The radio message which cost Lewis Hamilton a likely victory in the Monaco Grand Prix has been revealed for the first time.
Hamilton was leading the Monaco Grand Prix when a pit stop during a Safety Car period at the end of the race handed victory to his team mate Nico Rosberg.
As Hamilton admitted afterwards, his team had originally said he should stay out but he queries the call and was concerned his rivals would take the opportunity to switch to super-soft tyres.
The decision was then taken for Hamilton to pit, as Mercedes incorrectly believed he would be able to do so and remain in the lead.
The pivotal radio message was not broadcast during the race, but can be heard in the edited highlights of the Monaco Grand Prix video on the official Formula One website. It includes the following exchange between Hamilton and race engineer Peter Bonnington:
| From | To | Message |
| Peter Bonnington | Lewis Hamilton | Safety Car, Safety Car. So we are staying out. |
| Lewis Hamilton | Peter Bonnington | Are you sure it’s the best thing to stay out? These tyres have lost all their temperature. Everyone’s going to be on [super-softs] now. |
| Peter Bonnington | Lewis Hamilton | OK. Copy, copy. Box, box. |
After the race Mercedes executive director Toto Wolff said “I’m sorry for Lewis that we made the mistake and I’m sorry for Lewis”. He described the decision as “a misjudgement in the heat of the moment”.
Other radio messages which were not broadcast during the race which can be heard in the video include Daniel Ricciardo saying “get out of my way” as he passed Kimi Raikkonen, in a move the Ferrari driver claimed deserved a penalty.
2015 Monaco Grand Prix
- Mercedes urged Hamilton not to skip Monaco podium after losing race
- New audio reveals Hamilton’s Monaco strategy role
- Verstappen rebuffs Massa criticism over Monaco crash
- Hamilton “couldn’t care less” about Monaco
- ‘Moral victor’ Hamilton wins Driver of the Weekend
Kgn11
28th May 2015, 23:35
So basically Mercedes screwed up. Even with him querying if it was a good idea, it was for them to tell him yes because they weren’t going to pit Nico.
They had a similar situation to this in Singapore last year. Lewis was concerned that the tyres would not be able to last the stint, but they told him to stay out all the same. I’m just wondering if the loss of Jock Clear is having an effect on his side of the garage?
Hotbottoms (@hotbottoms)
29th May 2015, 8:45
Is Lewis to blame for the mistake? Not much, but perhaps partly. Did Mercedes screw up? Well yes, but I can easily understand why.
After Lewis’ post-race interview, we know that Lewis said “everyone’s going to be on [super-softs]”, because he was checking the big screens, saw that Mercedes pit crew was out and thought that was because they were going to pit Nico.
But Bonnington couldn’t know that. What he heard was “these tyres have lost all their temperature” and then “everyone’s going to be on [super-softs]”. I think that in that moment, it was very reasonable for Bonnington to think that Lewis was assuming everyone to pit, because the tyres were losing all their temperature. In fact, I think that was a much more reasonable conclusion than realising that Lewis was checking the big screens and making his own conclusions from what he was seeing on them.
Should Bonnington have asked for more information? Yes, but there probably wasn’t any time. Mercedes still thought that Lewis had a gap big enough to pit and maintain position, but Rosberg and Vettel were catching Hamilton rapidly. They had to pit him immediately if they were going to do that at all.
So all in all, I think this was a result of bad communication and even worse luck. Both Hamilton and Mercedes should improve their communication, but I don’t think neither should be entirely blamed for this mistake.
bola
29th May 2015, 11:54
I agree with you mostly. Also it is really interesting that when it was announced Jock Clear would be leaving most people said it would have little to no effect on Hamilton-Mercedes. But after a couple of races where Hamilton had been questioning the decisions by the pit wall, we started to hear people mentioning Jock Clear again. Though I think Hamilton-pit wall communication has always been a bit dodgy to say the least.
