planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:16 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 2:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8722
Prema wrote:
As far as this part
Quote:
It wasn't as simple as moving over for an isolated Bottas, Hamilton threw caution to the wind and took the risk of losing additional points.

I just re-watched that moment. Not a big deal actually, doing it just before the finish line with 0,5 seconds gap to Max.
He had full control of the situation. From 0:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEIAK5Ao8DQ

"Thanks for the trust."


Its not a big deal when you execute it perfectly, its when you don't do it perfectly... Verstappen got so close to Bottas that basically the only place he could have done it was the last corner of the last lap.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 4:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:40 pm
Posts: 6529
lamo wrote:
Prema wrote:
As far as this part
Quote:
It wasn't as simple as moving over for an isolated Bottas, Hamilton threw caution to the wind and took the risk of losing additional points.

I just re-watched that moment. Not a big deal actually, doing it just before the finish line with 0,5 seconds gap to Max.
He had full control of the situation. From 0:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEIAK5Ao8DQ

"Thanks for the trust."


Its not a big deal when you execute it perfectly, its when you don't do it perfectly... Verstappen got so close to Bottas that basically the only place he could have done it was the last corner of the last lap.


Yes, it was basically the only safe place to do it without actually risking being taken over by Max and lose one more place to him. Hence not a big deal there, right before the finish line, and with the sufficient gap of almost 1 sec between Bottas and Max. I am sure any of those drivers are able to manage it without difficulties. I just don't see why all the hype about it. I don't see anything extraordinary.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 4:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8722
Prema wrote:
lamo wrote:
Prema wrote:
As far as this part
Quote:
It wasn't as simple as moving over for an isolated Bottas, Hamilton threw caution to the wind and took the risk of losing additional points.

I just re-watched that moment. Not a big deal actually, doing it just before the finish line with 0,5 seconds gap to Max.
He had full control of the situation. From 0:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEIAK5Ao8DQ

"Thanks for the trust."


Its not a big deal when you execute it perfectly, its when you don't do it perfectly... Verstappen got so close to Bottas that basically the only place he could have done it was the last corner of the last lap.


Yes, it was basically the only safe place to do it without actually risking being taken over by Max and lose one more place to him. Hence not a big deal there, right before the finish line, and with the sufficient gap of almost 1 sec between Bottas and Max. I am sure any of those drivers are able to manage it without difficulties. I just don't see why all the hype about it. I don't see anything extraordinary.


Its the only time I can ever remember a driver who was involved in a title fight letting his team mate through (who had less points than him). I think it is a first. That is why a big deal has been made of it. But I agree it was somewhat blown out of proportion but possibly rightly so given Hamilton has won a title by 1 point, lost one by 1 point and lost the last one by 5 points. Journalists already have the headlines written if he loses this title by less than 3 points...

While Bottas does have an outside chance at the title, he has been in contention for just 2 race wins all year whilst his team mate has challenged for 7 wins. A Bottas title would require quite a lot of bad luck from both Vettel and Hamilton and a change in his speed too.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 5:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:40 pm
Posts: 6529
lamo wrote:
Prema wrote:
lamo wrote:
Prema wrote:
As far as this part
Quote:
It wasn't as simple as moving over for an isolated Bottas, Hamilton threw caution to the wind and took the risk of losing additional points.

I just re-watched that moment. Not a big deal actually, doing it just before the finish line with 0,5 seconds gap to Max.
He had full control of the situation. From 0:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEIAK5Ao8DQ

"Thanks for the trust."


Its not a big deal when you execute it perfectly, its when you don't do it perfectly... Verstappen got so close to Bottas that basically the only place he could have done it was the last corner of the last lap.


Yes, it was basically the only safe place to do it without actually risking being taken over by Max and lose one more place to him. Hence not a big deal there, right before the finish line, and with the sufficient gap of almost 1 sec between Bottas and Max. I am sure any of those drivers are able to manage it without difficulties. I just don't see why all the hype about it. I don't see anything extraordinary.


Its the only time I can ever remember a driver who was involved in a title fight letting his team mate through (who had less points than him). I think it is a first. That is why a big deal has been made of it. But I agree it was somewhat blown out of proportion but possibly rightly so given Hamilton has won a title by 1 point, lost one by 1 point and lost the last one by 5 points. Journalists already have the headlines written if he loses this title by less than 3 points...

While Bottas does have an outside chance at the title, he has been in contention for just 2 race wins all year whilst his team mate has challenged for 7 wins. A Bottas title would require quite a lot of bad luck from both Vettel and Hamilton and a change in his speed too.


Well, I thought that with "a big deal" we were referring to the technicality of the execution, not the publicity of its uniqueness.

As far as this later one, I find it interesting too. I mean, this was not the first time that Hamilton has been attempting this kind of deals with Bottas by asking the team for a TO to facilitate such. So there is some "devil" hidden there, looks like to me. Was he to actually race Bottas instead of making a deal, maybe he would have earned that podium. Not succeeding to overtake any of Ferraris (was it realistic?), he had a decision to make... to keep or not to keep. And that might or might not go down to history on the end.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 5:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20920
ALESI wrote:
Zoue wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Depends who's doing it?

Why?


If it was say Vandorne letting Alonso through to have a go at say Kyvat in 8th place then I would expect Alonso to give the place back. If it's a guy going for the WDC (even if the guy who lets him by is also going for the WDC) and if that guy is already a multiple WDC, and if the other guy is a younger guy on a one year contract that has yet to be renewed, then I don't think it's quite so obvious.

After Multi 21 would you trust Vettel to give a place back for example?

I would if he asked to be let by and promised to give the place back at the time. Point is they had an agreement. Lewis honoured it. I don't really see what's so extraordinary about that. If the condition hadn't been made at the time Lewis was given the place, then it would have been a noble gesture. But it was, so it's a non-story IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2017 5:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20920
mcdo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Why? What's wrong with praising good sportsmanship and selflessness? In an era when he himself has been selfish in the past, as has Vettel, as has Alonso, as has Verstappen, etc. etc. His hero and idol might have been the most selfish of them all. Why should a rare good turn to a fellow competitor not get praised? Dan Ricciardo was praised for being equally as fair with Kvyat in Monaco 2015

Hamilton might regret it yeah. It would only be natural to feel that way. His only goal is to be world champion, not to be F1's nicest guy

I think Prema summed it up nicely when he said the bar must be set very low to think it praiseworthy of someone to simply keep their word. Lewis did the right thing, but is it so laudable and surprising that someone does what they promise to do? Is it our expectation now that lying is the norm and keeping your end of the bargain is something special?

