Lewis Hamilton (Vol. 2)
Discussion
Hungrymc said:
They could also have told George they will allow a split strategy but they will restore the positions at the end of the race and he will be P2 (Like McL had done the week before).
I see absolutely no reason for George to concede the lead just because he's on a different strategy, one that he took a huge gamble to make work.McLaren was different - that was the same strategy but implemented at different points of the race, which meant Norris could undercut Piastri.
jm doc said:
MarkwG said:
maz8062 said:
Muzzer79 said:
You're entitled to your opinion, but I still think you're reading something into nothing
I do think GR would have risked a one stop if he was leading LH but still in 5th place. He tried to win the race and went for a very risky strategy to do so.
I think winning the race was his fixation, not beating LH. If we want to be statistical about it, he's done that before (2022)
I also think that it's not 'rare' for two cars in the same team to try different strategies. They're trying to win and I'll re-iterate that, from a team perspective, they don't really care who achieves that unless a WDC is at stake. Quite rightly so.
We have repeatedly pointed out on these pages how the likes of Verstappen and Schumacher have had compliant team mates over the years, which has dulled their legacy.
It seems therefore ironic that we are now seeing criticism of the Mercedes setup where the drivers are free to race each other, both on track and on strategy........
If you think I’m alone in my deductions, suspicions and unease about all of this, watch the debrief and read the comments. Every man snd his dog could see what Merc were up to, perhaps not every man, but there’s a consensus forming that Merc were up to something:I do think GR would have risked a one stop if he was leading LH but still in 5th place. He tried to win the race and went for a very risky strategy to do so.
I think winning the race was his fixation, not beating LH. If we want to be statistical about it, he's done that before (2022)
I also think that it's not 'rare' for two cars in the same team to try different strategies. They're trying to win and I'll re-iterate that, from a team perspective, they don't really care who achieves that unless a WDC is at stake. Quite rightly so.
We have repeatedly pointed out on these pages how the likes of Verstappen and Schumacher have had compliant team mates over the years, which has dulled their legacy.
It seems therefore ironic that we are now seeing criticism of the Mercedes setup where the drivers are free to race each other, both on track and on strategy........
Edited by Muzzer79 on Wednesday 31st July 09:08
https://youtu.be/pqwbvkDMj1M?si=948R6udURU2DsnME
.
Do you seriously think that was just a "mistake." "Oops Lewis, we forgot to tell you about George whilst you were out there in the lead, managing your tyres, reacting to challengers strategies and pacing yourself against the threats to your lead?"
Are you really that naive?
Embarrassing by you and shameful by Mercedes.
I think it was just a freak situation. George had a combination of good fortune and skill. He's never been renowned for being particularly good at tyre management before, so one has to suspect there was some luck involved in the tyres lasting way longer than any predictions. Lewis had been faster all weekend.
Muzzer79 said:
Hungrymc said:
They could also have told George they will allow a split strategy but they will restore the positions at the end of the race and he will be P2 (Like McL had done the week before).
I see absolutely no reason for George to concede the lead just because he's on a different strategy, one that he took a huge gamble to make work.McLaren was different - that was the same strategy but implemented at different points of the race, which meant Norris could undercut Piastri.
isaldiri said:
Muzzer79 said:
Hungrymc said:
They could also have told George they will allow a split strategy but they will restore the positions at the end of the race and he will be P2 (Like McL had done the week before).
I see absolutely no reason for George to concede the lead just because he's on a different strategy, one that he took a huge gamble to make work.McLaren was different - that was the same strategy but implemented at different points of the race, which meant Norris could undercut Piastri.
During the press conference when asked what was the thinking behind the one stop strategy, with a wry smile, GR said it was a “team strategic effort.” Given that LH had said that he wasn’t told that he was racing GR, GR should have realised that that statement effectively pitted the “team” against LH. Karma had the last word.
Look, GR is the future of the team, we get it. It absolutely makes sense to put all of their eggs as a team in his basket - LH is off to a competitor. But as McLaren did back in 2007 when the FIA had an observer in the team to ensure no bias against FA in support of LH, Merc should ant least appear to be fair. If not folk will call them out.
maz8062 said:
isaldiri said:
Muzzer79 said:
Hungrymc said:
They could also have told George they will allow a split strategy but they will restore the positions at the end of the race and he will be P2 (Like McL had done the week before).
