2017 AMG Mercedes F1 Team - Mercedes

[marmer]

Would a driver not at the top of his game lead to a Mercedes looking bad on the track. Williams looks ok driven by massa but more like a manor driven by stroll is it not more likely thay hamilton had a bad weekend like one or two races last year and actually nothing wrong with the car at all. Bottas had pace apart from fp2 how different could the setups be for a car. This weekend was a mental battle as much as a race about cars. hamilton lost never got into a grove cost him a serious amount of points.
I do think hamilton is mentally one of the best drivers his only weekness he random weekends where he has no pace compared to his teammates first driver I remember him doing this with was button who would just be plain better for no reason one race while ham is generally quicker.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

[CHT]

Perhaps Merc and Lewis is suffering from the lack of Rosberg feedback and understanding of the car setup.

[Jordan44]

Would a driver not at the top of his game lead to a Mercedes looking bad on the track. Williams looks ok driven by massa but more like a manor driven by stroll is it not more likely thay hamilton had a bad weekend like one or two races last year and actually nothing wrong with the car at all. Bottas had pace apart from fp2 how different could the setups be for a car. This weekend was a mental battle as much as a race about cars. hamilton lost never got into a grove cost him a serious amount of points.
I do think hamilton is mentally one of the best drivers his only weekness he random weekends where he has no pace compared to his teammates first driver I remember him doing this with was button who would just be plain better for no reason one race while ham is generally quicker.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

No.

This theory would make sense if he was suddenly off the pace when it came to qualifying. There is no pressure to perform in FP2, or FP3. But they were not on the pace there either.

The team have already said there were tyre warmup issues. In Sochi, Hamilton's tyres were 8 degrees cooler than what Bottas had when he was in S3, and they were out of the window of working.

The car has a very narrow setup window. Ferrari didn't need to do warmup laps to switch on the tyres - that is pretty significant imo.

It reminds me of the Ferrari last year actually. Ferrari did not understand how to get the tyres working. And Vettel went missing for several race weekends in similar fashion. Or maybe even Red Bull in 2013 until the compound changed in the summer.

[Just_a_fan]

Perhaps Merc and Lewis is suffering from the lack of Rosberg feedback and understanding of the car setup.

Except the driver has a limited input in the setup. It is driven by the engineers from the data the car produces following initial setup after simulation. The driver will change stuff to give him better feel, perhaps, but if the fastest setup is X, he gets to drive X.

[Vasconia]

Would a driver not at the top of his game lead to a Mercedes looking bad on the track. Williams looks ok driven by massa but more like a manor driven by stroll is it not more likely thay hamilton had a bad weekend like one or two races last year and actually nothing wrong with the car at all. Bottas had pace apart from fp2 how different could the setups be for a car. This weekend was a mental battle as much as a race about cars. hamilton lost never got into a grove cost him a serious amount of points.
I do think hamilton is mentally one of the best drivers his only weekness he random weekends where he has no pace compared to his teammates first driver I remember him doing this with was button who would just be plain better for no reason one race while ham is generally quicker.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

No.

This theory would make sense if he was suddenly off the pace when it came to qualifying. There is no pressure to perform in FP2, or FP3. But they were not on the pace there either.

The team have already said there were tyre warmup issues. In Sochi, Hamilton's tyres were 8 degrees cooler than what Bottas had when he was in S3, and they were out of the window of working.

The car has a very narrow setup window. Ferrari didn't need to do warmup laps to switch on the tyres - that is pretty significant imo.

It reminds me of the Ferrari last year actually. Ferrari did not understand how to get the tyres working. And Vettel went missing for several race weekends in similar fashion. Or maybe even Red Bull in 2013 until the compound changed in the summer.

+1.

Mercedes has a problem with the working window of the tyres. His car is the best one but it works at a 100% in a narrower operating window than others.

I don´t know if they can solve it, Ferrari in 2016 and Red Bull in 2013 showed that unless there is a significant change the problem can last the hole season.

[Phil]

Is it just me or does anyone else find Hamilton's claim of Vettel being No.1 @ Ferrari an extremely hypocritical statement? There is no factual evidence to prove that Ferrari preferred Seb over Kimi, but there have been team orders @ Mercedes?

