Head To Head Nico Rosberg vs Lewis Hamilton

Some interesting snippets here: BBC Sport - Lewis Hamilton: Mercedes being 'extra warm' to Nico Rosberg

He added: "But I know the team has felt the need to be extra warm [to Rosberg]."

Pushed to elaborate, the 30-year-old said: "I do know what I mean but I'm not going to say what I mean. You should ask Toto Wolff [Mercedes team boss] and Niki Lauda [Mercedes non-executive chairman].

"You should put those questions to them about how they feel about it, and what they have to do behind the scenes to keep him happy."

Hamilton has since claimed Rosberg has not congratulated him on winning his third world title
 
I was just reading that article this morning. Interesting.
I think if Rosberg had lost that race to Lewis it would have destroyed him, and Mercedes are probably aware of this.
I wonder if it had anything to with the second pit stop situation?
 
And now there is trouble brewing between Wolf and Lauda. Or so Pit Pass would have us believe.
Prima donna springs to mind.
 
I don't see this latest spat as any different from (and I can't resist,sorry) so called capgate :)

I'm sorry I want to see the race drivers peeved when they don't win, anything else and it's PR. I was pleased to see Nico throw the cap, it showed he cared about the race, rather than take second place. Hamiltons comments the same.

I can understand both the teams and the individuals point of view. With their second stop Mercedes covered their bases and there was no chance of them failing to get a 1-2. Plus, if you go in for the conspiracy theories, they keep NIco's ego up for next season. However they did not know the last safety car would come out and I think Nico may have had a small chance. I'm guessing (and it is all supposition) he looked at the race and thought "if I didn't come in then, and instead changed to the options at the last SC I would have probably got the win"

Anyway good luck to them both in the next race; and let them ( and Mercedes) make it interesting :)
 
Here's another scenario. It's just a 'what if?'
What if Hamilton had been saving his tyres in that second stint knowing they were only stopping once? He kept dropping back and taking unusual lines. What if he was saving his tyres for an attack on Rosberg later in the race?
What if Rosberg's tyres were suffering and Mercedes knew they would be marginal to last the race so they brought him in. Hamilton said his tyres were fine and was very insistent they checked the tyre ware. He also said it was a wrong call yo bring him in. But went relatively quiet about it after the race...in public.
What if Mercedes realised that if Hamilton could stay out, he would have a very good chance of taking the win. They couldn't afford that situation happenning because of the affect it would have had on Rosberg. So they called Hamilton in too.

The subsequent safety car could either have given Hamilton a free pitstop and he'd have been home and dry. Or if he stayed out he'd have had Rosberg on his tail on fresher tyres. He would have to have defended like crazy or lost the,and and come second, which he did anyway.

I think it was worth the gamble to stay out and I think Hamilton did too. But I think Mercedes needed Rosberg to win.
 
well the team planned the strategy and you can't have drivers disagreeing about it otherwise it would be called team favouritism.
It would have been interesting in that had Hamilton stayed out and not be called in during the safety car and did not finish 2nd place. How he would have reacted ?


The only way around it is to let the drivers race from the beginning their own race like Brogan said which is what I thought Toto promised

I don;'t think this same strategy will work next year if Vettel and Ferrari are challengers
 
Il_leone I agree. It's not so detrimental while Mercedes have an advantage but if challenged strongly,I think it stops them being sharp enough and reactive enough.

I also think they should race from the beginning and call their own race. These three races with the champioship sewn up would have been an ideal time to give it a try. Nothing to lose.
 
Last edited:
Brogan
Plan B was two stop strategy when Hamilton was happy to stay with Plan A but his race engineer held firm and towed the team line

Yes I was going to mention drivers who disagreed with team strategy have been made villains and its usually because they stole the race when they should not have.

The only one who was made to look really stupid was Jean Alesi - Melbourne 1997


I do agree I think it would have been more exciting for the fans to see a race between the Mercs given their superior race pace
 
The fact of the matter is Merc had such an advantage they could pit both cars and finish 1-2. There is no suggestion that Nico's tyres wouldn't last until the end any more than Lewis' tyres. Why would they pit Nico, who had lead from the start, and not pit Lewis? That is ridiculous. Lewis can moan about it all he likes, but he wasn't disadvantaged, just not advantaged. How much would he have moaned if he'd been pitted and Nico had decided to stay out?