RACERNORRISKI (@racernorriski)
29th May 2015, 21:23
Two thoughts on the radio exchange: Lewis frequently challenges / questions decisions from the pit wall as it is referred to AND the pit wall, even though they have an untold amount of info, maybe too much to digest real time, must rely on their driver as only he really knows how the car FEELS at that moment. This plus missing the pit turn off definitely makes decision time a critical few seconds, due to adding a lap takes a minute plus or much more behind a safety car………… Thanks, Norris
dex
30th May 2015, 11:52
Mercedes only have ONE strategy team, so they were also monitoring Nico, they must have known that Nico was not pitting!! So why bring the race leader into the pits and risk everything. These decisions are what they are paid for, they should have advised Lewis to stay out.
Winston Byrd (@iambyrdman)
30th May 2015, 23:42
They DID advise Lewis to stay out! You want to argue fine, have it your way, chief.
Patrickl (@patrickl)
30th May 2015, 21:25
Exactly.
This radio message also puts to bed that the suggested Hamilton simply demanded to pit. It’s obvious now that he only asked to rethink the strategy in case Rosberg and/or Vettel were going for supersofts.
elio (@elio)
31st May 2015, 12:13
Not quite @patrickl
HAM actually questioned the initial order of the team to stay on track (actual team’s message: “Safety Car, Safety Car… And WE ARE STAYING OUT”). Also, you can easily tell by the tone of Hamilton’s voice that it wasn’t just a simple doubt, but actually a *dispute* of what the team has ordered him to do in the first place.
Patrickl (@patrickl)
31st May 2015, 21:08
Yes quite:
Which wasn’t true and Mercedes knew this.
elio (@elio)
1st June 2015, 23:12
“Which wasn’t true and Mercedes knew this.”
Well, you’re just *assuming* that (which is exactly what Hamilton did and cost him the win in Monaco).
Or maybe you’re forgetting Mercedes runs actually two separated teams within the main one ? I mean, Nico and Lewis do not have the same race engineers (ROS Tony Ross | LH Peter Bonnington) and performance engineers so it’s fair to say they’re also not sharing the tyre schedule/strategy for each driver, especially when everything’s still open regarding the WDC (let alone the strategies from others drivers and teams).
Being that the case and in such a short time frame it was impossible for Hamilton’s side of the garage to guess what Rosberg’s side of it (and Vettel’s team) would do. Because if they knew or were so sure of it, a simple “Nico and Sebastian are staying out” call from Bonnington to Lewis over the radio would have avoided all this mess.
celeste (@celeste)
28th May 2015, 23:35
Well guess conspiracy theories will now have to look for another subject to talk about.
And I did agree with Kimi that Daniel deserved a penalty, but I won´t judge him on the radio message as it was made on the heat of the moment. Is the same as when a driver does a “finger salute” or call someone a “cucumber”
svianna (@svianna)
29th May 2015, 0:54
There will always be the fans which confronted with the evidence will say: “don’t confuse me with the facts”.
pxcmerc (@)
29th May 2015, 2:42
“Everyone’s going to be on [super-softs] now.”
I know, right…. Some times the obvious is hard to see.
James Devon (@tata)
29th May 2015, 5:17
It is very ridiculous for anyone to think there was a conspriracy or anything of that sort. What happened last Sunday was a mega blunder and that’s it.
Concerning the radio conversation, if there is one thing the release has clarified, it is that Lewis Hamilton is without any single blame for the incident.
His statement ‘everyone will be on super softs’ is so untrue and wrong that he should have been corrected immediately that even Nico, his closest rival was not even going to be brought in.
I guess, Peter Bonington reacted too quickly on the spur of the moment without looking well at the data he had available.
Bad call is just what it was.
Sherlock
29th May 2015, 7:14
You expect that Mercedes team will correct The Best Driver in the World who knows everything just by taking a glimpse on a TV screen?
John H (@john-h)
29th May 2015, 8:20
Just out of interest, who are these people talking up a conspiracy because I haven’t seen anyone mention it? I think almost 100% of people understand this was simply a mistake.
DaveD (@daved)
29th May 2015, 12:10
Don’t confuse the people who take the time to read all the postings on F1fanatic with the average “fan”. LOL Most of us on here were laughing at the idea of a conspiracy. We may have argued as to who was more at fault and what should be done about it. But few of us thought it was an actual conspiracy rather than a really bad blunder.
