Thats an interesting piece. However I can't believe Lowes even had the brass neck to say this 'The team have done a fantastic job in the previous 20 races.' They have failed one of their drivers pure and simple that's not even open for debate.turbof1 wrote:You can take it as simply not being worried about the fallout in the news. Perhaps naive indeed in hoping Hamilton would abandon his plans and increase pace in this particular case. I think they probably thought it was not going to work, but tried to give it a go anyway because a 1-2 was in jeopardy.Restomaniac wrote:I see your point but with regard to Hamilton's response. We need to remember that Hamilton had already given a polite but firm 'NO' before Paddy issues his orders so there was never going to be a better reaction when he is the told to do it. That again takes no thinking as that is obvious.turbof1 wrote: Well, I think opinion splits here. In my personal view, Toto, Niki and/or Paddy found a 1-2 Abu Dhabi being in jeopardy and were only concerned by that. I think in that moment they were not considering how Hamilton would act on it or what it meant to him. I really do not believe they were concerned with any controversy in the media. In that moment, only the race and the outcome for Mercedes mattered. Discussions are ongoing all the time about what is going on the track, not outside.
There is nothing that indicates a conspiracy against Hamilton here, my friend.
I don't buy that they didn't expect Hamilton's reaction. Lowe will have known of Hamilton since 1995 when Hamilton signed on the McClaren young driver scheme and certainly since 2007 when he became a full driver. Let's us not forget they pretty much moved to Merc at the same time as well so that's just short of a decade. Lauda as a former F1 driver should have known damn well the reaction too.
I take it that you think Merc were naive in their judgement?
Paddy Lowe has been in the sport since 1987 and Nikki Lauda since 1971. Wolff has raced since 1992 and has been in F1 since 2009 They know all to well how the sport works.
Lowe and Wolff have already broached the other issue as I have said. There is too much knowledge of the sport and the issues for it to be put down to 'didn't see it coming'.
Maybe you should also read this article:
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/race- ... wn-854925/
It puts further emphasis on that number one goal of Mercedes is finishing 1-2, even saying they don't care in which order:I understand your viewpoint: you find it's too simple, too naive to believe that Mercedes did not took into account how Hamilton would react into consideration. Fact of the matter is that they probably purposely did so because they feel the team stands above the driver and drivers should obey instructions. They feel personal goals have to make room for the team's goal. It's working a bit with arrogancy actually, but I also think they have good reason to do so. 1,500 people make a massive effort all year long to get the best result achievable. Hundreds of millions are being put in the team. The drivers get glory and are being burried underneath royalties. From Mercedes their standpoint, they cannot accept insurbodination and need to have their drivers to obey and expect those to do so. Hamilton giving a polite no therefore was never going to cut it for Mercedes."The very plain objective of an F1 team is to win every race, and ideally get a one-two. And it was clearly expressed to the drivers," he added.
"We don't mind which order it's in, but we're after a one-two, and we were not going to distort those objectives in favour of the drivers' World Championship."
Fair enough but purely in a PR point does it not seem better to be seen to be fair to both drivers and therefore when you have utterly failed one of your drivers would it not be better to just stay out of it?
