2016 Austrian Grand Prix - Spielberg, Fri 01 – Sun 03 Jul 2016

[Jolle]

Did he have brand new Soft tyres or brand new Supersoft tyres? If he had new Softs, fair enough, those would have been better.

If he had new Supersofts, would he have had a chance to pass Rosberg? My guess is no.

They gave Hamilton used softs (7 laps old I think) and Nico's were brand new (or at worst 1 lap) super softs.

It's just all rather strange. Hamilton was the defacto leader. He was first and leading. Then Mercedes decided to pit Rosberg early (despite him already being in a good position) - probably in an attempt to get a 1 & 2. Fair enough. This offset both strategies. They kept Hamilton out, as to suggest he was on a 1-stop race. That is how Rosberg ended up with track position. Theoretically, the assumption was that Rosberg would pit towards the end and fall back again. Yet then they pitted both cars again - this time Hamilton first, but only to give him the worse tire. That really makes it seem that the team somehow wanted to give Rosberg an advantage. Technically, at the point Mercedes pitted both cars, Rosbergs was 11 laps older than Hamiltons. So they knew Hamiltons tire would last to the end on good pace. Yet they brought him him as well AND gave him the worse tire.

Then Hamilton, realising this, comes on the radio to question why Rosbegr is on the softer tire.

Seriously, this shunt and collision is very much Mercedes own fault.

You hit the nail on the head. Also to make things worse, Hamilton was instructed to holding back his pace when he was behind Rosberg with the idea that Rosberg is going to pit and that he needs to make the tyres las to the end.
So not only was he was his strategy compromised, so was his pace.
Lewis needs to open his eyes and realize that this year they are trying to sneak Nico a championship.

You don't pay a guy 100mln in three years to sabotage him. Rubbish.

If there would be any tricks going on, if! It would be the other way round. For Mercedes, Hamilton as a WC is worth more in marketing value then Rosberg. But again, if!

But, Rosberg, with this and Barcelona, doesn't do himself any favors for his new contract.

[FoxHound]

They gave Hamilton used softs (7 laps old I think) and Nico's were brand new (or at worst 1 lap) super softs.

It's just all rather strange. Hamilton was the defacto leader. He was first and leading. Then Mercedes decided to pit Rosberg early (despite him already being in a good position) - probably in an attempt to get a 1 & 2. Fair enough. This offset both strategies. They kept Hamilton out, as to suggest he was on a 1-stop race. That is how Rosberg ended up with track position. Theoretically, the assumption was that Rosberg would pit towards the end and fall back again. Yet then they pitted both cars again - this time Hamilton first, but only to give him the worse tire. That really makes it seem that the team somehow wanted to give Rosberg an advantage. Technically, at the point Mercedes pitted both cars, Rosbergs was 11 laps older than Hamiltons. So they knew Hamiltons tire would last to the end on good pace. Yet they brought him him as well AND gave him the worse tire.

Then Hamilton, realising this, comes on the radio to question why Rosbegr is on the softer tire.

Seriously, this shunt and collision is very much Mercedes own fault.

You hit the nail on the head. Also to make things worse, Hamilton was instructed to holding back his pace when he was behind Rosberg with the idea that Rosberg is going to pit and that he needs to make the tyres las to the end.
So not only was he was his strategy compromised, so was his pace.
Lewis needs to open his eyes and realize that this year they are trying to sneak Nico a championship.

Mercedes at fault for letting the drivers race?

Ros had to run US twice, because of his allocation. Ham had to stretch his stint out to 51 laps on SS which Mercedes were not keen on, given graining, kerb damage and what happened to Vettel.
Hamilton himself questioned the decision, but when you saw how Rosberg was flailing about for the last 2 laps, it was the correct decision.

What is completely wrong, is to have a team favour one driver over the other, so as to fabricate "racing". It is also completely stupid to run your team mate out of road.

[GPR-A duplicate2]

https://twitter.com/worldsportingex/sta ... 8594862080

[NathanOlder]

Looks to me like Hamilton was nowhere near being pushed off the track at the moment he initiated his turn...

http://i.imgur.com/cekMWNU.jpg

Being kept off-line is not the same thing as being pushed off-track.

In any case, it's a damn good thing that Mercedes produces high-quality power units. In a race against legitimate competition, the team's hopes would regularly be dashed by inadequate driver management and/or inept race strategy.

I think Nico was in Lewis' blind spot , so how far wide do you go ? Nico had 70% of the track to play with and didnt even attempt to use it. Nico braked too late if he had brake problems on the dirty side and only turned in when he knew contact was almost inevitable. Nico had a chance to run Lewis wide but instead thought it would be better to run into him. Nico's call, and it backfired BIG TIME.

[wesley123]

No, not America. Just wait till there's not a car sitting there, where he turns.

Which is why Hamilton turned in much, much later to begin with.

And still not late enough.

It's really impressive how you can blame Hamilton for Rosberg colliding into him.

How can you defend him stating the fact that he turned in *later* than he normally would have?

Because he did. It's very clear how late he turned in, even in an overtaking situation it was a very, very late turn in.

He still needlessly ran into another car. They were side by side, he was not even in front.