I see absolutely no reason for George to concede the lead just because he's on a different strategy, one that he took a huge gamble to make work.McLaren was different - that was the same strategy but implemented at different points of the race, which meant Norris could undercut Piastri.
During the press conference when asked what was the thinking behind the one stop strategy, with a wry smile, GR said it was a “team strategic effort.” Given that LH had said that he wasn’t told that he was racing GR, GR should have realised that that statement effectively pitted the “team” against LH. Karma had the last word.
Look, GR is the future of the team, we get it. It absolutely makes sense to put all of their eggs as a team in his basket - LH is off to a competitor. But as McLaren did back in 2007 when the FIA had an observer in the team to ensure no bias against FA in support of LH, Merc should ant least appear to be fair. If not folk will call them out.
It wasn’t like he said something like, ‘what about a one stop?’
So it could have been kept from the LH side and possibly from the strategists before the decision?
Just a thought.
Presuming Ed said:
Why would they tell Lewis, it makes no sense for him to have to burn up his tyres straight out of the box and then be under pressure from Piastri . Its Mercedes not Team LH, why would they care which driver crossed the line first as long as they have a 1-2. To be fair to Mercedes I think they thought George was going to end up 3rd as a best. George just did such a good job and the tyres hang on far beyond that of Pirellis recommendations.
So they're not supposed to tell Hamilton which drivers behind him are a threat to his win? 
Hungrymc said:
I don't believe there was any skulduggery.
I do believe they were a little cack handed, They could have told Lewis that they were thinking of one stopping George and that he may be racing him.
They could also have told George they will allow a split strategy but they will restore the positions at the end of the race and he will be P2 (Like McL had done the week before).
Trouble is, normal approach is that the lead car gets choice of strategy and in this case, it was the lead car being forced to cover Charles without discussion that they may be racing George on a one stop that created the opportunity for George to win (and ultimately get DQ'd). It also created the opportunity for Oscar to gamble which McL didn't take.
I don't believe they did anything untoward, but its always messy when team mates are fighting on a split strategy and only one of them knows about it, and was given any choice.
Except cost him finishing the race first at the expense of his "teammate". So nothing really then, that's what you're saying?I do believe they were a little cack handed, They could have told Lewis that they were thinking of one stopping George and that he may be racing him.
They could also have told George they will allow a split strategy but they will restore the positions at the end of the race and he will be P2 (Like McL had done the week before).
Trouble is, normal approach is that the lead car gets choice of strategy and in this case, it was the lead car being forced to cover Charles without discussion that they may be racing George on a one stop that created the opportunity for George to win (and ultimately get DQ'd). It also created the opportunity for Oscar to gamble which McL didn't take.
I don't believe they did anything untoward, but its always messy when team mates are fighting on a split strategy and only one of them knows about it, and was given any choice.
maz8062 said:
When you split strategies, having not previously considered it as part of the race preparation, and one of your drivers is actually leading the race, you either give both drivers the same opportunity to win or you at least tell your driver that is leading the race that the other car has switched strategies and is on course to beat you.
Well, Russell was certainly due to have come in again later than Hamilton but chose not to and was happy to take the gamble he could get the tyres to last till the end. At that point, he was then leading the race......isaldiri said:
Muzzer79 said:
Hungrymc said:
They could also have told George they will allow a split strategy but they will restore the positions at the end of the race and he will be P2 (Like McL had done the week before).
I see absolutely no reason for George to concede the lead just because he's on a different strategy, one that he took a huge gamble to make work.McLaren was different - that was the same strategy but implemented at different points of the race, which meant Norris could undercut Piastri.
What Mcl did was to deliver a strategy that gave their second car an advantage over their lead car. Having done that on strategy, they reversed it. It's OK that you see no similarity even though to me the similarity is obvious.
George's gamble wasn't huge. He had little to lose as he had got himself stuck in 5th place (in a car capable of winning). He had almost nothing to lose which was why they did it. It was certainly good strategy, and one that was only enabled by Lewis being pulled in for the second stop.
