Hamilton says slow pit stops didn’t cost him win

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Lewis Hamilton says his slow pit stops didn’t cost him victory in Austria, and said he was partly to blame for one of them.


Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Lewis: Stops didn’t cost me GP (Sky)

“They had some problem with my left-front wheel on one of them and I think on the first one I was a little bit long [in hitting his marks in Mercedes’ pit box]. I overall lost two seconds in pit stops, so valuable, but it wouldn’t have put me first.”

Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg get telling off from their boss after Austrian Grand Prix (The Mirror)

Toto Wolff: “We don’t want to see any sandbagging. We don’t want to see any aborted laps when we need to learn about the car.”

Ecclestone ‘happy’ if F1 grid shrinks (Autosport)

“Asked if he was worried that the current 22-car entry might shrink, Ecclestone replied: ‘In fact, I would be happy. It’s like a poker game. You don’t know the other players.'”

Five things we learnt at Austrian Grand Prix (The Telegraph)

“Some sources have suggested that Bernie Ecclestone, via intermediaries, has let it be known that if the EU were to get involved all subsidy payments would be temporarily put into a holding account, leaving the smallest teams desperately short of cash.”

Williams F1 delighted with Austrian Grand Prix weekend after poor 2013 (The Guardian)

Claire Williams: “This is certainly not a flash in the pan, so the aim now is to maintain this level of consistency, this level of points scoring, and there is no reason why we can’t do that.this is certainly not a flash in the pan, so the aim now is to maintain this level of consistency, this level of points scoring, and there is no reason why we can’t do that.”

Lewis Hamilton and Niki Lauda Hamilton will not give up – Lauda (BBC)

“Even with the qualifying mistake, he said: ‘It was my mistake.’ That’s all. He made up for it right away in the race.”

Montezemolo, there is no alternative to Etihad (Ansa)

Luca di Montezemolo: “I have a big passion for Abu Dhabi. My personal relationship with that country is very deep.”

2014 Austrian GP report (MotorSport)

“It’s a struggle to harvest enough energy through what is a short lap to have full power available for that long three-straight stretch. So the harvest rate has to be quite aggressive – which puts a big demand on the rear brakes.”



Comment of the day

@WilliamStuart wonders just how quick the Mercedes can go.

Alonso was talking about how quick the Mercedes engine is when all the settings are turned up, I would really like to see the Mercedes racing with those settings turned up, I’m assuming that even in qualifying they aren’t using those settings unless they are pushed, as it’s not great for reliability.

I wish the FIA weren’t so harsh on reliability this year, were already seeing Vettel on the verge if getting penalties for use of components, and the racing is not as good because teams would rather finish fourth rather than risk an engine or ERS.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Andrew Smith, Daniel and Inc0Mmunicado!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Nelson Piquet won his second race in a row 30 years ago today, holding off a late charge from Martin Brundle in the Detroit Grand Prix.

Here’s Brundle closing on Piquet in the final laps:

Image © Daimler/Hoch Zwei

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

68 comments on “Hamilton says slow pit stops didn’t cost him win”

  1. I sadly feel BE is so cash fat and cash driven that losing a team means less he hands out less cash
    Hope im wrong
    But is he doing best for the sport or best for his mates

    1. @greg-c, of course you are not wrong, fewer teams means less pressure on Bernie and co to reduce the grossly inflated share of revenue they take out of the sport.

    2. petebaldwin (@)
      24th June 2014, 12:42

      Bernie happy to lose teams? Not as happy as I’d be to lose Bernie.

    3. Indeed… best for them, good for the top teams, bad for the little teams, worst for the hundreds of F1 staff that will be out of a job. Haas looking to set up a base in the UK, has meant that 200-250 jobs will instantly be created.

      8 or 9 teams with 3 cars makes a grid of 24-27. I think that’s a good amount.. 26 can also be achieved by adding Haas and Forza Rossa. It might be that it’s harder to keep track of everything once there are more than that.. the best example being Eurocup Formula Renault!