You're talking like someone who is new to F1. The bar has been set that low

Image
http://www.racedepartment.com/media/videos/max-verstappen-says-no-to-swapping-positions.11539/

Isn't that completely different? Max didn't renege on an agreement: he simply refused to let Sainz try to tackle the cars ahead. If he'd said no after first being let through, that would have been a different story. Verstappen was the Bottas in this story, not the Hamilton.

Hamilton asked to be let through and promised to hand back the place if unsuccessful. He kept that promise, but isn't that a non-story? It's the default expectation, surely?

No it's not a non-story. Bottas dropped himself into a risky scenario that Lewis and Merc could quite easily have said "To hell with that plan" and it would have been totally understandable. Of course in that scenario the anti-Hamilton brigade would out with their pitchforks

It wasn't as simple as moving over for an isolated Bottas, Hamilton threw caution to the wind and took the risk of losing additional points. To Max Verstappen of all people, a guy who just couldn't concede a position and wiped his teammate out the same race

A far cry from his championship rival who has a history including Multi 21, F'ing the race director out of it and using his car as a weapon

As far as I'm concerned the default expectation is that someone does what they promise. That's what makes it a non-story. I don't really understand why everybody is swooning over that. If he'd promised to give the place back and then didn't, now THAT would be a story. But he just did what he said he would do. Like I've said before, are our expectations that low that we think it significant that someone keeps their word?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 5:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:53 pm
Posts: 45
Location: Maryland, USA
Why does a 3 time World Champion, 5th year team veteran, team points leading, Brit on a UK based team who is under contract through next year have to make a deal with his team to be let by a slower, new teammate who never won a race prior to this season? I understand the idea of letting teammates race, but that is a practical impossibility at Hungary. I am still stunned at Mercedes AMG's handling of the situation. There are instances where treating drivers as "equal" is inappropriate and disrespectful, and this was one of them. To have Lewis run 10 seconds off the pace on the last lap to give back a position was dangerous and, under the championship situation, short sighted. Martin Brundle had it right. The Lewis and Mercedes "promise" and "values" spin on all of this is even more annoying. The team should have never allowed the position swap-back to have occurred under the circumstances.

_________________
Case


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 5:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:40 pm
Posts: 6529
Case1906 wrote:
Why does a 3 time World Champion, 5th year team veteran, team points leading, Brit on a UK based team who is under contract through next year have to make a deal with his team to be let by a slower, new teammate who never won a race prior to this season? I understand the idea of letting teammates race, but that is a practical impossibility at Hungary. I am still stunned at Mercedes AMG's handling of the situation. There are instances where treating drivers as "equal" is inappropriate and disrespectful, and this was one of them. To have Lewis run 10 seconds off the pace on the last lap to give back a position was dangerous and, under the championship situation, short sighted. Martin Brundle had it right. The Lewis and Mercedes "promise" and "values" spin on all of this is even more annoying. The team should have never allowed the position swap-back to have occurred under the circumstances.


I am not sure if the team actually had the saying in the swap-back? Looks like it was all Hamilton himself.
But I wonder. After your introductory 2 sentences, I was expecting you would raise the question of this deal making business all together. You know, it was this 3 time WDC etc that wanted it, he asked for it? You appear to have a beef only with that second part of the deal, the swap-back. :uhoh:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 7:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:19 am
Posts: 713
Toto Wollf says it was a discussion where to swap back, it was his decision, "The idea was the last lap into the last corner because that would limit any overtaking opportunities from behind"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 8:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:15 am
Posts: 1023
Case1906 wrote:
Why does a 3 time World Champion, 5th year team veteran, team points leading, Brit on a UK based team who is under contract through next year have to make a deal with his team to be let by a slower, new teammate who never won a race prior to this season? I understand the idea of letting teammates race, but that is a practical impossibility at Hungary. I am still stunned at Mercedes AMG's handling of the situation. There are instances where treating drivers as "equal" is inappropriate and disrespectful, and this was one of them. To have Lewis run 10 seconds off the pace on the last lap to give back a position was dangerous and, under the championship situation, short sighted. Martin Brundle had it right. The Lewis and Mercedes "promise" and "values" spin on all of this is even more annoying. The team should have never allowed the position swap-back to have occurred under the circumstances.


Dangerous? Really? Certainly not that word. It wasn't even that risky starting to back off really. Verstappen had been out of DRS range behind Bottas over the past few laps (and we have seen how tricky overtaking is). Hamilton left it until the last moment possible. If he could see in his mirrors that Verstappen was just too close to Bottas, he could have stepped on the throttle earlier and taken 3rd which would have been understandable. But he saw a gap, allowed Bottas through and finished ahead of Verstappen. Given how late he swapped and the way he did so, Verstappen could hardly have beaten him. I disagree with the fact he shouldn't have given it back. Overtaking was proven to be incredibly difficult here. Therefore, I doubt Hamilton could have got past Bottas without Bottas letting him through. Bottas qualified ahead basically will have resulted in 3rd for him anyway. Qualifying is what matters here. The reason I doubt Hamilton could have passed him was because Kimi couldn't even pass a slower Vettel who had issues. Basically, because of the nature of this track, I think Bottas deserved 3rd more than Hamilton since he did better in qualifying and also had a better start and if they were simply just racing against each other, Bottas will almost certainly have beaten him. Doing what the team did was just right though. Hamilton did have much more pace and it was worth him trying to get 2nd which would have been a better result for the team compared to 3rd and 4th. But as he couldn't do this, it was only really fair to give the position back to Bottas. Many people are saying how much these 3 points may be affecting Hamilton. But if there were no team orders, it he would almost certainly have the same points score anyway. It was Bottas who will have lost out due to team orders if Hamilton hadn't given the position back. IMO, the team, Bottas and Hamilton did pretty much everything right and in a fair way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 12:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2238
Case1906 wrote:
Why does a 3 time World Champion, 5th year team veteran, team points leading, Brit on a UK based team who is under contract through next year have to make a deal with his team to be let by a slower, new teammate who never won a race prior to this season? I understand the idea of letting teammates race, but that is a practical impossibility at Hungary. I am still stunned at Mercedes AMG's handling of the situation. There are instances where treating drivers as "equal" is inappropriate and disrespectful, and this was one of them. To have Lewis run 10 seconds off the pace on the last lap to give back a position was dangerous and, under the championship situation, short sighted. Martin Brundle had it right. The Lewis and Mercedes "promise" and "values" spin on all of this is even more annoying. The team should have never allowed the position swap-back to have occurred under the circumstances.