Is it? When I look at it from a different angle, I see two teams: One that has somewhat of a bad history of favoritism and blatant team orders, the other that has conducted itself quite to the opposite the last 3 seasons - arguably, causing as much controversy because it seemed the team went too far in trying to control the outcome of the race.

You can say many things about Mercedes, but the way they have tried to (micro) manage two drivers fighting for the championship has been nothing short of exemplary. If they could be accused of something, it was their way of micro managing both drivers to the point that the driver in the lead would always be at a slight advantage due to the equality in strategies and the fact that the leading driver would get priority on the pitstop. Team-orders like the one last year in Monaco where Rosberg was ordered to let Lewis by were ok to the point it was Rosberg who was driving at very slow and holding up pretty much everyone to the point everyone was speculating if there was a technical issue on the car.

This year, we saw a similar team interference in Bahrain, where Bottas was in a similar situation like Rosberg last year in Monaco. He was ultimately driving his own race - trying to figure out why he was lacking pace. The order to let Hamilton by was a no-brainer given the pace advantage. As a team, the worst thing you want is to have one driver holding up the other and damaging the results for both.

Another instance was last race (Barcelona) when they somewhat went for a 1-stop with Bottas and came into a position where he was able to hold up Vettel and help Hamilton secure the win. Bottas himself was never in contention for the win at that race. This wasn't much different to say China (or was it Australia? Sochi? Not sure now) when Ferrari kept out Kimi rather long too. There have been other instances of very subtle 'team-orders' or race managing, i.e. when Ferrari pitted Kimi early for example to study his performance on the second tire and thus giving valuable information for their leading car. These are all strategic elements that can influence the outcome of a race and are way more subtle.

IMO - there is a difference in using team-orders to get the best possible team-result (e.g. Monaco '16, Bahrain '17, Barcelona '17 and numerous other instances) or using it to change the running order of team-mates where it does not impact the team-result. Did Ferrari do this in Monaco? Hard to say - as I just posted in the Monaco topic - Ferrari had a clear picture of the track and IMO was quite aware that Kimi would end up in traffic (backmarkers). With the gap between the two, every tenth counted. Even prior to the race, most "armchair experts" argued that pitting second would be better, probably as a result of the tire differential and the time it takes to get the SS into temperature window. If Ferrari had been as obsessed as Mercedes has been in the past over "equality", I think they would have pitted Vettel first (or at least given Kimi the choice) with the second car a lap later.

The biggest advantage I see for Ferrari going forward is that I think Kimi will pose less of a threat to Vettel than Bottas to Hamilton. If the rest of the season pans out similarly to what we have already seen, Vettel will maximize his points vs his team-mate and Mercedes will be probably faced earlier with the dilemma of having to use team-orders (or sacrificing a lamb in order to help the other) earlier.

[Big Mangalhit]

There was already an instance this year were kimi was holding Vettel and he had to overtake him on track and then overtake ricciardo and then run out of tyres to contend for the win. Ferrari could've applied team orders there but didn't cause since Arrivabene arrived he said that team orders is a thing of the past in Ferrari. So looking at the team's past can be fallacious in this situation.

I do agree that maybe Ferrari were not so innocent in this case but Mercedes has done many times similar things in the past to prevent their drivers to fight on track and risk an accident. Also bringing the past is unfair cause Merc has such an advantage last years ofc it was a no brainer to let the drivers fight, but this year I don't think the same will happen. Let's see, anyway I am loving this fight between two different teams, it's a nice change of pace to have the race contesters having the best possible stratagy to win. (I mean the driver in second place can always try the undercut because he is from a different team.)

[Phil]

Yeah, good point. One should also judge the circumstance of the season, the car and the race of course. I have to say, I think it's rather logical to assume that a team may be more likely to issue team-orders when it is beneficial to a better team-result. And I also think in such a situation, it is only fair if the team give the driver that is ahead a chance (e.g. radio "speed up or let your team-mate pass").

If a teams both drivers are in position 1 and 2, then of course it's a bit more controversial, as issuing an order will not impact the teams result, but will have a positive effect on one and a negative effect on the other. This wasn't the case in Monaco of course, but of course there are more subtle ways to for a team to influence the race result; for example by optimum strategy or not. And I think that is where there is some argument regarding the Monaco race: If we assume Ferrari run things similar to Mercedes and the lead driver gets the 'optimum strategy', we have to wonder if at the time Kimi was called in to pit, if that was indeed the preferred strategy or if Ferrari was just willing to sacrifice him to a degree that would give Vettel that chance at doing an overcut.