      Who would be around with 3 cars? Mercedes, Red Bull, Ferrari, McLaren; Williams, Lotus, Force India, Toro Rosso… I imagine Sauber, Caterham and Marussia would have to look towards becoming Manufacturer B-teams, that is if they survive at all. Toro Rosso would be dependent on Red Bull (who would have 6 drivers/a quarter of the grid).

      Short of the top teams having a 3rd car to make up the numbers, adding two teams is the best option… next is trying to get them all properly competitive. Taking away Ferrari’s special $85m payment (5% skimmed off the top of FOM revenues) and redistributing it could easily sort that one out…

  2. At a time when the sport is beset with several major issues, those comments by both Bernie and Di Montezemolo are infuriating.

    F1 would be undoubtedly better with more teams on the grid. 22 cars is ok, but the grid seemed awfully quiet a few years ago when there were only 18. I long for a grid of 26+, but looks like Bernie couldn’t care less. How dare teams get priced out of a sport that’s unsustainably expensive! Blame the struggling teams for the result of his own greed. Classic Bernie.

    As for Luca, the only thing that runs deep in the land of Abu Double are the pockets of his friends. If there was ever any proof needed that the most powerful individuals in Formula 1 didn’t care about the long term health of the sport then there it is, straight from their own mouths.

    1. Just reading the things Bernie says is ridiculous. His arrogance makes me sick. His ability to detest change will be the death of him and or the sport. Can’t stand him.

      1. maarten.f1 (@)
        24th June 2014, 6:46

        When I see such ridiculous comments from Bernie, it always makes me wonder what other news there is related to him that he doesn’t want us to read.

    2. The Blade Runner (@)
      24th June 2014, 11:00

      I’ve often wondered whether there should be fewer teams on the grid but that certain teams should then be allowed to enter 3 cars.

      For teams to qualify for an extra car you could have straightforward criteria (e.g. minimum of ‘x’ number of years in the sport; minimum of ‘y’ number of Championship wins etc. etc.) and I would suggest that the 3rd driver for each team should have to be a Rookie.

      Might be a good way of bringing new talent into the sport and encourage teams to take greater risks with at least one of their cars.

      Just a thought (and no more stupid than double points or megaphone exhausts!!!)

      1. petebaldwin (@)
        24th June 2014, 12:54

        Why should teams have to have won a certain amount of championships and been in the series for a certain number of years to run 3 cars?

        If they go with 3 cars, it should be a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 3 available to anyone who wants to do it.

        Would Lotus get to run a 3rd car on the back of their titles as Renault and Benneton? I assume Mercedes could only run 2 cars as they haven’t won much (could you count the title as Brawn???)

        1. The Blade Runner (@)
          24th June 2014, 14:26

          @petebaldwin Re: “qualifying criteria” – I just gave some examples of what COULD be used. It would be down to the sport in its infinite wisdom (ahem) to decide the criteria. And YES, maybe all teams could choose to have 3 cars.

          I think a 2+1 (2 experienced + 1 rookie) team set-up would be good for the sport. It would mean a new driver at each team every year and each team having to decide whether to lose an experienced driver and replace them with last year’s rookie.

          As I say, just a thought. Lots of people deperately looking for an argument on these forums when they exist to share opinion and experience…

      2. Better to have experienced drivers in the 3rd seat. Imagine Alonso in the 3rd Mercedes. There is no need to bring new talent to the sport. It comes on its own and makes it on its own. Any way this is precisely what I think is wrong with F1 today. Too many rules. Too contrived. If a team wants 3 cars or 4 or whatever let them.