BUT, I can see how it happened and that it was reasonable. I'm not accusing Merc of any wrong doing, just that they could have communicated better and / or managed the situation better.
Lets not forget that as well as demoting their car that had taken control of the race through pace and on track passes, they also actually got their second car disqualified.... The whole situation was poorly managed.
But, once again, you're of course entitled to your view.
jm doc said:
Except cost him finishing the race first at the expense of his "teammate". So nothing really then, that's what you're saying?
Yes, that was the consequence... Got the car that they gambled with DQ'd, and caused their car that won the race to cross the line second.But I think it was (very) poor management as opposed to bias. I may be wrong, but that's my take on it.
isaldiri said:
maz8062 said:
When you split strategies, having not previously considered it as part of the race preparation, and one of your drivers is actually leading the race, you either give both drivers the same opportunity to win or you at least tell your driver that is leading the race that the other car has switched strategies and is on course to beat you.
Well, Russell was certainly due to have come in again later than Hamilton but chose not to and was happy to take the gamble he could get the tyres to last till the end. At that point, he was then leading the race......Maybe what we are looking for is the terms of engagement to be clear. It is very unusual for a team to use strategy to move the win from one car to the other. We all know that strategy pref goes to the lead car at a given phase, and this is constantly stated and demonstrated by the teams. And we know Lewis was not given a choice, and infact pitting Lewis was key to the George strategy working.
I guess if the terms of engagement are to use strategy against the other side of the garage then its fine.
Hungrymc said:
Of course you're both entitled to your view.
What Mcl did was to deliver a strategy that gave their second car an advantage over their lead car. Having done that on strategy, they reversed it. It's OK that you see no similarity even though to me the similarity is obvious.
George's gamble wasn't huge. He had little to lose as he had got himself stuck in 5th place (in a car capable of winning). He had almost nothing to lose which was why they did it. It was certainly good strategy, and one that was only enabled by Lewis being pulled in for the second stop.
BUT, I can see how it happened and that it was reasonable. I'm not accusing Merc of any wrong doing, just that they could have communicated better and / or managed the situation better.
Lets not forget that as well as demoting their car that had taken control of the race through pace and on track passes, they also actually got their second car disqualified.... The whole situation was poorly managed.
But, once again, you're of course entitled to your view.
Well I (obviously) don't agree. What Mcl did was to deliver a strategy that gave their second car an advantage over their lead car. Having done that on strategy, they reversed it. It's OK that you see no similarity even though to me the similarity is obvious.
George's gamble wasn't huge. He had little to lose as he had got himself stuck in 5th place (in a car capable of winning). He had almost nothing to lose which was why they did it. It was certainly good strategy, and one that was only enabled by Lewis being pulled in for the second stop.
BUT, I can see how it happened and that it was reasonable. I'm not accusing Merc of any wrong doing, just that they could have communicated better and / or managed the situation better.
Lets not forget that as well as demoting their car that had taken control of the race through pace and on track passes, they also actually got their second car disqualified.... The whole situation was poorly managed.
But, once again, you're of course entitled to your view.
In Hungary, Norris was called in early ahead of Piastri that would allow him to undercut Piastri in order to prevent the Merc behind from getting ahead. Both were scheduled to do the same number of stops and they both did end up doing the same 2 stops. That Norris got ahead of Piastri was purely down to the team calling him early.
At Spa, Hamilton was always going to do 2 stops to cover off Leclerc and those around him with Russell not being part of the consideration. Russell was clearly supposed to also come in but he was happy to take the gamble mid race to just stay out to see what happened. Somehow he managed to outlast everyone given that. Russell ended up ahead because he was willing to take that bet on the tyres and that could have massively backfired and so was never a consideration for Hamilton. Which it did end up backfiring albeit rather more unexpectedly than the tyres giving up the ghost and landing him being overtaken by everyone.
There is a considerable difference between the 2 scenarios - if Norris in Hungary had not pitted but just stayed out and managed to get his tyres to last to the end, there should have been absolutely no question that he then was asked to give up his position to Piastri fas he most certainly shouldn't have.