Anyway, as for Mercedes - it will be interesting to see how things go from here. I wouldn't be quick to blame Hamilton for "underperforming" this weekend, even if Bottas in the other car was able to extract a lot more [in QF] and nearly got pole too. It just seem all too reminiscent of Bahrain when it was the other way around. Part of me thinks that with the sensitivity of this years Mercedes and both drivers having a slightly different driving style - it either suits one or the other. In Bahrain, Bottas was nowhere with Hamilton being extremely quick - now here, it seemed to be the opposite. I hope they can sort things out, as this type of ying-yang on performance will be very costly for them with the WDC in light.

[Cold Fussion]

I really don't understand all the fuss over team orders. Even if you consider Ferrari used team orders to engineer Vettel's win, it was only possible because of Kimi's poor pace during the race. If Kimi had Vettel's pace he absolutely could have won the race with either strategy employed by Ferrari. When you consider how appalling some of the strategies Ferrari have given to Kimi over the last couple years I can't see the sense in so much furor over this particular incident. Unless team orders are egregious (like Ferrari awarding Massa with a 5 place grid penalty a couple years ago at the US GP to allow Alonso to start on the clean side of the track), I have no issue with team orders.

[Schuttelberg]

Is it? When I look at it from a different angle, I see two teams: One that has somewhat of a bad history of favoritism and blatant team orders, the other that has conducted itself quite to the opposite the last 3 seasons - arguably, causing as much controversy because it seemed the team went too far in trying to control the outcome of the race.

Let us look at both sides Phil. First of all, Ferrari in my honest opinion are very unjustly accused of favouritism. I'll tell you why, it's because when you're winning the most, you get a lot of heat (sport gets monotonous) and people want change. I'm sure you refer to the Ferrari era where Schumacher was 'favoured' but people always forget that their chief rivals (McLaren-Mercedes) had team orders in the first race of a season (Australia 1998). I find it extremely convenient when people say "oh but he's so far ahead, does he need it?" A TO is a TO. Period.

Mercedes simply had to allow their two drivers to race because the season would have been over in the tenth round if they didn't. It would lead to a faster rule shake up, shift in balance and therefore a loss of control at the sharp end or at least a chance to lose it. BTW, in all the years (2013-2016) I can state a handful of instances where Mercedes have used the team order and Rosberg has obliged while Hamilton has denied. Fair enough, but then don't come out and claim you're this 'racer' and you'd never have it easy and bla bla bla. I have heard more than once from Hamilton saying he'd never take a win gifted to him. He likes to "earn" it. If he's SO morally upscale why didn't he hand second back to Bottas in Bahrain when he couldn't beat Vettel this year? He could have tried to actually pass him? Didn't he also find it necessary to bring up Schumacher and Barrichello at Austria 2002? Well, he has a right to an opinion but then after maligning someone you do the same thing? Wasn't Bahrain just the third race of the year?

The absolute truth is that of the two drivers supposedly fighting for the title, Vettel has had to fight his team mate harder. He's had no help whatsoever from him in trying to win races. This is not a speculation, it's a fact. Hamilton says he doesn't choose his team mates, yet his contract spells that the team "must consult him" before hiring someone. I'm quite sure Vettel and Alonso don't pay their team mates. Ferrari/McLaren do and they can hire who they like. And would two of the most successful teams in the history of the sport intentionally support the inferior driver after spending millions of bucks just to stroke their ego?

Now, hear me out on what I feel-

1) IMHO, this WDC is between SV and LH. They're both incredible world champions and if I had to pick someone hand on heart to choose one to save my life with his driving- I'd choose Hamilton, just. I think his talent is so immense that it just edges Vettel's and his work ethic to boot. Hamilton works quite hard himself mind you, but ever since 2015 these 'off weekends' are becoming a bit more regular!

2) Mercedes and Ferrari should both have number 1's. I see a lot of Raikkonen fans unhappy and while I felt sad for him yesterday the fact is that he's simply not consistently as fast as Vettel. He will have his moment in the sun, but he's not Ferrari's bet for the full monty. I think Bottas has done well but my sincere opinion is that Hamilton has made him look good. Bottas' race pace IMO is not convincing and if Hamilton puts his brain in gear he will eat him alive.

