral point of view: I don't see any difference in between the maneuvers of HAM at the start and VET in the race. An I don't see that any of the drivers HAM or VET is more "dirty" than the other. There are dirty drivers in F1 but these two are not. What I do see ist, that VET seems to be nervous if he knows he can't defend himself against a massive superior car.
-First of everything, can we appreciated the race Verstappen did? He literally stormed from the back of the grid to the very front. If he didn't have to pit, chances were he could have won it. I was hoping he'd do a mad dash on the hyper soft to try to catch Raikkonen again at the end. Seems he looked further ahead and turned down his engine. Smart kid.
-Leclerc proving he deserves his 2019 Ferrari seat, being best of the rest in what should be an inferior car compared to the HAAS.
-Vettel against Hamilton: IMO, Vettel did a move which Verstappen got heavily criticized for in the past, waiting for your opponent's move and then blocking at the last second. That could have easily ended up in tears if not for Hamilton's brilliant awareness and reaction time. Surely one of the WDC defining moments. Nothing happened, so I think indeed it was best to leave it unpenalized, but should this happened 1 or 2 more times after that, Vettel should have received a penalty for it. One big reason why I say this is because Hamilton was equally agressive at the start of the race, pushing Vettel on the run off (although Hamilton did leave some space for Vettel to keep 2 wheels on the track, the moment Vettel went off the course).
-Raikkonen really drove a uninspired race. At not a single point was he any value to Ferrari and/or Vettel.
-Finally, the controversy. I am on 2 thoughts: on one hand, it's logical what Mercedes did. Atleast on the short term. Hamilton winning the race creates a large buffer to the point Hamilton can wrap up the championship at the USA GP. Vettel is now dependant on misfortune for Hamilton and/or help from his teammate stealing points away from Hamilton, so Vettel cannot win it anymore on his own merit. That's a mental blow. So the logic holds up...
... But the race fan in me really did not want to see this. You want drivers to win races and WDC's on their own merit, not because the team helps out because of their own interests. A good analogy would be CEOs maximizing shareholder dividends instead of company profits: they act in their own interests without thinking about the greater good. Not everything is won through icecold logic. I also don't see how Mercedes is going to rectify this by handing Bottas a win when Hamilton has wrapped up the WDC. I can't possibly think Bottas wants to win because Hamilton moved over. And I certainly would not; that's nothing more than an empty gesture. The only way to make amends now is by having a good talk, apologizing to Bottas, promising this does not happen again, handing a very nice bonus and hoping Bottas gets again in a winning position - on his own merit!
Have to say agree on all said except one, the Sauber seems to be more aero efficient than the Haas.
Pretty much both of the above. I was hoping both RedBulls would go out on HS for the last 10 laps but I think RedBull brought Daniel in first to see whether he could get tge US working with a new front wing. One decent lap then nothing. Based on that I suspect the view was that Ves was unlikely to catch and pass Kimi and they went for a safe tyre choice to the end of the race. Ves also couldn't get the US to do anything special and both RedBulls just stayed where they were and preserved the cars.