But if you read other social media and watch the nutty fans attacking Toto during his Q&A, you’ll see that there were plenty of conspiracy theorists out there. And yes…there were a few on here as well. :(
It was a very bad call. End of story.
Stretch (@stretch)
28th May 2015, 23:39
Did Dan say “get out of my way” Kimi style?
Cristobal Acevedo (@cristobalf1)
29th May 2015, 0:01
Only Kimi talk Kimi style….. others are just an imittation
bola
29th May 2015, 11:56
+1000
Anton Barbieri
28th May 2015, 23:45
What I gather from that conversation… Hamilton basically screwed himself over… So much for all of his idiot fans crying ‘sabotage’ and laying the blame at Mercedes, it’s more a 50/50 situation.
John H (@john-h)
29th May 2015, 8:21
Again who are these people? Most Hamilton fans such as myself do have a shred of common sense from time to time.
dbHenry
29th May 2015, 15:57
Here are a few articles mentioning the conspiracy. Agree with you though, obviously not intentional.
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2015/05/26/mercedes-answers-fans-on-hamiltons-monaco-strategy-error-and-rubbishes-conspiracy-claims/
http://www.planetf1.com/driver/3213/9402948/Lauda-denies-Mercedes-conspiracy
http://en.espn.co.uk/italy/motorsport/story/174579.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/11631579/Lewis-Hamilton-Monaco-farce-blamed-on-gremlin-as-Mercedes-F1s-Toto-Wolff-faces-the-fans.html
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/115764
https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/motorhead-uk/did-rosberg-throw-the-race-for-hamilton–the-great-mercedes-conspiracy-091118176.html
http://autoweek.com/article/formula-one/mercedes-boss-toto-wolff-blasts-f1-conspiracy-threorists-following-lewis
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/f1-italian-grand-prix-nico-rosberg-dismisses-conspiracy-theories-that-costly-error-was-mercedes-order-to-make-up-for-lewis-hamilton-crash-9717534.html
dbHenry
29th May 2015, 17:27
Try Googling Mercedes Conspiracy F1. Lots of stories out there mentioning it.
Not sure why my previous post was removed. I Had a post with a number of links to articles mentioning the conspiracy theory.
John H (@john-h)
29th May 2015, 18:37
Oh.. Hmm… Forgot the world was a crazy place!
dex
30th May 2015, 12:01
Someone is conspiring against you.
Broom (@)
29th May 2015, 15:06
I’d argue that Merc’s pit crew should have informed Hamilton what was going on with Rosberg before making that decision. I’d argue with that with information available Mercedes should take the lions share of the blame.
Of course it is my opinion that Mercedes should take the lions share of the credit for Hamilton’s 2nd place in the Spanish GP but most of the credit went to Hamilton anyway. It is funny how quickly fans forget.
Mstanfield
29th May 2015, 16:38
Are you forgetting the Merc team gave Lewis a slow stop when executing a simple undercut in a much faster car in Barcelona?
Granted they (rightly) switched to a three stop stategy soon after but had they got that first stop right Lewis would have passed Vettel in the pits (at the first stop) and put some pressure on Nico much earlier in the race.
gogo
29th May 2015, 16:53
You are assuming of course…
uan
30th May 2015, 21:48
@Mstanfield
Are you forgetting that Mercedes gave Lewis a WDC winning car last year and most probably this year and 100 million pounds?
Chris
29th May 2015, 0:15
So Lewis intimated the others had pitted to super softs and the team didn’t pick up on what he was saying. A simple nico and Seb are still out would have clarified any confusion.
The team failed Lewis.
Selbbin (@selbbin)
29th May 2015, 5:06
And that’s the mistake. Lewis was concerned the others were pitting, and probably should have given they were behind and needed something to give them an edge.