I know he has destroyed Nico this year, with a bit of help from Spa 2014, but he can't help taking every opportunity to bad mouth him with stories about how difficult Nico is as a teammate, and how Mercedes have to mother him. Can't he just shut up, drive the car and maybe be a bit more respectful of someone he almost grew up with?
 
racecub - When McLaren operated that policy, you were the first over the lines suggesting that they were favouring Button, simply because Button got it right more often than Hamilton did.

Simply, you want Hamilton to win, and anything that prevents that is automatically wrong.

It would have been an utterly ****ing abhorrent abandonment of discipline and fair play had Mercedes let Hamilton not pit.

I don't know what makes any of you think Rosberg either (a) made the call or (b) not acted differently if under actual threat from Hamilton.
 
Dario, you are quite right, the chances are Nico's tyres were probably in better condition than Lewis's, after all he was in clean air the whole race. However last season they did occasionally split the strategy to give the second place position a chance to overtake first (one of the best battles in the last 6 years Hamilton and Rosberg in Bahrain).

In the last race I really wish Mercedes had let LH call it, I still think NR would have won it (and he deserved it) . But don't we all want to see the drivers make the calls, and there would have been a good chance (if the last safety car hadn't come out) Either NR would have been battling LH or Bottas would have been all over the back of Lewis. Either way I think we would have won :) from a spectators point of view.
 
teabagyokel I disliked the policy of shared strategies then and I dislike that policy now. My position on that hasn't changed.I particularly disliked it when run under the inept Whitmarsh, who managed to drive McLaren into their worst period in history. You think ' Button got it more right than Hamilton' ? I'm not sure what you mean? If it was a central strategy the team chose it not the drivers,as they do at Mercedes now. Do you think the drivers somehow actually chose it at Mclaren? And Button did it better? Do you have evidence of this?

On your next point you are partially correct. I want Hamilton to win. And he has , he's just won the championship, so I'm cock a hoop. But what Id really like to have seen in the last three races is a free race between the drivers including making their own strategies. You see though I want Hamilton to win, the second part of your statement that ' anything that that prevents that is automatically wrong' . That is incorrect. I don't want Hamilton to win at all costs. I want him to win by being the best. In fact Im rather glad Rosberg won on Sunday because I think he will be in a better frame of mind to fight harder next season. I'm sure Mercedes felt likewise.

You don't tnink it would have been fair to let Hamilton select his own strategy and pit. Fair enough. yet you seem to imply that under a similar regime at McLaren Button was allowed to chose his own strategy? And got it right? So I'm a bit confused about that.

Finally. I don't think Rosberg made that call :dunno: and I wasn't aware anyone else suggested Rosberg made that call. Mercedes made it.

I made it clear in my previous post about that pit stop that I was just looking at a potential scenario. I made it clear it was a 'what if' I didn't say that's what had happened. That's the beauty of forums, we can think around issues and put forward ideas to each other. Bounce ideas off each other. Think outside the box. It all adds to the fun
 
racecub - When McLaren operated that policy, you were the first over the lines suggesting that they were favouring Button, simply because Button got it right more often than Hamilton did.

Simply, you want Hamilton to win, and anything that prevents that is automatically wrong.

It would have been an utterly ****ing abhorrent abandonment of discipline and fair play had Mercedes let Hamilton not pit.

I don't know what makes any of you think Rosberg either (a) made the call or (b) not acted differently if under actual threat from Hamilton.

I completely understand your comment, as Merc have been operating the same system of having one tactician for both drivers for the last couple of years. So what they did was fair.

Last season they seemed to separate the strategy (tyres in the last stint) more than this year. And I believe we had a bit more entertainment from the leaders.

I do think each side of the garage should have their own strategy/tactician to allow some fun racing between team mates.
 
Back
Top Bottom