3) My agitation and upset post, may be even hurt is not meant for you. It's more to do with the media and Hamilton. Vettel has had a miserable couple of years and the guy is just genuinely doing well. It doesn't take much to show some class which I feel no qualms in saying Hamilton lacks in abundance. He glorifies his easy victories like titanic battles and belittles others achievements to please himself. The media signs his hymns so I guess that's how it goes.

[marmer]

for all the fuss Hamilton made about his car not working over than the tyres not being in the correct temp he never once said why that is. on sky's build up they spoke to Rosberg who may or may not have spoken to the team. he informed them that they know whats wrong but it cannot be changed never once saying what that problem was. no one from merc has come out and told us what was wrong with the car so either Rosberg is not telling the truth or they don't want us to know.
if it was a broken part they would have fixed it under safety grounds
if it was a issue with setup they could have told us e.g rear anti role too hard.
so it comes down to two options as there is no reason to hide from the two above
1. they believe there is a issue but don't know what (hopefully this one)
2. Hamilton was slow and out of touch for no reason

ps if it was option 2 rosberg got himself a little dig in on world wide tv against Hamilton as the driver could not be changed

[Phil]

Schuttelberg,

I genuinely love your posts. I do think that in these particular ones, you are focusing too much on the persona of Hamilton - or better, how he is portrayed by the media.

I have watched pretty much all the post-race interviews that I could find after Monaco and Hamilton never strikes me as you put it. Certainly not the way he comes off as in the written article you posted. He is always very honest when asked questions about the media. Perhaps this is where things go wrong, as some of those answers, sometimes asked in the 'heat of the moment' are not fully representative of the entire situation.

About Ferrari and team-orders - you are right, I was thinking about the Schumacher era too, but much of my focus has been on Ferrari post 2010. I still remember how Massa was ordered to concede position to Alonso and I think much of his lack of performance and motivation in the later stages of his career at Ferrari can be explained by that. I did not want to say that Ferrari always does it - but more to point out, that Mercedes since entering F1 again has been very vocal about NOT being that. Having said that, I don't agree that a team-order is a team-order.

If Mercedes can be blamed to be anything these last few years, it was that they tried to micro manage their drivers to an extend that it limited us of some of that spectacle we could have been seeing. Some of it stems from the fact that they obviously have one single strategist who figured out the most sensible strategy for both cars. This is quite different to when you have one strategist for each driver and both also looking at the other side of the garage as an "enemy". There were also various instances in 2015 and 2016 where it was unclear how "dominant" Mercedes would be, so while I agree that Mercedes let both drivers race because it was beneficial for them to keep the WDC exciting, I do want to point out that things were less clear early on.

Even now, I feel that Mercedes is very much trying to treat both drivers equally. Some like bringing up Bahrain as proof of favoritism at Mercedes - I think it does the opposite: Earlier in the race, Hamiltons strategy was clearly being compromised when he was following Bottas and failed to overtake. Mercedes then ordered Valteri to close the gap to Vettel (in other words to speed up), yet he failed to do that and it took Mercedes around 10 laps until it finally issued the order to let Hamilton by. This was crucial for the later stages of the race. Later in the race, it was very clear that Hamilton was driving in a different league and with fresh tires coming from behind, it wasn't a question of "if" he would get past Bottas, but how long it would take him. The order was a no-brainer, even Bottas understood that. He wasn't in contention for the win, nor for position 2. Not a chance. So the logic of Hamilton wanting to concede that position back is idiotic at best. With the gap he had, to do so would have required him to park the car for an ice-cream stop.

Other instances of team-orders at Mercedes seem to have been quite clear too: Monaco 2016 is another instance where Mercedes acted because they wanted the best team-result. Rosberg clearly had issues and thus the team gave him the opportunity. "Speed up or let your team-mate pass". If you are going to do team-orders - either do it fair or don't. In both these instances, Mercedes gave both drivers the opportunity.