What was poorly managed was obviously the Merc fkup on the weight by cutting things quite that fine and/or not realising it would be a problem. The race strategy between the drivers was not an issue as they ended up having very different strategies. In the first instance, one was a direct consequence of the team's decision. On the 2nd it was a gamble taken by one side of the garage that worked out. I don't agree that in the case of the 2nd, if said gamble did work out, it's then still an automatic deferral to the other driver or that he shouldn't have been allowed to make it at all.
Edited by isaldiri on Thursday 8th August 18:28
I imagine that if George's tyres had fallen off then he would have been told to "not hold Lewis up" to prevent an incident. But they stayed viable so they were free to race.. I think Lewis basically messed up a bit (his side of the garage) as once they knew George was going for a one and their tyre deg was lower than expected, he should have picked up the pace in the final stint.
isaldiri said:
That Norris got ahead of Piastri was purely down to the team calling him early.
And that George ended up ahead Lewis because the team called him in to cover the only risk (that’s what they did with Lando). The new threat was only created by a team strategy call enabled by the fact that they had called Lewis in.Once again, I don’t believe it was underhanded. But it was very poor piece of management to give the strategy advantage to your car stuck in 5th, and only enabled by what you’ve done (and what you haven’t shared) with the car that has gained control of the race. That it ended up also getting George DQ’d just highlights what a mess they were making of it.
Again, I understand your position. I disagree and believe the mess is there for all to see. But fair enough that you see it differently.
Hungrymc said:
isaldiri said:
That Norris got ahead of Piastri was purely down to the team calling him early.
And that George ended up ahead Lewis because the team called him in to cover the only risk (that’s what they did with Lando). The new threat was only created by a team strategy call enabled by the fact that they had called Lewis in.Once again, I don’t believe it was underhanded. But it was very poor piece of management to give the strategy advantage to your car stuck in 5th, and only enabled by what you’ve done (and what you haven’t shared) with the car that has gained control of the race. That it ended up also getting George DQ’d just highlights what a mess they were making of it.
Again, I understand your position. I disagree and believe the mess is there for all to see. But fair enough that you see it differently.
Hungrymc said:
jm doc said:
Except cost him finishing the race first at the expense of his "teammate". So nothing really then, that's what you're saying?
Yes, that was the consequence... Got the car that they gambled with DQ'd, and caused their car that won the race to cross the line second.But I think it was (very) poor management as opposed to bias. I may be wrong, but that's my take on it.
jm doc said:
Agree with this, they certainly messed up, but they had the opportunity at any point during the final part of the race to correct the damage but they didn't, they sat back and watched it unfold. It seems incredible that they did nothing if it was purely them messing up.
I think Toto said the data system said he would end up in 4th or 5th if he did the one stop so they had nothing to lose. They do not think the tyres would get him to keep going fast enough to stay ahead of the others which I suspect is why they rolled the dice. But then at the same time I am not clear on how the data said that when the tyres on the race day had far less wear than expected, I assumed they would put that data into the system and see what it said instead......
Jasandjules said:
jm doc said:
Agree with this, they certainly messed up, but they had the opportunity at any point during the final part of the race to correct the damage but they didn't, they sat back and watched it unfold. It seems incredible that they did nothing if it was purely them messing up.
I think Toto said the data system said he would end up in 4th or 5th if he did the one stop so they had nothing to lose. They do not think the tyres would get him to keep going fast enough to stay ahead of the others which I suspect is why they rolled the dice. But then at the same time I am not clear on how the data said that when the tyres on the race day had far less wear than expected, I assumed they would put that data into the system and see what it said instead......
Brundle called it during the commentary assuming that Merc would instruct GR to let LH by and give him DRS to hold off Piastri. We were all caught unawares by it, perhaps because that’s how they wanted it to unfold.
The biggest puzzle for me is that they knew the car would be underweight - the top 3 are always weighed at the end of the race. So it doesn’t make sense that if they knew the tyres would impact the weight why they didn’t pit GR for fresh rubber.
Edited by maz8062 on Friday 9th August 12:48
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff