2018 Mercedes AMG Petronas Formula One Team

[wesley123]

Secondly, even if Lewis had stayed in front, he would have lost out to the pack due to his poor SOFT tyre performance, no?

Difficult to say, really. In my personal opinion the soft would have worked just fine if the race went according to plan. However, it didn't and a angry Hamilton was suddenly in fourth. I think he simply ruined the tire and was overdriving the car.

ps: also not entirely ok with vettel's overtake, he nearly ran Lewis off the track it seemed...

That's an absolute load of bullshit. It is actually something you should blame Hamilton himself for, considering he forced Vettel onto the grass. Dirty tire means less grip, and thus a longer braking distance.

[Big Tea]

I don't think he should be fired but it is disingenuous to say James Vowels must be a good strategist because Mercedes won all those championships, when their car was one of if not the most dominate cars in history.

I would like to hear his reasoning for not calling it. It was a more difficult choice to not pit under the VSC than to do so.
There must have been an option that looked good to hi, even if he was not a very experienced strategist.

The obvious one of another VSC soon comes to mind, as does track position with others leaving one car out and 'blocking' etc.

Is it just the lack of a tail gunner/other win option? Or did they (think there was) information about another likely VSC?.
Other drivers had been complaining of 'loss of power' etc so maybe thy thought it may call a vsc then? or maybe he just way over estimated how far that set of tyres could go. It had not been that hot all weekend.

[Phil]

Fire James Vowles now. We can do without him.

Do you know what? I don't think it would have mattered. That VSC came in the worst possible time for Mercedes. Everyone knew it was going to be an 'easy' 1-stop race, if the stop happened somewhere mid-race. Then the higher temperatures came and with it, the danger of blistering when pushed too hard.

If there had been no VSC, it would have been an easy victory - drive to half way of the GP, manage the gap to the front and safely get to the end of the race.

Then the VSC hit early. Pretty much every team used it to get a short stop, but it also meant everyone would have to get to the end of the race on those tires. This caught Mercedes out; Pit with them and you'd have to run impossibly long but can perhaps manage the gap or run the risk of having to stop again - OR - stay out, try to run as long as possible and then stop only once.

Either way, if they had stopped under the VSC, yes, they would have retained position and a very healthy gap to Max running in 2nd, but there is still the risk they would have encountered the blistering and be forced into stopping again. I do think however that they would have been less vulnerable to the RedBull overtaking them than the Ferrari. Perhaps they could have won it, but that blistering on the Softs looked serious. I personally think Mercedes just panicked and decided to pit Hamilton far too early on SS that were still running extremely well. I would have kept him out long, even if it meant losing a position to Seb, but then have the option to pit for US later and hunt them down. But in hindsight, everything is always easier...

[astracrazy]

Fire James Vowles now. We can do without him.

I agree.A good car and good drivers have always carried this guy. I don't rate him at all. If I remember correctly Lewis used to complain about him at the start of his Merc career.

That VSC came in the worst possible time for Mercedes. Everyone knew it was going to be an 'easy' 1-stop race, if the stop happened somewhere mid-race. Then the higher temperatures came and with it, the danger of blistering when pushed too hard.

If there had been no VSC, it would have been an easy victory - drive to half way of the GP, manage the gap to the front and safely get to the end of the race.

It was the same for everyone, the important thing was knowing it was a one-stop race and what not pitting would do - yet it happened.

Lewis had the pace and could have possibly controlled the wear on his tyres out front instead of burning them up trying to overtake.

I would rather my driver have a good lead up front knowing that he can look after his tyres or push like hell with no dirty air to increase the gap if he needed to stop.

James knows what a monumental mistake it was hence the radio message. Unfortunately, strategy has been the teams weakness through there successful years. Time for him to go.

[bonjon1979]

What was the reason Hamilton and Bottas stopped? Same problem or different?

[dren]

The cars were probably not set-up with making many, if any, overtakes in mind.

[PhillipM]

Merc have made way too many strategy mis-calls over the past couple of years, no wonder Hamilton is getting so pissed about it on the radio - it must remind him of the last years at Mclaren where the team constantly found a way to screw up easy races.

[Phil]

If there had been no VSC, it would have been an easy victory - drive to half way of the GP, manage the gap to the front and safely get to the end of the race.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. Yes, it was a one-stop race, but where that one-stop takes place is very much relevant. There two keypoints to consider:

1.)
The temperatures during the race were significantly higher than during Friday FP1 & FP2. This means most teams only had limited (less relevant) data for tire wear under these conditions. They also had little to no intel on blistering. It may have been a one-stop, but when that stop takes place is very relevant. For example; Would it have worked to stop on the first lap and run extremely long? Probably not. Every tires stint is dictated by the pace and the wear you get on them. Run longer, the pace needs to be less, run shorter, you can allow higher pace. The important thing is getting it right and balancing track position vs. stint performance and length.

