Head To Head Nico Rosberg vs Lewis Hamilton

I've seen a few people lay Ross Brawn as the bad person in this whole debate. I'd like to ask exactly how that is so. In my opinion Mercedes did the sensible thing. It was not the worlds most inspiring decision one way or another, but it was sensible and neither driver really won or lost that much or had that much to win or lose either way. Let's just say their had been a collision, we'd be blaming the drivers and the team principle. My opinion is that Ross made a decision early on and stuck by it. So long as they play the same rules in future races, regardless of the driver order, then it's fair and again sensible. Mercedes bagged the most points they ever have in a single race since entering the sport in 2010. Pretty impressive I think and not really worth having a dig at Brawn over, who in my opinion deserves all the plaudits for their early and hopefully lasting success this season. Also, I'd much rather have someone who is properly in-charge, rather than the idiot that is Christian Horner. "This is silly now Seb" - yeah that's the way to show your drivers who is boss. A team needs authority and measured decisions made from the pit wall - I see it that Brawn is doing that.
 
Harry

I dismissed nothing as garbage, thank you. The link was found for you and it suggests that such a transmission may have occurred. It does not provide hard evidence that it did and you provide no evidence that it didn't. What is clear from all articles is that it was Brawn's wish that Hamilton and Rosberg held station and that this is what they did. So, unless further evidence comes to light neither of us are any the wiser. May I ask why you feel the need to dig up this subject again, which everyone else seems to have been happy to move on from some time ago? What is there to gain?

Sorry if you feel that you were ridiculed. I just wasn't prepared to do your digging for you, especially given that the topic has been done to death now, anyway. The same happens in most teams and there is an occurrence of it pretty much every weekend. Teams work as teams and there is nothing untoward about the actions of any of the drivers or personel at Mercedes. This much has been very much established. OK, sometimes this is at the displeasure of some fans or spectators but it is the nature of the sport and if we are to watch it then we are to accept it. If we are not to accept it, then we should apply the same to each team and each incident. It has been brought up also that there were team orders at Red Bull to hold station in Malaysia and also at Force India in Australia. So in two races, we have three well documented public incidents of team orders coming into play in the closing stages of Grand Prix.

Shall we look forward to China, where somewhere in the field you will likely see more of the same, such is the nature of the sport?
 
ExtremeNinja

ExtremeNinja said:
What an ugly article, and they can't even spell Nico's name right in the title. I'm afraid I'm going to have to dismiss that article on the grounds of bad journalism and unecessary sensationalism.
Click to expand
You didn't call it garbage, but you did dismiss it, yet now you feel it is appropriate to use as "proof". That's pretty weird. Just saying. I'm sure you have a perfectly good reason though.
 
Ha ha. Right, OK, Josh. You've kind of got me there, to an extent, although I was talking more about the reporter's interpretations of the facts rather than their stating of them. I'm sure the Telegraph would not libelously invent a direct quote. The rubbish spewed about the Mercs fending off the McLaren of Jenson Button and their inability to spell Nico's name is a bit crap but I'll take the quote as fact until I hear of a libelous case or the Telegraph issue an amendment.

I do feel slightly silly, but not much. My point stands.
 
bad journalism, unecessary sensationalism and can't even spell are what you said. And now "a bit crap". But not garbage. Right.

No one is saying Telegraph libelously invented a quote
Harry said:
That line they quoted in isolation does not make it clear exactly when Lewis said he wanted to let him past. But I take that as being at the end of the race. I don't really know what other end there is. But the main reason I take it as being the end of the race is corroboration from other news articles such as the AutoSport news link I posted in #225
Click to expand

obviously you've interpreted it as Hamilton radioed the team during the race and asked to let Nico through, but nowhere does it say that. Nor does anything have the quote you attributed to Ross Brawn earlier.
 
Why why why? Move on Harry. I think I've been good enough to stand down on this one based on lack of solid evidence. I still say that there is an implication but I do not state it as irrefutable. There is nothing to argue about. We both have different interpretations of what has been said and neither of us can back our arguments irrefutably. Unless more information comes to light, we won't be able to. I'm not calling your honour into question so there is no need to defend yourself.

Let's talk about something else, please. I'm not the only one who is bored of this discussion. We did this all two weeks ago after the race. I know you missed the party, but we are having another one next week, and I am sure there will be plenty of new stuff to chat about. If you really want to continue, can you please leave me out of it and stop dragging me back in. Be big enough to agree to disagree as I have, please.
 
Harry. I have also noticed from your profile that apart from the DRS debate that this is the only place that you have engaged yourself on the site. Having been here for a while I can tell you that the driver versus driver threads are the least satisfying areas of this forum. Take a look around. There is much more to be gained from this place. These threads tend to be places of polarised arguments and it's much easier to make friends and engage in worthwhile discussion in the multitude of other offerings this site has. Welcome to CTA. Get yourself out of the trenches and go forth and explore.
 