But in the defense of the team, the other two had not passed the pit entry yet and teams in the pit wall at Monaco can’t quickly see who has a pit crew ready. Not in a matter of a second, anyway. So they didn’t know on the wall if Ferrari were out.
matt
29th May 2015, 8:30
but they will have known if nico was pitting.also im pretty sure both nico and seb also told their teams,their tyres were losing temp.so lewis was asking if the gap was big enough to pit.which is why he asked if is ok to pit.
ColdFly F1 (@)
29th May 2015, 7:04
Mercedes has answered that one already – read this
AndrewW
29th May 2015, 13:05
Spot-on, Chris. This is where tech appears to have overridden logic and presence of mind. A simple “Nico not stopping” would have calmed Lewis down. We can be fairly certain telemetry did not raise any alarms unseen from Lewis’ cockpit as this would have triggered a strong suggestion from the pit wall. Computer said “Yes” in answer to the wrong question. The question at the pit wall ought to have been should we rather than could we.
kpcart
29th May 2015, 13:10
i am pretty sure they were worried about ferrari, they even said it themselves, so telling lewis nico is not pitting would not change things, telling him vettel is not pitting that might have worked.
bola
29th May 2015, 16:37
Which they wouldn’t know 100%.
Chris Phillips
29th May 2015, 19:16
Lewis only said what he said as he thought nice & den had pitted. Lewis would have stayed out if he knew none of the other front runners had already stopped. His concern was they where at that point on super softs which was not the case.
Also maybe Ferrari decided to stay out as they assumed nico was pitting?
Michael Brown
29th May 2015, 0:24
“I’m sorry for Lewis that we made the mistake and I’m sorry for Lewis”
Department of Redundancy Department
@HoHum (@hohum)
29th May 2015, 2:21
He no doubt had a target to achieve.
vtf
29th May 2015, 12:03
Well that’s how Toto sounded like anyways…
matt90
29th May 2015, 9:50
DRD department.
Ed Marques (@edmarques)
29th May 2015, 0:45
Ridiculous job from Mercedes. Simple thing to say was, no one will be on the supersofts. Which was obvious since they weren’t planning to pit Rosberg.
But obviously they didn’t comprehend right away what Lewis said and made the mistake.
Again, ridiculous, one of the most absurd pit calls on F1.
pxcmerc (@)
29th May 2015, 7:38
Bonnington isn’t worth his salt, and people are crying conspiracy when the real issue is incompetence. Lewis has lost three races this season due to bad pits (Barcelona), poor preparation (Malaysia) and a bad call from his race engineer (Monaco).
John H (@john-h)
29th May 2015, 8:31
You can’t pick isolated events, nobody’s perfect. I suspect being Hamilton’s race engineer is not the easiest job, and their success in 2014 suggests Bonington is worth at least some salt.
Henrik
29th May 2015, 18:17
Initially, Bonnington made the correct call only to be immediately questioned by Hamilton. How in “god’s” name can this be Bonnington’s fault? If Hamilton had any brains and any confidence in his own abilities as a race driver, he would have realised that with the crash on lap 63 and the safety car out on 68 (wasn’t it) of a 78-lap race, there would only be a handful of laps to defend and stayed out.
Another point – would Bonnington really have known exactly what Nico AND Seb would be doing at every given moment of the race? Especially in that very rapidly developing crisis? He’s not omniscient and you cannot blame him for not being so!
Lewis lost Lewis the race, he should not have questioned Bonnington’s judgement. End of.
law
29th May 2015, 21:59
On point…am abig fan but he messesd
audifan
1st June 2015, 19:28
bonnington doesn’t make the call , he isn’t the strategist ; the strategy team made the wrong call , full stop ; they knew hamilton wanted to stop because he thought the others would , why didn’t they tell him ?
kpcart
29th May 2015, 13:11
but many did pit for tyres, like ricciardo, and ricciardo showed you can catch up and pass on those, it is only that rosberg and vettel did not pit.
Henrik
29th May 2015, 18:19
Yes, but Lewis pitted, had the best car in the field, fresh options (super softs) and failed to pass a Ferrari, something Ricciardo in a RB-11 managed to do…
Chris Phillips
29th May 2015, 19:25
Ric had nothing to loose hence bumping Kimi off.
