Phil wrote:I think it came across like that to me too, even if the team didnt have malicious intent. I wonder how far the micromanagent in Mercedes goes; dont they also only employ one race strategist for both drivers? Perhaps the consense was that Lewis was always in his own race, realistically never going to challenge Rosberg. Lucky events and circumstances saw that Hamilton suddenly fighting for the same positions as his team mate. I wonder if on some level, Mercedes felt that Rosberg deserved to be ahead based on his starting position and that "luck through strategy" shouldnt let Hamilton finish ahead, in a way to avoid Rosberg to question his teams decisions and if perhaps Lewis (in his view) ended up unfairly ahead.
Not trying to fuel conspiracy theories here, just trying to explore the possibility on how far Mercedes seem to be keen on giving both drivers a level playing field as they have publicly stated. As an example; if the leading driver suffers bad luck beyond his control and the other all the good fortune and ends up ahead in what is deemed a crucial race (for WDC), would they step in to manage it that the (in their view) just result happens or would they let it be? Of course i dont think they would actually employ team orders like they did Massa/Alonso, but perhaps on a more subtle level like using different strategies etc...?
I really hope that is not the case. The strategy decisions should be made that the lead driver gets the preferred strategy when both drivers are running close to each other. When the drivers are a long way apart then you may be able to employ the optimal strategy for both cars.
In cases like Hungary where the variables of weather and the safety car meant that Lewis got closer to Nico than the team anticipated the strategy should stay with the lead car, at the time Nico pitted on lap 32 that was him but thanks to some wonderful driving by Hamilton he was able to open up a 1 pit stop gap over Nico. In doing so Hamilton became the lead car and the strategy should have switched from Rosberg to Hamilton. However, since Nico pitted on Lap 32 there was no way he was doing a 38 lap stint on the Option tyre, that was a little too much so he was forced into a 3 stop. Due to the nature of the race it was difficult to know if the 2 stop or the 3 stop was faster so putting Hamilton onto the 2 stop to protect against a late rain shower was a totally valid strategy the issue is they should have known that Hamilton would come out a few seconds in front of Rosberg, the prime was slower so without team orders this would slow Rosberg up messing up his 3 stop strategy. Given that the team should have gone for the Option tyre on Lewis's car, that would have given him a bit more pace than Rosberg which would have avoided him being held up for 10 laps, that in turn would have maximised Rosbergs 3 stop strategy and given him a podium with a shot at second. Meanwhile Hamilton out on the softs would have been able to overtake Alonso and Massa and then cruised in clean air to the flag. Even if Hamilton had run out of Tyre towards the end they could have pitted him again around lap 60 and he could have made the podium.
That would have earned Mercedes a double podium, possibly a 1-2. It would have given them a new F1 record as being the first team to have a driver start in the pits and finish 1st. It would have dispelled any rumours over driver favouritism and given marketing something special to work with. Instead they were not dynamic enough to grasp the opportunity so they only ended up with one driver on the podium and this team orders PR issue.
All in all a really bad day at the office.