Hang about, where did you admit that? The tone of your last post was "You've kind of got me there, to an extent...My point stands"

And before it became outwardly obvious to everyone that you don't have any proof, you arrogantly suggested it was a failing of mine not being able to find it this anywhere, claiming it was posted all over the place in various threads here and F1 new articles, claiming "it's old news... many of us here have read and seen the quote".

Now it turns out the only thing you've got to fall back on is an article you previously dismissed, but claimed you didn't.
Or are you going to play semantics and claim you only objected to the word 'garbage' rather than the premise?

forget it.
 
Harry. Please read all of my comments and not just the bits that suit you.

I wish I had just gone and found you these links in the first place. The same quote is used in all of the below articles and, no doubt, elsewhere too. Google with give you four pages of links to articles where this quote is used.

Here are just a handful of them:
 
I agree they are all the same quote, if not almost verbatim cut and pastes of the same article... I've already said that I never questioned that quote. It does not say, nor suggest, anything about Hamilton radioing the team during the race asking to let Nico past as you claim. It says;
""I said to Ross at the end that I wanted to let him (Rosberg) past. He said 'Absolutely not. When I tell you what I want (you) to do, you have to stick by it'," recalled Hamilton."

Ross Brawn also talked about the same conversation in the http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/106384 article which says;
"Hamilton said after the race that he had queried with Brawn as to whether he had done the right thing in not letting Rosberg through to see what he could do.
Brawn responded by making it clear that all he asked of his drivers was that they obeyed any instructions coming from the pit wall.
"That conversation happened after the race during our engineering briefing, when I said to both drivers that I expect them to respect the decisions made on the pit wall and to act in the best interests of the team," he said."

Summary - Hamilton said "at the end", which is somewhat ambiguous, but does not contradict Brawn, who said it "happened after the race". You do contradict Brawn and claim it was during the race. Two of these three were directly involved, and have stories that correlate. I believe them.
 
So it's a matter of interpretation. Brilliant. Not that anyone has the faintest clue what the hell the relevance of this squabble about who said what is anyway.

So what we have concluded is...
  • Hamilton is the villain for following team orders
  • Vettel is a villain for not following team orders
  • Webber is a victim because he was in front and his team mate didn't follow team orders and hold position
  • Rosberg is a victim for holding position and following team orders letting the man in front win
  • Hamilton is clear number one by Mercedes because Rosberg (behind) was told he couldn't overtake
  • Webber is clear .... :s
Both teams had a rule that at a certain point in the race that the drivers would hold position. Whoever was in front would finish ahead of their team mate. The one that ignored this is getting bollocked. There is nothing to suggest Hamilton is number one. There is nothing to suggest the decision was anything other than bringing the cars home intact. Whether Hamilton offered during the race or suggested after he wanted to let him through doesn't matter one iota.
 
Hamberg - do you not notice something of a common thread? People aren't really upset about vettel or Hamilton- more the team orders debacle!

I suspect the reason people are so convinced that Hamilton is given number one status is that when he was announced as a Mercedes driver, the first reports all said that he had been given clear number one status... This was refuted soon after, but issues like that do stick (allied to the fact that Brawn has historically run a driver 1, driver 2 scheme).... As I said earlier on this thread, it is likely that helmut marko isn't telling 100% the truth when saying that red bull don't have a #1 and #2, whilst it is also likely that at some point, Mercedes have a #1 and #2- what is likely not the case is that there is a contractual requirement in either team!)
 
I think everyone assumes Lewis Hamilton is the number one driver because he's one of the best drivers in F1, He's hand over fist better than his teammate and because no one thinks Me would have invested the funds in getting a huge name like Hamilton to spearhead their challenge just to have him run behind Nico Rosberg. If they'd wantex that they'd have kept Schumie.
 

Similar threads

F1Brits_90
Biggest F1 moves in History
Replies
8
Views
868
JuanSenna
J
F1Brits_90
  • Article
Grand Prix 2023 British Grand Prix Practice, Qualifying & Race Discussion
3 4
Replies
70
Views
4K
F1Brits_90
F1Brits_90
Brogan
Were the FIA correct to change the rules in 2020 to suit Red Bull?
    • Like
Replies
12
Views
1K
Il_leone
Il_leone
Johnny Carwash
Head To Head Sir Lewis Hamilton V George Russell
2 3
Replies
51
Views
5K
F1Brits_90
F1Brits_90
cider_and_toast
  • Article
Grand Prix 2023 Austrian Grand Prix Practice, Qualifying & Red Bull Victory Discussion
    • Haha
3 4
Replies
75
Views
4K
Wombat
W
Back
Top Bottom