Too late! The tea is spilling out of the saucer as well, and reports are coming in of a stained tablecloth, and a soggy biscuit to boot...
Team Radio & Bringing the sport in disrepute
- Thread starter no-FIAt-please
- Start date
And I remember you saying the McLaren pitwall had to keep Hamilton extremely motivated, does that mean he has to think about retiring? Does it mean the rest of the 23 drivers need to retire since they all get motivation talk through their engineers?
I can put this more into perspective. At that given point of the race: Hamilton was trailing Massa on the option tyre. Whereas Massa was on the prime tyre. If I recall correctly, both Ferrari's finished the race on the option tyre.
For a moment, can we please just put driver names aside and look at the scenario? Driver A is in a faster car with the quicker tyre (option tyre) and is currently trailing Driver B. Driver B has better track position, is slower on race pace and hampered by being on the slower (prime) tyre compared to Driver A. The two drivers are competing on a street circuit, where passing is generally more difficult. Since Driver B had a better start to the race, he achieved better track position than Driver A (who lost a few places). As driver A is coming back through the field, he encounters Driver B. In order for Driver B to score the maximum points on this given Sunday, it would require him to keep Driver A behind. If Driver B is able to defend Driver A for long enough, he would confer a significant advantage in terms race strategy. Driver A's tyres will go off quicker. So if Driver B holds Driver A behind for long enough, he could adjust his pit strategy appropriately to keep Driver A behind.
Now back to the comments:
"Hold Hamilton as much as we can, Destroy his race as much as we can. Come on Boy!"
Do the comments sound as bad, now? Especially if we were to insert the word "strategy" after "race" ? I know I am adding a variable that isn't present in what Smedley said. But I believe that "destroy" confers a different meaning to one that we would find in the dictionary. There is nothing wrong with the first sentence. Did Smedley use a word that perhaps he shouldn't have? You could argue this. If you want to agree to sit on two side of a fence, I am perfectly OK with that. But please take everything into context. Maybe Massa and Smedley were still pissed at Hamilton for what he did to Massa in Q3. Have you watched all of the prior race edits (formula1.com) this year? I forget which race it was, but Smedley was quite animated with Massa during a race where he felt his results have been subpar. I know I have added a variable to the quote. But I think there are also a plethora of outside variables that could have influenced the comment. The most important being: Massa was currently fighting a faster car than his in the heat of a grand prix.
Do we sit here and argue that sometimes F1 is 'too sterile' now a days? That passion is lacking on track? For anyone who has had a go at Hamilton for his over aggression this year, can they deny the excitement it adds to the spectacle? I think this comment does the same. It stirs the bee's nest. But take a few deep breaths. Is it really that bad? Have you never been overly excited and had a slip of the tongue when you were heated?
A Freudian slip? I think that may be a step too far. He didn't say "brake test Hamilton." He said to race Hamilton for the position.
For a moment, can we please just put driver names aside and look at the scenario? Driver A is in a faster car with the quicker tyre (option tyre) and is currently trailing Driver B. Driver B has better track position, is slower on race pace and hampered by being on the slower (prime) tyre compared to Driver A. The two drivers are competing on a street circuit, where passing is generally more difficult. Since Driver B had a better start to the race, he achieved better track position than Driver A (who lost a few places). As driver A is coming back through the field, he encounters Driver B. In order for Driver B to score the maximum points on this given Sunday, it would require him to keep Driver A behind. If Driver B is able to defend Driver A for long enough, he would confer a significant advantage in terms race strategy. Driver A's tyres will go off quicker. So if Driver B holds Driver A behind for long enough, he could adjust his pit strategy appropriately to keep Driver A behind.
Now back to the comments:
"Hold Hamilton as much as we can, Destroy his race as much as we can. Come on Boy!"
Do the comments sound as bad, now? Especially if we were to insert the word "strategy" after "race" ? I know I am adding a variable that isn't present in what Smedley said. But I believe that "destroy" confers a different meaning to one that we would find in the dictionary. There is nothing wrong with the first sentence. Did Smedley use a word that perhaps he shouldn't have? You could argue this. If you want to agree to sit on two side of a fence, I am perfectly OK with that. But please take everything into context. Maybe Massa and Smedley were still pissed at Hamilton for what he did to Massa in Q3. Have you watched all of the prior race edits (formula1.com) this year? I forget which race it was, but Smedley was quite animated with Massa during a race where he felt his results have been subpar. I know I have added a variable to the quote. But I think there are also a plethora of outside variables that could have influenced the comment. The most important being: Massa was currently fighting a faster car than his in the heat of a grand prix.
Do we sit here and argue that sometimes F1 is 'too sterile' now a days? That passion is lacking on track? For anyone who has had a go at Hamilton for his over aggression this year, can they deny the excitement it adds to the spectacle? I think this comment does the same. It stirs the bee's nest. But take a few deep breaths. Is it really that bad? Have you never been overly excited and had a slip of the tongue when you were heated?