Lewis on the other hand has an opportunity at being WDC so long as he scores as many points as possible which means crossing that line in 1st, 3rd or 10th, Ric is after any points he can get.
Key (@key75)
29th May 2015, 1:02
RIC deserved a penalty more than Alonso if we look closely to all the replays out there! Alonso lost the rear of the car (not really his fault, more tires temperature), Ricciardo touched the rear wheel of Kimi (they weren’t side by side), sending him straight!
There’s one view in particular, when you can see them coming down casino square, where it’s visible the action. RIC had enough space (at least 1m more until hit the barrier), but he had no line to take Mirabeau.. so he took the only option to make the move from that far, but not a good one in my opinion!
Key (@key75)
29th May 2015, 1:03
“not a *fair one in my opinion!”
William Stuart (@williamstuart)
29th May 2015, 1:49
I’d rather no one got a penalty. I think the most important thing is the fact that it was at Monaco, yes if that happened at Bahrain Kimi wouldn’t have been as disadvantaged, but I think as long as it wasn’t dangerous (there was no apparent malice) then the pass should stand. It was what many people want to see, a hard fought overtake, and it doesn’t reflect well on the stewards of a driver is penalised for attempting a brave and exciting overtake.
@HoHum (@hohum)
29th May 2015, 2:38
I certainly don’t want to see a track full of Crasdonados or Mk1 Grosjeans but I do want to see more Ricciardos having a go, penalty was probably a possibility but Kimi fortunately was not really disadvantaged.
bola
29th May 2015, 12:09
Ricciardo was very luck that it was Raikkonen he bumped into because someone else probably would have lost control. He seriously seriously shoved the car ahead of him in a dangerous manner. Kimi has a very light and precise touch. You cannot say that he was not at disadvantage! Did you really see how Kimi lost the car there for a moment??
@HoHum (@hohum)
29th May 2015, 23:02
yes, but he only lost the 1 place to RIC.
bola
29th May 2015, 23:12
@hohum
So? What’s that got to do with the nature of the maneuver?
John H (@john-h)
29th May 2015, 23:55
@sorry @hohum., but the consequence should not come into whether it was questionable driving or not.
Its a longstanding debate on F1F. Personally. The consequence should nor affect the judgement IMO
bola
29th May 2015, 12:06
But drivers are not told beforehand how lenient the stewards are gonna be. Kimi in this case is at a huge disadvantage because of his experience with Monaco! If he thought he could have gotten away with it, maybe he would have tried a similar move on Ricciardo before the pits.
John H (@john-h)
29th May 2015, 23:57
But we’re comparing it to the Alonso incident. In that context, I think Kimi has every reason to feel aggrieved.
bola
30th May 2015, 15:51
Yeah but Kimi didn’t even know Alonso was punished for a similar move. I’m talking about what he would have thought at the time Ricc was coming onto him.
bola
29th May 2015, 12:18
“Alonso lost the rear of the car (not really his fault, more tires temperature)”
I get what you are saying. But actually, I think he should have the awareness and should not push the car to the point that he lost control. Hulkenberg left him space but Alonso for a moment there lost the control, hence the crash. Similarly Ricciardo pushed Raikkonen and Kimi lost control of his car, but since Ricc was the one diving inside and the one pushing he should have gotten the penalty. His front wheel was barely aligned with Raikkonen’s rear tyres anyway. Look at the start. Sebastian Vettel was maybe the best starter at the ahead of the grid. He seemed like he was going to end up in front of Rosberg, but just for a millisecond there he lost the control and backed off. I think losing control of the car is maybe the most dangerous thing and you shouldn’t be pushing past that point.
Key (@key75)
29th May 2015, 13:02
About Alonso touch, yeah for sure and I agree with you in general! But if we compare the two, I would give a penalty faster to RIC than to Alonso… that’s what I was trying to say with my comment. Just because RIC’s one was more deliberately!
bola
29th May 2015, 13:37
I agree with you. Not exactly because it was deliberate. Especially in Monaco you might touch to get pass, but because he did it in such a forcible and dangerous manner. He was really lucky Raikkonen didn’t lose it completely or regained control.