2.)
At the point of the VSC, as a leader of the race, you are always going to be facing two dilemmas. You are the first to gets to decide to jump or not. If you don't jump (e.g. not pit), others can and will. If you do jump (pit), others may not and gain track position on you. You don't have the luxury to mirror the teams strategy driving behind you.

The VSC came out on lap 15 of a 71 lap race. That's roughly at a quarter of the race. Pitting then, meant having to do 56 laps on whatever tire you'll go on to. We have no idea what the simulation runs from Friday suggested, but the reality is that the higher temperatures were a game changer. Hindsight did show us that doing 56 laps on the soft tires were doable on some cars, but on all cars? On the Mercedes? With the blistering? Even in clean air? That is not clear at all. It could have just as well turned out differently - Ferrari and RB pitting early and then having to stop again towards lap 50 and Mercedes stopping midway once and getting to the end easily while retaining the lead.

Yes, hindsight showed us lots of things, but these things weren't predictable on lap 15.

What I however find more disturbing is that - having just watched that part of the race - why in gods name was the VSC sent out in the first place? The car was at a point where the double waved yellows were more than sufficient, there wasn't any danger of a car hitting that part of the track and there wasn't any debris either. Compare this to Ricciardo's or even Hamilton's retirement where the car was in a much more dangerous position (right next to the track) and there was no VSC there. I don't want to call foulplay or anything, but you do have to question the reasoning behind when and why a VSC is triggered.

[probenprinz]

If there had been no VSC, it would have been an easy victory - drive to half way of the GP, manage the gap to the front and safely get to the end of the race.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. Yes, it was a one-stop race, but where that one-stop takes place is very much relevant. There two keypoints to consider:

1.)
The temperatures during the race were significantly higher than during Friday FP1 & FP2. This means most teams only had limited (less relevant) data for tire wear under these conditions. They also had little to no intel on blistering. It may have been a one-stop, but when that stop takes place is very relevant. For example; Would it have worked to stop on the first lap and run extremely long? Probably not. Every tires stint is dictated by the pace and the wear you get on them. Run longer, the pace needs to be less, run shorter, you can allow higher pace. The important thing is getting it right and balancing track position vs. stint performance and length.

2.)
At the point of the VSC, as a leader of the race, you are always going to be facing two dilemmas. You are the first to gets to decide to jump or not. If you don't jump (e.g. not pit), others can and will. If you do jump (pit), others may not and gain track position on you. You don't have the luxury to mirror the teams strategy driving behind you.

The VSC came out on lap 15 of a 71 lap race. That's roughly at a quarter of the race. Pitting then, meant having to do 56 laps on whatever tire you'll go on to. We have no idea what the simulation runs from Friday suggested, but the reality is that the higher temperatures were a game changer. Hindsight did show us that doing 56 laps on the soft tires were doable on some cars, but on all cars? On the Mercedes? With the blistering? Even in clean air? That is not clear at all. It could have just as well turned out differently - Ferrari and RB pitting early and then having to stop again towards lap 50 and Mercedes stopping midway once and getting to the end easily while retaining the lead.

Yes, hindsight showed us lots of things, but these things weren't predictable on lap 15.

What I however find more disturbing is that - having just watched that part of the race - why in gods name was the VSC sent out in the first place? The car was at a point where the double waved yellows were more than sufficient, there wasn't any danger of a car hitting that part of the track and there wasn't any debris either. Compare this to Ricciardo's or even Hamilton's retirement where the car was in a much more dangerous position (right next to the track) and there was no VSC there. I don't want to call foulplay or anything, but you do have to question the reasoning behind when and why a VSC is triggered.

VSC was activated due to truck deployed to recover Botta's car.

Edit: crane is the name not truck, sorry, english is not my first language

[Mattchu]

What I however find more disturbing is that - having just watched that part of the race - why in gods name was the VSC sent out in the first place? The car was at a point where the double waved yellows were more than sufficient, there wasn't any danger of a car hitting that part of the track and there wasn't any debris either. Compare this to Ricciardo's or even Hamilton's retirement where the car was in a much more dangerous position (right next to the track) and there was no VSC there. I don't want to call foulplay or anything, but you do have to question the reasoning behind when and why a VSC is triggered.