How is it 'disrespectful'? Lewis is the one who keeps bleating about Ferrari operating a Number 1 driver system, it would make him look rather hypocritical to demand the same status wouldn't it?

Besides, perhaps it will be Bottas who lives to rue early season instances when he gave points away to Lewis?

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2238
Well, according to James Allen...

Under Toto Wolff, Mercedes goes racing with emotion, but also has a clear “team-first” policy, where they will act in the team’s interests, not the individual driver’s. They are used to it now after three years of Rosberg and Hamilton and both current Mercedes drivers have a chance still in the championship, so they ensured that a deal proposed to Valtteri Bottas during the race by Hamilton, was honoured.

https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/07/ ... y-defined/

He goes on to say what if Lewis loses the title by three points... equally you could argue what if Bottas wins it by three points from Vettel?

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 3:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20920
Case1906 wrote:
Why does a 3 time World Champion, 5th year team veteran, team points leading, Brit on a UK based team who is under contract through next year have to make a deal with his team to be let by a slower, new teammate who never won a race prior to this season? I understand the idea of letting teammates race, but that is a practical impossibility at Hungary. I am still stunned at Mercedes AMG's handling of the situation. There are instances where treating drivers as "equal" is inappropriate and disrespectful, and this was one of them. To have Lewis run 10 seconds off the pace on the last lap to give back a position was dangerous and, under the championship situation, short sighted. Martin Brundle had it right. The Lewis and Mercedes "promise" and "values" spin on all of this is even more annoying. The team should have never allowed the position swap-back to have occurred under the circumstances.

It's disrespectful for him to keep his word? Er, OK


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:40 pm
Posts: 6529
ALESI wrote:
Well, according to James Allen...

Under Toto Wolff, Mercedes goes racing with emotion, but also has a clear “team-first” policy, where they will act in the team’s interests, not the individual driver’s. They are used to it now after three years of Rosberg and Hamilton and both current Mercedes drivers have a chance still in the championship, so they ensured that a deal proposed to Valtteri Bottas during the race by Hamilton, was honoured.

https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/07/ ... y-defined/

He goes on to say what if Lewis loses the title by three points... equally you could argue what if Bottas wins it by three points from Vettel?

I was surprised to see the swap-back since they had a good excuse/explanation for not doing it. They asked Bottas to be closer up, he didn't manage it out of whatever reasons (he complained about back-markers) andhe let Max come close on him.

In any case, this proposition of "what if Bottas wins", I find it more a "smartass" rhetorical than a practical argument. To be a smartass myself... hey, that would still include Hamilton losing the title, but to his teammate the newcomer. And that within not 3 but 6 points! Go and digest that, Mr. Hamilton. :o


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:40 pm
Posts: 6529
And this one, about Toto:
but his view is that the values behind the decision and the deal, were the same values that has won them the last three world titles, so today was the flipside.

Now, that's balloonies. That what has won them the last three world titles was the car supremely dominant over the rest of the grid. No third driver competing for the title but only his two guys, was anywhere on the horizon. Nothing with "values" to do.
Looks to me he is almost regretting it already now... a "flipside"?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 5:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9685
Location: Ireland
Zoue wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I think Prema summed it up nicely when he said the bar must be set very low to think it praiseworthy of someone to simply keep their word. Lewis did the right thing, but is it so laudable and surprising that someone does what they promise to do? Is it our expectation now that lying is the norm and keeping your end of the bargain is something special?

You're talking like someone who is new to F1. The bar has been set that low

Image
http://www.racedepartment.com/media/videos/max-verstappen-says-no-to-swapping-positions.11539/

Isn't that completely different? Max didn't renege on an agreement: he simply refused to let Sainz try to tackle the cars ahead. If he'd said no after first being let through, that would have been a different story. Verstappen was the Bottas in this story, not the Hamilton.

Hamilton asked to be let through and promised to hand back the place if unsuccessful. He kept that promise, but isn't that a non-story? It's the default expectation, surely?

No it's not a non-story. Bottas dropped himself into a risky scenario that Lewis and Merc could quite easily have said "To hell with that plan" and it would have been totally understandable. Of course in that scenario the anti-Hamilton brigade would out with their pitchforks

It wasn't as simple as moving over for an isolated Bottas, Hamilton threw caution to the wind and took the risk of losing additional points. To Max Verstappen of all people, a guy who just couldn't concede a position and wiped his teammate out the same race

A far cry from his championship rival who has a history including Multi 21, F'ing the race director out of it and using his car as a weapon

As far as I'm concerned the default expectation is that someone does what they promise. That's what makes it a non-story. I don't really understand why everybody is swooning over that. If he'd promised to give the place back and then didn't, now THAT would be a story. But he just did what he said he would do. Like I've said before, are our expectations that low that we think it significant that someone keeps their word?

Like I've said before, he had every justification not to

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 5:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 2882
ALESI wrote:
Well, according to James Allen...

Under Toto Wolff, Mercedes goes racing with emotion, but also has a clear “team-first” policy, where they will act in the team’s interests, not the individual driver’s. They are used to it now after three years of Rosberg and Hamilton and both current Mercedes drivers have a chance still in the championship, so they ensured that a deal proposed to Valtteri Bottas during the race by Hamilton, was honoured.

https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/07/ ... y-defined/

He goes on to say what if Lewis loses the title by three points... equally you could argue what if Bottas wins it by three points from Vettel?