When you watch overtaking maneuvers in general, and they get so close and maybe even touch, you get the sense that they are on the limits but they still know what they are doing and at least both of them are aware of what’s going on and even if one of them lost it the other guy is ready for it. When it’s not like that, there is almost always a penalty.
Key (@key75)
29th May 2015, 18:01
Completely agree! And…
The real reason behind RIC deserving a penalty! Kimi wasn’t completely aware because RIC was so behind, he never expected him to launch and try the overtake. And that touch on the rear wheel Kimi couldn’t really do anything against it.
bola
30th May 2015, 15:51
@key75
+1
kpcart
29th May 2015, 13:15
i think alonso did not deserve a penalty, but i think ricciardo did – he wasnt anywhere near side by side or close enough to make a clean pass – he hit another car out of the way! what the stewards could have done is tell redbull to tell ricciardo to let raikkonen back past or serve a stop go. but i think when they saw ricciardo catch up to hamilton, i believe they let him go unpunished in the hope he would spice up the race more and go for another overtake.
sudd
29th May 2015, 1:03
It’s kind of funny watching the people campaigning to make sure Hamilton gets the blame for what is the responsibility of the “team.” They’ll grasp at the smallest thing like this inconclusive/half leak of radio communications to make sure Hamilton gets no empathy or is seen as the one cost himself the victory. Nothing new.It’s kind of funny watching the people campaigning to make sure Hamilton gets the blame for what is the responsibility of the “team.” They’ll grasp at the smallest thing like this inconclusive/half leak of radio communications to make sure Hamilton gets no empathy or is seen as the one cost himself the victory. Nothing new.
Layercake
29th May 2015, 1:45
Hamilton is part of this “team” as you say, and as part of this “team” he is apportioned a percentage of the blame. It is 100% fact that if Hamilton had not said a thing to his “team” then its 100% fact he would have been in 1st on the safety car restart. Was he 100% responsible? NO, and nobody has said that so lets not get out of line here. My personal opinion is this stems from his massive insecurity complex (well documented), Hamilton is so insecure that he think Merc would have called Nico in for fresh tires without giving his side of the garage a chance to react. That is NOT how Merc does business and after how many years Ham still cant see that.
The “team” that made the fewest mistakes during the 2015 Monaco GP won, that was Nico’s “team”.
matt
29th May 2015, 8:33
im pretty sure both nico and seb also told their teams,their tyres were losing temp.so lewis was asking if the gap was big enough to pit.which is why he asked if is ok to pit.the pitwall have all the information,so they should have known how big the gap was.lewis didnt know.this is why you have a strategist and a pit wall,to make sure the correct calls are made.
John H (@john-h)
29th May 2015, 8:34
I like to think rather he thought cars might pit during the SC.
svianna (@svianna)
29th May 2015, 18:43
I agree with you about LH’s insecurity, despite the fact I am a huge fan of his driving. He wanted the win so badly that he overthought and overreacted.
Had he listened and acquiesced to the pit STAY OUT message, he would have won.
But he had to bring the call into question. Silly mistake, what cost him a certain win.
kpcart
29th May 2015, 13:17
sudd, this is sport buddy! people chear for their favourite and bang on the weaknesses of the opposition. non hamilton fans are lucky, they get a lot of ammo to bomb him, ammo supplied by Hamilton himself.
Chris Phillips
29th May 2015, 19:32
+1 Sudd
megatron
31st May 2015, 18:54
Because it´s the truth. Hamilton “insecured” his team by pondering over soft tires and tire change, although there was no obvious reason for it. So he lost. And his Team. Not the first time for the King of Unforced Errors.
Guy (@)
29th May 2015, 1:04
It’s kind of funny watching the people campaigning to make sure Hamilton gets the blame for what is the responsibility of the “team.” They’ll grasp at the smallest thing like this inconclusive/half leak of radio communications to make sure Hamilton gets no empathy or is seen as the one cost himself the victory. Nothing new.