This was something that completely baffled me as well at first, then I realized that a crane had come onto the track and it seems the default mode for the FIA now is that if a crane comes on the track, throw a VSC...
Why have that god awful halo thing if this is the case!
The Ham and Ric cars could be moved without a crane coming inside the barriers .

[LM10]

What I however find more disturbing is that - having just watched that part of the race - why in gods name was the VSC sent out in the first place? The car was at a point where the double waved yellows were more than sufficient, there wasn't any danger of a car hitting that part of the track and there wasn't any debris either. Compare this to Ricciardo's or even Hamilton's retirement where the car was in a much more dangerous position (right next to the track) and there was no VSC there. I don't want to call foulplay or anything, but you do have to question the reasoning behind when and why a VSC is triggered.

This was something that completely baffled me as well at first, then I realized that a crane had come onto the track and it seems the default mode for the FIA now is that if a crane comes on the track, throw a VSC...
Why have that god awful halo thing if this is the case!
The Ham and Ric cars could be moved without a crane coming inside the barriers .

I don't think the primary purpose of the Halo is to prevent serious injuries after a high speed crash into a crane.

[TheFluffy]

Fire James Vowles now. We can do without him.

Even though I fully admit that he made a mistake this weekend and perhaps has made a few mistakes this year however, I would like to defend his position. Firstly I think that the mistakes he may have made this year more highlights how close the three teams are rather than rather his mistakes. The problem we have to realise is that the people in the team are human and sometimes in the heat of the moment they may think more irrationally than they would like to. (Good example right now is World Cup penalties, yes you can practice all you want on the training ground but in a elimination game taking a penalty extra time is very different)

Also, I believe that since they have been the defending champion for the last 4 years, he is almost expected to be perfect. And relating back to my last point that we have to remember he is human, its not like other teams haven't made mistakes in strategy, it's not only him.
E.g Ferrari despite the outcome in Australia decided to pit Vettel all but knowing that the Haas car would have needed a safety car instead of only having VSC. They also messed up in China for Vettel as they left him out for 2 more laps after Bottas attempted the undercut which led to its attempt being successful. You may also have argued that in Bahrain they should have predicted that it was a one-stop race so they could have changed to the mediums instead of the softs which led to a very tense finish (which shouldn't have been because the Ferrari on that day was the faster car). Also, Ferrari also made the mistake in Baku despite like 8 seconds in the lead to pit early thus allowing Bottas to take advantage of the safety car, they were in no necessity of pitting early as the undercut would not have worked with a 8 seconds gap. (EDIT: Also the error to pit Vettel under the VSC in Spain which led to him being behind Max and lose a place) Did the Ferrari strategist get such a hard grilling as James is now having? To be honest, I think that this moaning by Mercedes fans is fuelled by Lewis subtly pointing to the fact of the error. Did Sebastian complain badly in all those situations?
Furthermore I admire James having the balls to admit on team radio (that he knew was going to be broadcasted to everyone) apologising for the error, did the Ferrari strategist admit his errors in all those situations in order to make Sebastian not have a tantrum?

The point being as they are regarded as the "best team" with the "best engine", they are expected to do wonders thus it is a lot easier to put their mistakes on the spotlight whereas for a team like Red Bull, who is considered an outsider for the WC, any time they do win a race they can say "the team is amazing and blah blah blah" despite tbh the races they won this year is mostly luck (except for Monaco) whereas when they make a small mistake (small does not include Max crashing earlier) its alright because they are not on the spotlight.

[Big Tea]

Don't forget guys, from lap 13 they were planning with 1 car. No covering off, no station keeping no tail gunner, just Hamilton.

[Phil]

This was something that completely baffled me as well at first, then I realized that a crane had come onto the track and it seems the default mode for the FIA now is that if a crane comes on the track, throw a VSC..

Ah, that explains it. I missed that detail in that case and in that case, I guess it was the right thing to do. I did notice something though - the VSC ended on lap 16, so there really wasn't a lot of time to decide to come in. It would be interesting to know on what part of the track Hamilton was when the VSC hit and how much time Mercedes had to react. He was quite a bit ahead of those that pitted!

[dans79]

Ah, that explains it. I missed that detail in that case and in that case, I guess it was the right thing to do. I did notice something though - the VSC ended on lap 16, so there really wasn't a lot of time to decide to come in. It would be interesting to know on what part of the track Hamilton was when the VSC hit and how much time Mercedes had to react. He was quite a bit ahead of those that pitted!

During the race ted mentioned Lewis was in a potion to pit but didn't. Honestly, with the amount of time you gain by pitting under a VSC I think protocol should be for the driver to automatically pit unless instructed otherwise.