No, Rosberg ran into Hamilton, not the other way around. It's an really impressive view that you could have. So I'll put it in another way; If it was Hamilton who ran into Rosberg then there was absolutely no reason for Hamilton to turn in later, considering the outcome would be the same. For Rosberg however, the outcome would be different as he would have moved away from Hamilton.

To make it even clearer I'll put it in another way; On the exit of the corner, Rosberg was on the outside of the corner, with a damaged car. He was in a position that blocked Hamiltons reentry onto the track. If it was Hamilton who was at fault and not Rosberg, then why wasn't Rosberg on the right side of the track instead of the left?

We see overtakes taking place in u-turns like in Canada where the car on the outside almost has to stop because there is no space due to the car on the inside

That would be a really great example if it was applicable here, which it isn't.

but exactly that (going very slow and waiting for the other car to leave the turn) is one of the other options. It's perfectly valid to force such an option onto another driver, we're racing here.

And what has that got to do with this incident? Oh you mean Hamilton had to slow down and evade Rosberg? Well guess what, Einstein: That is exactly what Hamilton did, considering how late he turned in

[Phil]

You still haven't answered my question. Did Hamilton have any other tyres other than the Softs he ultimately used?

I'm assuming they should have each had sets that are similar, given they both had the same qualifying, equal runs on equal tires. And it still doesn't explain why they pitted both cars, if they knew that one car that needed to pit had already done 11 laps more and was still going well to consider not pitting the other (HAM).

You're assuming wrong. Rosberg had 1 less set of Softs this weekend.

http://i.imgur.com/zCi80e8.png

So why not use a set of Ultra Softs? There should have been a brand new set of something in that garage considering the rain in QF. And you still didn't explain why they pitted him at all? or what was the point of him giving up track position and staying out 11 laps longer?

[Fulcrum]

The Austrian track side announcers said it was Lewis' fault. Thats why he got all the booing. That biased enough for you?

Oh yes, that's incredibly biased.

And what does that have to do with Ted Kravitz might I ask?

People saying Ted is biased like he is the only 1 doing it. Clearly not, so anyone who has a problem with Ted, either shut up, or watch F1 else where.

The people commentating WITH him were wondering what he was talking about, openly questioning him on air.

Suggesting the crowd, who are far more ignorant than Kravitz, who don't have a reasonable mandate to be objective, who don't have the ability to comment and be heard to the same degree, who don't get paid for comment, are a reasonable measure of comparison for bias is laughable.

[PlatinumZealot]

Rosberg could have handled it much smarter. Like running Hamilton wide on the exit, dumping him out on the curbs forcing him to back off the throttle.
That´s assuming of course there was a brake-by-wire failure.

That was the smart thing to do IF rosberg had the corner. He lost the corner in the braking zone and that dive bomb was the only way he could stop lewis from passing.

[FoxHound]

Looks to me like Hamilton was nowhere near being pushed off the track at the moment he initiated his turn...

http://i.imgur.com/cekMWNU.jpg

Being kept off-line is not the same thing as being pushed off-track.

In any case, it's a damn good thing that Mercedes produces high-quality power units. In a race against legitimate competition, the team's hopes would regularly be dashed by inadequate driver management and/or inept race strategy.

Cmon Ben,

Check the footage at 4 seconds. This is a 90 degree corner at 50mph. Do you expect an F1 car to pivot round on the tracks white line while at full lock and racing?

[dans79]

Kinda reminds me of Schumacher 1997 Jerez
What did Schumy recieve back then??

I want to see Lewis win, but not like that!

[bhall II]

Cmon Ben,

Check the footage at 4 seconds. This is a 90 degree corner at 50mph. Do you expect an F1 car to pivot round on the tracks white line while at full lock?

Don't really care enough to argue. I've said my piece.

[NathanOlder]

Oh yes, that's incredibly biased.

And what does that have to do with Ted Kravitz might I ask?

People saying Ted is biased like he is the only 1 doing it. Clearly not, so anyone who has a problem with Ted, either shut up, or watch F1 else where.

The people commentating WITH him were wondering what he was talking about, openly questioning him on air.

Suggesting the crowd, who are far more ignorant than Kravitz, who don't have a reasonable mandate to be objective, who don't have the ability to comment and be heard to the same degree, who don't get paid for comment, are a reasonable measure of comparison for bias is laughable.

Who suggested the crowd ? I said about the track side commentators blaming Lewis. I think every sky presenter/commentator blamed Nico. Not just Ted. Ted was sticking it to Toto to try and get more info from him. Where are you watching from ?

[Fulcrum]

Looks to me like Hamilton was nowhere near being pushed off the track at the moment he initiated his turn...

http://i.imgur.com/cekMWNU.jpg

Being kept off-line is not the same thing as being pushed off-track.

In any case, it's a damn good thing that Mercedes produces high-quality power units. In a race against legitimate competition, the team's hopes would regularly be dashed by inadequate driver management and/or inept race strategy.

Luckily we know what running someone off the road at that corner and outbraking oneself actually looks like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSipCiyVucY

Is this what Rosberg did? No penalties for the above incident either.

[langwadt]

both have been called to the steward for allegedly causing a collision, and Nico also for breaching the "code of driving conduct"

http://www.fia.com/events/fia-formula-o ... nformation

[sosic2121]

it's huge fun to listen ham's fans whine. and do they whine when golden boy has won the race? it's because someone has grown a pair of ba**s and he's going to win the championship