@HoHum (@hohum)
29th May 2015, 2:29
Your re-write where no doubt you intended to reverse the principals to ” “team” gets the blame” and “Hamilton responsible” came out as a repeat of the 1st. you must have inadvertently confused yourself.
Philip (@philipgb)
29th May 2015, 1:56
I still see this as a team failure not Hamilton. He questioned a choice, he didn’t say my tyres are dead is undrivable I can’t stay out, he just questioned the call.
Vettel even moaned about the tyres being like swimming with weights in your legs but Ferrari held firm.
evered7 (@evered7)
29th May 2015, 4:34
@philipgb Vettel whined after they had the order in place behind the SC. It was mainly due to the slow pace of the safety car. No way Ferrari would have brought him in at that point.
Mercedes haven’t had tire heating issues and maybe the vice-versa is true. I don’t understand why Hamilton even wanted to pit. The SS tires advantage wasn’t going to very decisive because it was Monaco. A couple of corners to cover and the rest of the laps the guy has to follow the lead car.
David Not Coulthard (@davidnotcoulthard)
29th May 2015, 10:41
@philipgb The driver is part of the team (AUT 2002, AUT 2001, DEU 2010, etc).
bola
29th May 2015, 12:28
Vettel was implying SC should be going a bit faster to get enough heat into the tyres. Ferrari is already at a disadvantage regarding tyre warm-up. You should understand how even dangerous driving behind that SC could have been, since he made such a daunting analogy. Also he did that after they were aligned behind SC, do you think he wanted Ferrari to pit him at that point?
Just before SC, Verstappen was much faster than soft-tyre guys and he was a threat to those guys. It is not that incomprehensible why Mercedes might have thought supersoft would have been giving a huge advantage. It probably really did anyway. Though we don’t know if Max was calmer could he have gotten ahead of Grosjean without crashing out.
Alex machina (@smartrip)
29th May 2015, 14:51
Exactly, this seems more of a cultural issue inside the team. The team is maybe a little too scared of Hamilton so they fold at a timid questioning.
bola
29th May 2015, 16:39
After Spain though, would you be surprised?
Alex machina (@smartrip)
29th May 2015, 18:12
Now that he’s signed a new contract and isn’t going anywhere, they shouldn’t be so scared of negating him.
gogo
29th May 2015, 19:22
But then he goes and gives statements to the press saying things like “I’ll definitely be making sure blabla’s not said again”….
Sven (@crammond)
29th May 2015, 2:58
I remember when I began watching F1, the question of when or whether at all to pit was completely up to the driver. Being good at these decisions was what made Alain Prost “the professor”, it was part of why Berger was seen as a talent in mid-80ies, it was part of Mansell being a rather tragic-hero.
So coming from there, it feels strange to blame a team onto an event where a driver used his steering-wheel to get his car into the pits. But I have to admit, I can´t remember the last occasion where a driver has disobeyed a call to the pits and was right about that. Has it happened within this generation of drivers? I doubt so.
So instead of asking who is to blame within how it currently works in F1, I´m more interested in the question of “how can we change things in a way that, in any case where a car is in the pits that shouldn´t be there, the driver is responsible?”
Mashiat (@mashiat)
29th May 2015, 4:02
@crammond In Hungary 2011 and Brazil 2012, both Button and Hamilton received pit calls to pit. Both times Hamilton did, and both times Button disobeyed the team? The result? Being 55 seconds and 40 seconds ahead respectively.
Guy (@)
29th May 2015, 5:36
@crammond, where do you people get this stuff? You can’t just create for yourself what a grand prix was like just because technology didn’t give you insight into exactly what a driver was doing. Do you understand that the moment racing cars had telemetry and radio communication between driver and pitwall, neither side acted independently? It was always a team sport and they communicated even back when it was just hand written pit board signs. The driver does not make the calls, they just give input and take instructions. The only time teams defer the final decision to the driver is when they feel they have nothing to lose(gamble) or its raining, it which case the drivers input carries a bit more weight. In that case the final decision is probably 60/40 in favor of the team.