They didn't ensure that the deal would be honored though. Not a word came from the pitwall to order Hamilton to give the place back. It was Hamilton's decision to honor his word that made the swap happen. I'm not so sure that Mercedes is totally happy that Hamilton gave the place back. They may say so in public, but they all know that in the grand scheme of things they conceded 3 points in the driver's championshp battle. I understand why Hamilton did it, and it was the right thing for him to do, but Mercedes as a team would like to avoid that scenario at all costs. Should the same situation arise later on this season, I doubt we will see a swap back.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 5:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:40 pm
Posts: 6529
mcdo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
As far as I'm concerned the default expectation is that someone does what they promise. That's what makes it a non-story. I don't really understand why everybody is swooning over that. If he'd promised to give the place back and then didn't, now THAT would be a story. But he just did what he said he would do. Like I've said before, are our expectations that low that we think it significant that someone keeps their word?

Like I've said before, he had every justification not to

Well, with the hindsight, we can say with a high degree of certainty that those would be false justifications.
So perhaps better said... he had every excuse not to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 8:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20920
kleefton wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Well, according to James Allen...

Under Toto Wolff, Mercedes goes racing with emotion, but also has a clear “team-first” policy, where they will act in the team’s interests, not the individual driver’s. They are used to it now after three years of Rosberg and Hamilton and both current Mercedes drivers have a chance still in the championship, so they ensured that a deal proposed to Valtteri Bottas during the race by Hamilton, was honoured.

https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/07/ ... y-defined/

He goes on to say what if Lewis loses the title by three points... equally you could argue what if Bottas wins it by three points from Vettel?



They didn't ensure that the deal would be honored though. Not a word came from the pitwall to order Hamilton to give the place back. It was Hamilton's decision to honor his word that made the swap happen. I'm not so sure that Mercedes is totally happy that Hamilton gave the place back. They may say so in public, but they all know that in the grand scheme of things they conceded 3 points in the driver's championshp battle. I understand why Hamilton did it, and it was the right thing for him to do, but Mercedes as a team would like to avoid that scenario at all costs. Should the same situation arise later on this season, I doubt we will see a swap back.

Well, according to Wolff they determined the best place on the pitwall:

TW: When Lewis passed Valtteri it seemed that Lewis’s pace was quicker and we weren’t quite sure whether Valtteri was managing the gap to the Ferraris because the moment you come close you ruin your tyres, so he stayed a bit behind. In that situation Lewis thought that he could go quicker and was saying "give me a shot!", and he passed. Lewis was not able to pass [Raikkonen] so in the last couple of laps we had discussions internally how we could swap Valtteri back again as Verstappen was getting closer and we didn’t want to lose the podium. So we discussed the gaps and where the right place for the swap would be. The idea was the last lap into the last corner because that would limit any overtaking opportunities from behind. There have not been any similar discussions – it was a very sportsmanlike behaviour – to Valtteri before. It was a very difficult call for the team and of course very difficult for Lewis.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/inte ... -call.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 8:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20920
mcdo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mcdo wrote:
You're talking like someone who is new to F1. The bar has been set that low

Image
http://www.racedepartment.com/media/videos/max-verstappen-says-no-to-swapping-positions.11539/

Isn't that completely different? Max didn't renege on an agreement: he simply refused to let Sainz try to tackle the cars ahead. If he'd said no after first being let through, that would have been a different story. Verstappen was the Bottas in this story, not the Hamilton.

Hamilton asked to be let through and promised to hand back the place if unsuccessful. He kept that promise, but isn't that a non-story? It's the default expectation, surely?

No it's not a non-story. Bottas dropped himself into a risky scenario that Lewis and Merc could quite easily have said "To hell with that plan" and it would have been totally understandable. Of course in that scenario the anti-Hamilton brigade would out with their pitchforks

It wasn't as simple as moving over for an isolated Bottas, Hamilton threw caution to the wind and took the risk of losing additional points. To Max Verstappen of all people, a guy who just couldn't concede a position and wiped his teammate out the same race

A far cry from his championship rival who has a history including Multi 21, F'ing the race director out of it and using his car as a weapon

As far as I'm concerned the default expectation is that someone does what they promise. That's what makes it a non-story. I don't really understand why everybody is swooning over that. If he'd promised to give the place back and then didn't, now THAT would be a story. But he just did what he said he would do. Like I've said before, are our expectations that low that we think it significant that someone keeps their word?

Like I've said before, he had every justification not to

He didn't have a justification to renege on a promise. I'm wondering at the attitude that says someone's word is a flexible thing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 9:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 8865
Zoue wrote:
kleefton wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Well, according to James Allen...

Under Toto Wolff, Mercedes goes racing with emotion, but also has a clear “team-first” policy, where they will act in the team’s interests, not the individual driver’s. They are used to it now after three years of Rosberg and Hamilton and both current Mercedes drivers have a chance still in the championship, so they ensured that a deal proposed to Valtteri Bottas during the race by Hamilton, was honoured.

https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/07/ ... y-defined/

He goes on to say what if Lewis loses the title by three points... equally you could argue what if Bottas wins it by three points from Vettel?



They didn't ensure that the deal would be honored though. Not a word came from the pitwall to order Hamilton to give the place back. It was Hamilton's decision to honor his word that made the swap happen. I'm not so sure that Mercedes is totally happy that Hamilton gave the place back. They may say so in public, but they all know that in the grand scheme of things they conceded 3 points in the driver's championshp battle. I understand why Hamilton did it, and it was the right thing for him to do, but Mercedes as a team would like to avoid that scenario at all costs. Should the same situation arise later on this season, I doubt we will see a swap back.

Well, according to Wolff they determined the best place on the pitwall:

TW: When Lewis passed Valtteri it seemed that Lewis’s pace was quicker and we weren’t quite sure whether Valtteri was managing the gap to the Ferraris because the moment you come close you ruin your tyres, so he stayed a bit behind. In that situation Lewis thought that he could go quicker and was saying "give me a shot!", and he passed. Lewis was not able to pass [Raikkonen] so in the last couple of laps we had discussions internally how we could swap Valtteri back again as Verstappen was getting closer and we didn’t want to lose the podium. So we discussed the gaps and where the right place for the swap would be. The idea was the last lap into the last corner because that would limit any overtaking opportunities from behind. There have not been any similar discussions – it was a very sportsmanlike behaviour – to Valtteri before. It was a very difficult call for the team and of course very difficult for Lewis.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/inte ... -call.html

So Toto is also a hater.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 3:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 2882
Zoue wrote:
kleefton wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Well, according to James Allen...

Under Toto Wolff, Mercedes goes racing with emotion, but also has a clear “team-first” policy, where they will act in the team’s interests, not the individual driver’s. They are used to it now after three years of Rosberg and Hamilton and both current Mercedes drivers have a chance still in the championship, so they ensured that a deal proposed to Valtteri Bottas during the race by Hamilton, was honoured.

https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/07/ ... y-defined/

He goes on to say what if Lewis loses the title by three points... equally you could argue what if Bottas wins it by three points from Vettel?



They didn't ensure that the deal would be honored though. Not a word came from the pitwall to order Hamilton to give the place back. It was Hamilton's decision to honor his word that made the swap happen. I'm not so sure that Mercedes is totally happy that Hamilton gave the place back. They may say so in public, but they all know that in the grand scheme of things they conceded 3 points in the driver's championshp battle. I understand why Hamilton did it, and it was the right thing for him to do, but Mercedes as a team would like to avoid that scenario at all costs. Should the same situation arise later on this season, I doubt we will see a swap back.

Well, according to Wolff they determined the best place on the pitwall:

TW: When Lewis passed Valtteri it seemed that Lewis’s pace was quicker and we weren’t quite sure whether Valtteri was managing the gap to the Ferraris because the moment you come close you ruin your tyres, so he stayed a bit behind. In that situation Lewis thought that he could go quicker and was saying "give me a shot!", and he passed. Lewis was not able to pass [Raikkonen] so in the last couple of laps we had discussions internally how we could swap Valtteri back again as Verstappen was getting closer and we didn’t want to lose the podium. So we discussed the gaps and where the right place for the swap would be. The idea was the last lap into the last corner because that would limit any overtaking opportunities from behind. There have not been any similar discussions – it was a very sportsmanlike behaviour – to Valtteri before. It was a very difficult call for the team and of course very difficult for Lewis.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/inte ... -call.html


Right, so it was discussed internally. So how was that message communicated to Lewis exactly? Telepathy? I mean, no message was broadcasted, commentators didn't see the swap coming, nobody saw it coming. Toto is just FOS here imo. The video of him reacting after the swap pretty much confirms that he didn't agree with what Lewis did.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:28 pm
Posts: 334
Location: b. c. canada
Always interesting to read the comments from desk jockeys how easy it is to drive these cars, judge the closing speed and give back a position, no problem eh! Just maybe that little swap of positions might have been just a little tougher than it looked.

No, of course not, it's just so easy, i've done it on my laptop lots of times.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 6:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:40 pm
Posts: 6529
spiritone wrote:
Always interesting to read the comments from desk jockeys how easy it is to drive these cars, judge the closing speed and give back a position, no problem eh! Just maybe that little swap of positions might have been just a little tougher than it looked.

No, of course not, it's just so easy, i've done it on my laptop lots of times.

And that same the other way. Since you are not one of the best F1 drivers on this planet, a multiple WDC getting bunch of tens of millions of dollars a year in exchange for your supreme skills on a racing track, but just a laptop desk jockey, how would you know?
So you are virtually comparing Hamilton with yourself and your ability to dive F1 car. Good grief.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 8:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 7:11 pm
Posts: 494
Reading through this I'm led to the conclusion that some posters existence on this forum is solely with the purpose of slapping down any poster who dare give Lewis Hamilton any praise.
Pretty sad stuff.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 8:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2238
kleefton wrote:
Zoue wrote:
kleefton wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Well, according to James Allen...

Under Toto Wolff, Mercedes goes racing with emotion, but also has a clear “team-first” policy, where they will act in the team’s interests, not the individual driver’s. They are used to it now after three years of Rosberg and Hamilton and both current Mercedes drivers have a chance still in the championship, so they ensured that a deal proposed to Valtteri Bottas during the race by Hamilton, was honoured.

https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/07/ ... y-defined/

He goes on to say what if Lewis loses the title by three points... equally you could argue what if Bottas wins it by three points from Vettel?



They didn't ensure that the deal would be honored though. Not a word came from the pitwall to order Hamilton to give the place back. It was Hamilton's decision to honor his word that made the swap happen. I'm not so sure that Mercedes is totally happy that Hamilton gave the place back. They may say so in public, but they all know that in the grand scheme of things they conceded 3 points in the driver's championshp battle. I understand why Hamilton did it, and it was the right thing for him to do, but Mercedes as a team would like to avoid that scenario at all costs. Should the same situation arise later on this season, I doubt we will see a swap back.

Well, according to Wolff they determined the best place on the pitwall:

TW: When Lewis passed Valtteri it seemed that Lewis’s pace was quicker and we weren’t quite sure whether Valtteri was managing the gap to the Ferraris because the moment you come close you ruin your tyres, so he stayed a bit behind. In that situation Lewis thought that he could go quicker and was saying "give me a shot!", and he passed. Lewis was not able to pass [Raikkonen] so in the last couple of laps we had discussions internally how we could swap Valtteri back again as Verstappen was getting closer and we didn’t want to lose the podium. So we discussed the gaps and where the right place for the swap would be. The idea was the last lap into the last corner because that would limit any overtaking opportunities from behind. There have not been any similar discussions – it was a very sportsmanlike behaviour – to Valtteri before. It was a very difficult call for the team and of course very difficult for Lewis.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/inte ... -call.html


Right, so it was discussed internally. So how was that message communicated to Lewis exactly? Telepathy? I mean, no message was broadcasted, commentators didn't see the swap coming, nobody saw it coming. Toto is just FOS here imo. The video of him reacting after the swap pretty much confirms that he didn't agree with what Lewis did.


You do know that not every radio message is broadcast don't you?

While we're on the subject of commentators, they also said that Lewis would be allowed to turn everything up to eleven in his quest to pass Kimi, which could explain how he managed to pull away from Bottas. Assuming we're taking everything they say as gospel, which we absolutely shouldn't because as you say, they are FOS.

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2238
Prema wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Well, according to James Allen...

Under Toto Wolff, Mercedes goes racing with emotion, but also has a clear “team-first” policy, where they will act in the team’s interests, not the individual driver’s. They are used to it now after three years of Rosberg and Hamilton and both current Mercedes drivers have a chance still in the championship, so they ensured that a deal proposed to Valtteri Bottas during the race by Hamilton, was honoured.

https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/07/ ... y-defined/

He goes on to say what if Lewis loses the title by three points... equally you could argue what if Bottas wins it by three points from Vettel?

I was surprised to see the swap-back since they had a good excuse/explanation for not doing it. They asked Bottas to be closer up, he didn't manage it out of whatever reasons (he complained about back-markers) andhe let Max come close on him.

In any case, this proposition of "what if Bottas wins", I find it more a "smartass" rhetorical than a practical argument. To be a smartass myself... hey, that would still include Hamilton losing the title, but to his teammate the newcomer. And that within not 3 but 6 points! Go and digest that, Mr. Hamilton. :o


One DNF (like the one Bottas had, remember) and Bottas is ahead in the Championship... if anything Merc's 'problem' is that Bottas is doing too well and not falling into a nice easy number two position (like that Finnish bloke). Though I must say I'm surprised that Merc didn't give Bottas a year on a 'supporting role' contract, with a view to earning a proper contract later on... maybe Rosberg's late in the day retirement meant Bottas was in a stronger position, or maybe they didn't really think Bottas would be that close to Hamilton, and maybe Hamilton didn't want a number two?

It's kind of weird when you think about it, that Bottas has had a DNF and he's still only 19 points behind. Considering if you believe everything you read on here that Hamilton has him in his pocket.

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2248
ALESI wrote:
Prema wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Well, according to James Allen...

Under Toto Wolff, Mercedes goes racing with emotion, but also has a clear “team-first” policy, where they will act in the team’s interests, not the individual driver’s. They are used to it now after three years of Rosberg and Hamilton and both current Mercedes drivers have a chance still in the championship, so they ensured that a deal proposed to Valtteri Bottas during the race by Hamilton, was honoured.

https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/07/ ... y-defined/

He goes on to say what if Lewis loses the title by three points... equally you could argue what if Bottas wins it by three points from Vettel?

I was surprised to see the swap-back since they had a good excuse/explanation for not doing it. They asked Bottas to be closer up, he didn't manage it out of whatever reasons (he complained about back-markers) andhe let Max come close on him.

In any case, this proposition of "what if Bottas wins", I find it more a "smartass" rhetorical than a practical argument. To be a smartass myself... hey, that would still include Hamilton losing the title, but to his teammate the newcomer. And that within not 3 but 6 points! Go and digest that, Mr. Hamilton. :o


One DNF (like the one Bottas had, remember) and Bottas is ahead in the Championship... if anything Merc's 'problem' is that Bottas is doing too well and not falling into a nice easy number two position (like that Finnish bloke). Though I must say I'm surprised that Merc didn't give Bottas a year on a 'supporting role' contract, with a view to earning a proper contract later on... maybe Rosberg's late in the day retirement meant Bottas was in a stronger position, or maybe they didn't really think Bottas would be that close to Hamilton, and maybe Hamilton didn't want a number two?

It's kind of weird when you think about it, that Bottas has had a DNF and he's still only 19 points behind. Considering if you believe everything you read on here that Hamilton has him in his pocket.


Well the headrest issue could have something to do that, Hamilton lost a lot of points that day and Bottas gained a lot after his bad 1st lap racing. Cars literally fell away and it was one of those days he got really lucky.

Bottas is doing well especially in qualifying but his race pace has been pretty poor, in nearly every Grand Prix he has a stint were he is too slow on a particular tyre. I would be amazed if a driver could beat two of the best with race pace like that unless they get extreme lucky

_________________
Podiums: 1st Spain 2016, 2nd Germany 2016 and 3rd Mexico 2016


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6723
ALESI wrote:
Merc's 'problem' is that Bottas is doing too well and not falling into a nice easy number two position (like that Finnish bloke).

I know it's not really the point you're making but actually Bottas has been the better 'number 2' so far. If you consider how close Austria and Russia were a lesser driver wouldn't have stopped Vettel taking those wins. Bottas has taken 14 points off Vettel this year.

Actually I can't remember the race that well but how much influence did Bottas have in the Spain result? Was it always going to be a Hamilton victory or did Bottas holding Vettel up potentially make the difference in Hamilton catching? If it's the latter then that would be a 14 point swing to Hamilton due to Bottas.

With e.g. Palmer in the second Mercedes Vettel would likely be further ahead in the championship.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:52 pm
Posts: 2248
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Merc's 'problem' is that Bottas is doing too well and not falling into a nice easy number two position (like that Finnish bloke).

I know it's not really the point you're making but actually Bottas has been the better 'number 2' so far. If you consider how close Austria and Russia were a lesser driver wouldn't have stopped Vettel taking those wins. Bottas has taken 14 points off Vettel this year.

Actually I can't remember the race that well but how much influence did Bottas have in the Spain result? Was it always going to be a Hamilton victory or did Bottas holding Vettel up potentially make the difference in Hamilton catching? If it's the latter then that would be a 14 point swing to Hamilton due to Bottas.

With e.g. Palmer in the second Mercedes Vettel would likely be further ahead in the championship.


IMO Hamilton would have never won in Spain if it wasn't for Bottas and the VSC, the Ferrari was the quicker car in the race. I think Vettel lost 4 seconds behind Bottas.
At that point Vettel was running the faster soft tyre to Hamilton on the mediums and lost most of the advantage from running that tyre due to both Bottas and the VSC.

_________________
Podiums: 1st Spain 2016, 2nd Germany 2016 and 3rd Mexico 2016


Last edited by F1_Ernie on Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6723
F1_Ernie wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Merc's 'problem' is that Bottas is doing too well and not falling into a nice easy number two position (like that Finnish bloke).

I know it's not really the point you're making but actually Bottas has been the better 'number 2' so far. If you consider how close Austria and Russia were a lesser driver wouldn't have stopped Vettel taking those wins. Bottas has taken 14 points off Vettel this year.

Actually I can't remember the race that well but how much influence did Bottas have in the Spain result? Was it always going to be a Hamilton victory or did Bottas holding Vettel up potentially make the difference in Hamilton catching? If it's the latter then that would be a 14 point swing to Hamilton due to Bottas.

With e.g. Palmer in the second Mercedes Vettel would likely be further ahead in the championship.


IMO Hamilton would have never won in Spain if it wasn't for Bottas and the VSC, the Ferrari was the quicker car in the race. I think Vettel lost 4 seconds behind Bottas.

If that is the case then that's an effective 28 points Vettel has lost relative to Hamilton due to Bottas so far this year. I know who I would rather have as my number 2.