A Freudian slip? I think that may be a step too far. He didn't say "brake test Hamilton." He said to race Hamilton for the position.
Except he didn't he said "hold Hamilton as much as we can, Destroy his race as much as we can. Come on Boy!"
Well put Sly but you honestly think Massa and Smedley thought they could beat Hamilton? I'd put my house on that being to hold him off for Alonso's benefit. And if you think that was a retaliation to what happened in qualifying then it's a vengeful thing to say, think, feel or do and I personally don't think that is any more acceptable than what Maldonado did to Hamilton. Whatever Hamilton has or hasn't done there is no malice in his actions. As soon as that creeps in the persons involved should reconsider their position.
I will repeat, my issue is more with the audacity of Massa and Domincalli to make those comments using the words 'angry' and 'ruined' when referring to Hamilton post race. Not a leg to stand on I'm afraid.
Now my turn to give this some perspective... It's Ferrari.
They have to try, don't they? Or whats the point of going to the circuit?
True but he didn't also didn't say "Destroy him with all your might and brake test him so he can hit you"
Yes I do, Massa was keeping up with Alonso in the first stint, Massa was on the primes, Hamilton if I recall correctly had to still go on the primes, so by keeping Hamilton behind him, he would've ruined Hamilton's strategy and taken out Hamilton's advantage of being on the options, therefore being in a better position in the next stint against Hamilton.
I am starting think that's the main reason why there's a fuss, because it's "Ferrari", I doubt if McLaren, Red Bull or Sauber engineers said something like that we wouldn't even have this thread
So? Its either wrong or it isn't!
Thanks for taking that completely out of context. I said "the moment a driver needs that level motivation" as in being told to "destroy" someone elses race to make them feel better is way too far.
Just for avoidance of doubt, as with my post you quoted, this is what I was referring to when i made that post...
"by making Massa think that he would ruin Hamilton's race by keeping him behind would probably be just the sort of motivation that Massa needed last weekend"
When I spoke about Hamilton, the motivational talk was to keep him going in the race and to get points. Not motivating him by telling him he could 'destroy' someone elses race.
I don't doubt if it wasn't Hamilton quite so many people wouldn't be quite so eager to defend Ferrari/Smedley/Massa.
See what I did there?
Yep, but I would defend it if it's any driver, as I think it's quite a bit of nonsense to make something so big out of something very small.
If Hamilton was told to destroy someone elses race I wouldn't think much of it at all...
Sorry about that
But I hardly think "destroy his race as much as you can" is a great motivational speech, and I highly doubt it got Massa motivated as he was already probably motivated to do the best job he could, which, he was doing at thatt point.
You say I have taken it out of context, but I can also say that you have taken the radio message out of context and a few other things on the matter too.
It's wrong.
As in there is a slight history with Hamilton. They seem to get their knickers in a twist on some occasions when it involves him as I've mentioned earlier. I also wouldn't be surprised again, as I've mentioned earlier if this was another Smedley special because he is annoyed that his driver is being used as a donkey for Alonso.
Of course it could all be exactly as Sly has said, we'll never know. As for is it wrong - definitely the wrong choice of words but I doubt there was any malice intended. Was Massa's reaction wrong afterwards? In my view yes and even more so now.
I'm not sure anyone apart Cookin believes the two (transmission and puncture) are connected? I certainly don't but others can correct me if I'm wrong. Just clever antagonistic editing.
Why?
If it's such a small issue then why has the entire media picked up on it and why was it picked up on yesterday on this forum. If it were a small issue nobody would be talking about it. the fact that they are qualifies it as a big issue.
Sorry about that
But I hardly think "destroy his race as much as you can" is a great motivational speech, and I highly doubt it got Massa motivated as he was already probably motivated to do the best job he could, which, he was doing at thatt point.
You say I have taken it out of context, but I can also say that you have taken the radio message out of context and a few other things on the matter too.
No probs.
I didn't say I agreed with that version of events - it was a response to others posts trying to explain the comment. I'm with you and that's why I said if it had got to that stage that somebody needs that level of motivation then they need to leave the sport. Not agreeing that it was the reason.
I think it's all matter of fact, bad wording but meant strategically rather than literally. Just don't like the choice of words used about the collision post race and they need to be very bloody careful when those kinds of transmissions are going out.
The Artist.....
Champion Elect
..... And similarly, if it weren't Hamilton, then quite so many people wouldn't be eager for Massa to be hung out to dry!
Cookinflatsix
Banned
On it's own the message from Smedley could be construed to mean anything
In context of the weekend, quali and Massas attack on Lewis afterwards it is highly disingenuous to continue to deny something apart from ad hoc motivational talk
Let's see how this pans out in the real world
In context of the weekend, quali and Massas attack on Lewis afterwards it is highly disingenuous to continue to deny something apart from ad hoc motivational talk
Let's see how this pans out in the real world
It has always been thus when it comes to any discussion involving Hamilton.
There really are very few neutrals so it is always the same people on the same sides every time just posting tit-for-tat comments.
Excluding FB of course!
Similar threads