Sven (@crammond)
29th May 2015, 11:17
@sudd Telemetry began purely with engine-info in the early/mid-80ies. It wasn´t before the early 90ies when it had first glimpses of info about the state of tyres, and obviously refuelling was banned before 94. Of course they were communicating via team-radio, but the vast majority of relevant info was with the driver, so it was indeed the driver who ultimatly took the decision. Not in a way that´s ignoring what the team said, but with the team knowing that only the driver could know how it really was out on the track and thus having to rely on the driver.
David Not Coulthard (@davidnotcoulthard)
29th May 2015, 10:42
@crammond
VET Monaco 2011 or later?
HOLA
29th May 2015, 12:42
I remember lots of cases of Button doing that sort of thing and gaining huge advantage from that. It was always marvelous.
I think there are also some similar cases for Vettel. And I have the impression something like that happened with Raikkonen, or maybe not. It may be that they communicated with the team and changed the strategy though, rather than a direct disobedience. Same thing might have happened with Alonso/Schumacher/others too then… It would be interesting if someone who remembers the specific cases mentioned them.
HOLA
29th May 2015, 12:59
I also remember cases Hamilton questioned the orders, but they generally ended up with him not winning. Or maybe he is questioning always when he is not winning.
Scepter (@scepter)
29th May 2015, 13:22
But he wasn’t he winning?
HOLA
29th May 2015, 13:40
?? incomprehensible
Scepter (@scepter)
29th May 2015, 18:11
I mean before the stop wasn’t he winning the race? and what you refer to as orders are more like suggestions. unless you hear a “box now” which is a order. or the ridiculous let Nico by from Hungary which is also a order.
HOLA
29th May 2015, 19:24
Yeah but he was also questioning, and then he was not winning anymore…
RBAlonso (@rbalonso)
29th May 2015, 3:16
The F1.com video highlights of the Monaco GP were absolutely fantastic. Not long ago we were all thinking that the sport was not promoting itself online aggressively enough but this is a real step up from them. Increase the license to YouTube and do similar for classic GPs and the fans will be overjoyed. There is a long, long way to go in marketing F1 successfully to all audiences but this is a positive move. If I were a casual fan looking to get into F1 and I saw the video on the sport’s official site, I would certainly be interested.
As for the Hamilton pit call saga, I appreciate he was only questioning the call but he, and definitely those on the pit wall, should have seen that with 9 laps to go it was dangerous to pit. The poker player element they were missing was seeing that Vettel was never going to pit and find himself down the field for better tyres with such a short time to go. He would have lost too much for any benefit and was always going to stay out in hope the others would pit. That logic was clear to Ferrari and should have been instantly clear to Mercedes. Hamilton was simply the victim of his own success, had he been 5 seconds slower over the race, there is no way he would have been pulled in. But C’est la vie.
gogo
29th May 2015, 16:54
It was really cheese and a very poor job.
gogo
29th May 2015, 16:55
Well maybe kudos for at least making an effort. Not for the fans, but B/C-list starlets may enjoy it.
OOliver
29th May 2015, 4:02
I dont think Hamilton can be blamed anymore, he made reference to everyone else being on supersoft, information the pit crew had. Their reply should have been….yes stay out.
bola
29th May 2015, 12:51
I agree with you saying he made a reference, so engineer’s portion is bigger now, but I still think he started the ball going. Though I don’t blame him. Well, maybe I blame him if he didn’t check again with pit wall after he got stuck behind SC. Well, his race to lose really, not like I care who wins as long as it’s marvelous to watch.
evered7 (@evered7)
29th May 2015, 5:05
I believe the ‘Supersoft’ being in square brackets means it is implied and not told explicitly? If Hamilton did utter the name of the tires to the team and the team decided to bring him in, it would be the worst call.
Still Vettel comfortably managed to hold off a SS Shod Mercedes even with a car that struggles to put heat into its tires. Hamilton unlocked the Pandora’s box and chaos ensured :)
Maybe he is right in saying he doesn’t have to look after Rosberg’s race. He should have stuck to that in Monaco.