It's a little different if you have two drivers safely in position 1 & 2. I just read an article on AMuS that also suggests that Ferrari was fully aware what might happen when they pitted Kimi first. Both Kimi and Vettel had a reasonable gap to Ricciardo in 3rd and watching the race, they also saw that both Bottas and Max who pitted got into backmarker traffic (2 cars) and later also Sainz who hadn't stopped at that point. There was no reason to pit Kimi at that point. If they had run with a similar ethos of "equality" as Mercedes has in the past, they would informed Kimi that it's time to push and extract everything from the tires he could. Or knowing that the overcut seemed to be quicker, pit Vettel first. Were they under a moral obligation to do that? Obviously not. Would Mercedes have done the same as Ferrari in this race? Maybe. Though I am confident they would not have done that if both their drivers had been Rosberg and Hamilton like in the years before.

I'm just calling it what it is. I fully agree that Vettel was most likely the quicker driver on race day. On the other hand, I also think that Kimi was the faster driver in qualifying. He put that car on pole and in a place like Monaco, that should count for something. If there was any moral obligation towards their driver, IMO it would have been that the leading car gets the best opportunity, the best strategy if you want. He earned that when he qualified best. And tell me what you like, but I can't shake the feeling that Ferrari gave the best opportunity to Vettel which he also used.

Is this right or wrong? Hard to say. From a WDC perspective, likely not. From a WCC perspective? Maybe. We'll see if Kimi can bounce back from this. I also find it a bit sad, given the pressure Kimi has been under by the team to start performing - but when he does, like he did here, he can't rely on the team to give him the best possible chance to win. Trust can go a long way between a driver and his team. If a driver feels he is being shafted by his team, then he might not always follow them or deliver as he should. I think Massa showed this, Baricchello too. I'm pretty sure Kimi is asking himself that, where as Bottas at this point and the last 6 races is not.

If Hamilton (and even Toto) think this is a clear sign that Ferrari is backing one of their drivers more so than the other, I think they are spot on. You'd be blind not to see it and given your posts, I don't quite think you are disagreeing with this. And I think Mercedes - team-orders or not - isn't yet at that point yet. Secretly, they are probably praying that Hamilton will outperform Bottas to the extend that they will not have to, but if Ferrari continues their strong form, they will have to - at least to the point that they will not tolerate one driver being held up by the other. I also think the situations are slightly different: Sadly, Kimi is likely on his way out and driving his last season at Ferrari. Bottas has just arrived at the team. I think Ferrari (and rightly so) are probably less focused of keeping their leaving/aging driver happy, where as Mercedes might be more interested in not sending the wrong signals to their newly appointed driver.

Anyway, Monaco is a very unique race. The field is bunched up, overtaking pretty much impossible. The only way to switch drivers is by strategy or direct team-order. On more typical race-tracks, it will be easier. A faster driver will be less likely to be held up by his team-mate anyway, as to some degree, passing might be possible, so we should see less obvious interference by the team(s).

[garychopper]

Imho, Mercedes are only showing a facade of equality this year. They have openly compromised valteri's strategies to favour Hamilton and this when the season had just started. Only in the races where Lewis is nowhere have they showed any inclination for bottas. Valteri knows this very well but he is looking for a new contract next year and hence towing the company line. So when Lewis talks about Ferrari has chosen their no. 1 driver he comes across as a fool.
In any case, personally I do not care about team orders as long as I see Ferrari on the top step of the podium. If kimi can beat Sebastian on track, I will have no problem. Kimi is one of my favourite drivers but he needs to man up.
Ironically, I think all this Lewis favouritism is not going to take Mercedes anywhere. Lewis needs to be kept on his toes otherwise he has a habit of thinking that he is Senna and he loses focus. Only if he is pushed that he can harness that natural driving ability which makes him one of the fastest drivers. But Mercedes wants to hold on to him as they see him as their only option in the near future. Alonso is too disruptive, Sebastian is happy with Ferrari and the other top guys are on watertight contracts with red bull.
Only time will tell, but this year when they have a fight on their hands with Ferrari, Mercedes are showing chinks in their armour. Their car is too peaky, they are bending over backwards to prove how great a driver and team player Lewis is after nico's departure. Nico was the balance which kept Lewis in check, I think Mercedes is going to miss Nico. And Paddy too....

[Phil]

I'd be quite interested to hear, in which races they openly compromised valteri's strategies to favor Hamilton?

[garychopper]

The last one where they kept valteri stint too long to block Sebastian. No?