By number 2 I mean de facto due to pace/points of course, I think it's pretty clear that neither Hamilton nor Vettel are contractually number 1 within the team.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5330
spiritone wrote:
Always interesting to read the comments from desk jockeys how easy it is to drive these cars, judge the closing speed and give back a position, no problem eh! Just maybe that little swap of positions might have been just a little tougher than it looked.

No, of course not, it's just so easy, i've done it on my laptop lots of times.


You mean that two drivers that their job is to overtake other cars may not be able to perform one overtake? Especially one orchestrated within the same team?

Wow, you may be surprised, but they can actually drive


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2238
F1_Ernie wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Prema wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Well, according to James Allen...

Under Toto Wolff, Mercedes goes racing with emotion, but also has a clear “team-first” policy, where they will act in the team’s interests, not the individual driver’s. They are used to it now after three years of Rosberg and Hamilton and both current Mercedes drivers have a chance still in the championship, so they ensured that a deal proposed to Valtteri Bottas during the race by Hamilton, was honoured.

https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/07/ ... y-defined/

He goes on to say what if Lewis loses the title by three points... equally you could argue what if Bottas wins it by three points from Vettel?

I was surprised to see the swap-back since they had a good excuse/explanation for not doing it. They asked Bottas to be closer up, he didn't manage it out of whatever reasons (he complained about back-markers) andhe let Max come close on him.

In any case, this proposition of "what if Bottas wins", I find it more a "smartass" rhetorical than a practical argument. To be a smartass myself... hey, that would still include Hamilton losing the title, but to his teammate the newcomer. And that within not 3 but 6 points! Go and digest that, Mr. Hamilton. :o


One DNF (like the one Bottas had, remember) and Bottas is ahead in the Championship... if anything Merc's 'problem' is that Bottas is doing too well and not falling into a nice easy number two position (like that Finnish bloke). Though I must say I'm surprised that Merc didn't give Bottas a year on a 'supporting role' contract, with a view to earning a proper contract later on... maybe Rosberg's late in the day retirement meant Bottas was in a stronger position, or maybe they didn't really think Bottas would be that close to Hamilton, and maybe Hamilton didn't want a number two?

It's kind of weird when you think about it, that Bottas has had a DNF and he's still only 19 points behind. Considering if you believe everything you read on here that Hamilton has him in his pocket.


Well the headrest issue could have something to do that, Hamilton lost a lot of points that day and Bottas gained a lot after his bad 1st lap racing. Cars literally fell away and it was one of those days he got really lucky.

Bottas is doing well especially in qualifying but his race pace has been pretty poor, in nearly every Grand Prix he has a stint were he is too slow on a particular tyre. I would be amazed if a driver could beat two of the best with race pace like that unless they get extreme lucky


Okay, but even if we offset the headrest against Bottas DNF, did anyone really expect Bottas to be that close to Lewis at this point? 19 points is about the same as 9 in the old scoring system, it's not difficult to see how Bottas could still be within striking distance come the end of the season - yet some people persist in painting him as a no hoper who should be supporting Lewis in the WDC.

Surely Bottas is likely to get better as the season progresses and he gets on top of his problems, his qualifying pace already seems to rule out the idea that Hamilton will be the default highest Merc on the grid.

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 2882
ALESI wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Zoue wrote:
kleefton wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Well, according to James Allen...

Under Toto Wolff, Mercedes goes racing with emotion, but also has a clear “team-first” policy, where they will act in the team’s interests, not the individual driver’s. They are used to it now after three years of Rosberg and Hamilton and both current Mercedes drivers have a chance still in the championship, so they ensured that a deal proposed to Valtteri Bottas during the race by Hamilton, was honoured.

https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/07/ ... y-defined/

He goes on to say what if Lewis loses the title by three points... equally you could argue what if Bottas wins it by three points from Vettel?



They didn't ensure that the deal would be honored though. Not a word came from the pitwall to order Hamilton to give the place back. It was Hamilton's decision to honor his word that made the swap happen. I'm not so sure that Mercedes is totally happy that Hamilton gave the place back. They may say so in public, but they all know that in the grand scheme of things they conceded 3 points in the driver's championshp battle. I understand why Hamilton did it, and it was the right thing for him to do, but Mercedes as a team would like to avoid that scenario at all costs. Should the same situation arise later on this season, I doubt we will see a swap back.

Well, according to Wolff they determined the best place on the pitwall:

TW: When Lewis passed Valtteri it seemed that Lewis’s pace was quicker and we weren’t quite sure whether Valtteri was managing the gap to the Ferraris because the moment you come close you ruin your tyres, so he stayed a bit behind. In that situation Lewis thought that he could go quicker and was saying "give me a shot!", and he passed. Lewis was not able to pass [Raikkonen] so in the last couple of laps we had discussions internally how we could swap Valtteri back again as Verstappen was getting closer and we didn’t want to lose the podium. So we discussed the gaps and where the right place for the swap would be. The idea was the last lap into the last corner because that would limit any overtaking opportunities from behind. There have not been any similar discussions – it was a very sportsmanlike behaviour – to Valtteri before. It was a very difficult call for the team and of course very difficult for Lewis.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/inte ... -call.html


Right, so it was discussed internally. So how was that message communicated to Lewis exactly? Telepathy? I mean, no message was broadcasted, commentators didn't see the swap coming, nobody saw it coming. Toto is just FOS here imo. The video of him reacting after the swap pretty much confirms that he didn't agree with what Lewis did.


You do know that not every radio message is broadcast don't you?

While we're on the subject of commentators, they also said that Lewis would be allowed to turn everything up to eleven in his quest to pass Kimi, which could explain how he managed to pull away from Bottas. Assuming we're taking everything they say as gospel, which we absolutely shouldn't because as you say, they are FOS.


Yes, I do know that but this is one message that HAS to be broadcasted, for entertainment value if anything else. It wasn't broadcasted because it just was never relayed.

And of course Lewis was allowed to turn the engine up, and that message was clearly broadcasted, what do you think strat mode 3 is?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 2:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20920
kleefton wrote:
Zoue wrote:
kleefton wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Well, according to James Allen...

Under Toto Wolff, Mercedes goes racing with emotion, but also has a clear “team-first” policy, where they will act in the team’s interests, not the individual driver’s. They are used to it now after three years of Rosberg and Hamilton and both current Mercedes drivers have a chance still in the championship, so they ensured that a deal proposed to Valtteri Bottas during the race by Hamilton, was honoured.

https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/07/ ... y-defined/

He goes on to say what if Lewis loses the title by three points... equally you could argue what if Bottas wins it by three points from Vettel?



They didn't ensure that the deal would be honored though. Not a word came from the pitwall to order Hamilton to give the place back. It was Hamilton's decision to honor his word that made the swap happen. I'm not so sure that Mercedes is totally happy that Hamilton gave the place back. They may say so in public, but they all know that in the grand scheme of things they conceded 3 points in the driver's championshp battle. I understand why Hamilton did it, and it was the right thing for him to do, but Mercedes as a team would like to avoid that scenario at all costs. Should the same situation arise later on this season, I doubt we will see a swap back.

Well, according to Wolff they determined the best place on the pitwall:

TW: When Lewis passed Valtteri it seemed that Lewis’s pace was quicker and we weren’t quite sure whether Valtteri was managing the gap to the Ferraris because the moment you come close you ruin your tyres, so he stayed a bit behind. In that situation Lewis thought that he could go quicker and was saying "give me a shot!", and he passed. Lewis was not able to pass [Raikkonen] so in the last couple of laps we had discussions internally how we could swap Valtteri back again as Verstappen was getting closer and we didn’t want to lose the podium. So we discussed the gaps and where the right place for the swap would be. The idea was the last lap into the last corner because that would limit any overtaking opportunities from behind. There have not been any similar discussions – it was a very sportsmanlike behaviour – to Valtteri before. It was a very difficult call for the team and of course very difficult for Lewis.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/inte ... -call.html


Right, so it was discussed internally. So how was that message communicated to Lewis exactly? Telepathy? I mean, no message was broadcasted, commentators didn't see the swap coming, nobody saw it coming. Toto is just FOS here imo. The video of him reacting after the swap pretty much confirms that he didn't agree with what Lewis did.

Well here's another version of the interview:

"So we advised him about the gap and discussed where the right place would be and decided it would be last lap into the last corner, because that would limit the overtaking opportunities for Verstappen. So he backed up and there wasn't any discussion."

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/287454/1/call-to-swap-hamilton-and-bottas-extremely-difficult-wolff

So it seems clear from the "we advised him" that they were communicating with Hamilton. As has been discussed, not every message is broadcast. It's possible he's lying, of course, but I don't see what his motivation would be?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 2:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20920
Laz_T800 wrote:
Reading through this I'm led to the conclusion that some posters existence on this forum is solely with the purpose of slapping down any poster who dare give Lewis Hamilton any praise.
Pretty sad stuff.

Not a single post has done this


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 2:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2238
kleefton wrote:

Yes, I do know that but this is one message that HAS to be broadcasted, for entertainment value if anything else. It wasn't broadcasted because it just was never relayed.

And of course Lewis was allowed to turn the engine up, and that message was clearly broadcasted, what do you think strat mode 3 is?


I thought Strat Mode 3 was the one for playing Smoke on the Water...

It's not like crucial radio messages haven't been broadcast before is it? I swear the broadcasters are given a random assortment of messages with scant regard to their importance or pertinence.

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 3:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 1530
lamo wrote:
Prema wrote:
lamo wrote:
Prema wrote:
As far as this part
Quote:
It wasn't as simple as moving over for an isolated Bottas, Hamilton threw caution to the wind and took the risk of losing additional points.

I just re-watched that moment. Not a big deal actually, doing it just before the finish line with 0,5 seconds gap to Max.
He had full control of the situation. From 0:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEIAK5Ao8DQ

"Thanks for the trust."


Its not a big deal when you execute it perfectly, its when you don't do it perfectly... Verstappen got so close to Bottas that basically the only place he could have done it was the last corner of the last lap.


Yes, it was basically the only safe place to do it without actually risking being taken over by Max and lose one more place to him. Hence not a big deal there, right before the finish line, and with the sufficient gap of almost 1 sec between Bottas and Max. I am sure any of those drivers are able to manage it without difficulties. I just don't see why all the hype about it. I don't see anything extraordinary.


Its the only time I can ever remember a driver who was involved in a title fight letting his team mate through (who had less points than him). I think it is a first. That is why a big deal has been made of it. But I agree it was somewhat blown out of proportion but possibly rightly so given Hamilton has won a title by 1 point, lost one by 1 point and lost the last one by 5 points. Journalists already have the headlines written if he loses this title by less than 3 points...

While Bottas does have an outside chance at the title, he has been in contention for just 2 race wins all year whilst his team mate has challenged for 7 wins. A Bottas title would require quite a lot of bad luck from both Vettel and Hamilton and a change in his speed too.


BIB
Monaco 2016? Rosberg letting Hamilton past?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4507
ALESI wrote:
kleefton wrote:

Yes, I do know that but this is one message that HAS to be broadcasted, for entertainment value if anything else. It wasn't broadcasted because it just was never relayed.

And of course Lewis was allowed to turn the engine up, and that message was clearly broadcasted, what do you think strat mode 3 is?


I thought Strat Mode 3 was the one for playing Smoke on the Water...

It's not like crucial radio messages haven't been broadcast before is it? I swear the broadcasters are given a random assortment of messages with scant regard to their importance or pertinence.

Nah. Strat Mode 3 would be the middle pickup only and I think that riff probably uses the middle and bridge pickups out of phase which would be either Mode 2 or 4 depending on which end of the selector you start counting from. ;)

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2238
babararacucudada wrote:
lamo wrote:
Its the only time I can ever remember a driver who was involved in a title fight letting his team mate through (who had less points than him). I think it is a first. That is why a big deal has been made of it. But I agree it was somewhat blown out of proportion but possibly rightly so given Hamilton has won a title by 1 point, lost one by 1 point and lost the last one by 5 points. Journalists already have the headlines written if he loses this title by less than 3 points...

While Bottas does have an outside chance at the title, he has been in contention for just 2 race wins all year whilst his team mate has challenged for 7 wins. A Bottas title would require quite a lot of bad luck from both Vettel and Hamilton and a change in his speed too.


BIB
Monaco 2016? Rosberg letting Hamilton past?


Imagine if Hamilton had won the title because Rosberg let him by...

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Blake, Google Adsense [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group