      3. The largest problem I see with some teams fielding 3 cars is money. Not the money required to field a third, since McLaren, RBR, Merc and Ferrari could do so with ease.. More the share of F1 revenue. Ferrari are already the main culprits when it comes to ailing backmarkers not getting much money, but that would only get worse if they fielded three cars and thus were able to command an even larger share of F1 revenue. It’s a classic case of the rich get richer, and the poor get richer at a slower rate.

        1. Also the EU quote above, is basically Bernie saying to the poor teams “snitch on me, and I’ll make life very tough for you”…

  3. I find the comment that “Energy harvesting is hard on rear brakes” counter-intuitive, the retardation that harvesting energy from the rear axle being turned by the cars forward motion due to its inertia, should in fact take a load of the brakes need to use friction to overcome this inertia. Can somebody (@Scarbs ?) who knows the how and the why please enlighten me ? Thanks.

    1. @hohum Haha, yeah that makes no sense does it? Either Mark Hughes knows nothing about how ERS works or he doesn’t know how to explain his point properly.

    2. @hohum Keep in mind that while the Energy Store can hold up to 4 megajoules at any time the MGU-K can only contribute 2 megajoules per lap to it by regulation. If an overly aggressive harvest rate puts the computer up against this absolute per lap limit it would force it to shut down harvesting and apply tremendous hydraulic pressure to the now much smaller rear brakes to supply the driver requested F/R balance.

      1. @hohum That was my first thought when I say the article summary so I went straight in to read the full article for an explanation which didn’t make it any clearer.

        @effone If they are up against the absolute per lap limit then they do not need the aggressive harvesting which is supposed to be the problem – that they are struggling to achieve the maximum 2MJ per lap.

    3. @hohum I remember Brundle or Kravitz saying at the Canadian GP that many of the teams have almost halved the size of their rear brakes this year as, you correctly point out, that the harvesting takes away for the need of reducing inertia via friction based deceleration. As for the article, I cannot explain…

  4. Chris (@tophercheese21)
    24th June 2014, 1:22


    I too would love to see what the Mercedes race pace is like if they ever turn up the wick on their engines to the maximum. I think the closest we’ve seen to that was in Bahrain after the safety car where they just annihilated everyone… Actually ‘annihilated’ is a gross understatement. They completely , trounced, demoralized and simply trashed the opposition, all the while scrapping for first place.

    I hope one day we get to see them really go full ball again.

  5. I still cant see how Merc plan to fight for the title while keeping both sides of the garage on equal footing…it may be possible, but will prove to be incredibly difficult.

    This is the conundrum for F1, its a team sport, but its not at the same time. Teams want to win 1-2 every race, drivers want to beat their teamate, fans want drivers to disregard team orders…so there is a plenty of contradiction. Having said all this, Mercedes have the luxury of a massive lead, so if their drivers trip each other up in a few races, they’d still be safe. Toto and Niki may say that there are no secrets at Merc, but at times like this, the competitive nature of humans will take over, moreso at the sharp end of the F1 grid. Engineers and Mechanics will want their drivers to win as well, Toto and Paddy may not be able to police all the data that is shared or not shared.

    …there may be a few more surprises to come this year..cant wait!

    1. Lets remember, around the time of the Monaco GP, Prost said he had talked to Rosberg. since that time Rosberg starts hiding his speed and is suddenly faster during qualifying but I believe Hamilton has realised this and started doing the same and now Wolff starts complaining.

      1. I am sure talking to Prost was not what changed things. Its a combination of Rosbergs approach starting to work for him and Hamilton making mistakes at crucial times (going out late in Monaco, making himself vulnerable, messing up his fast laps in Canada and Austria) that did it.
        If anything, its more likely that Hamilton and his crew are trying to hide things, because they know Rosberg learns from it and finds the speed from looking at where Hamilton does what.

        1. “If anything, its more likely that Hamilton and his crew are trying to hide things”

          And they were very successful doing so in Austria – Rosberg’s side never found out how fast Hamilton could have been!


          1. Of course it is unfathomable that Nico has the speed on occasion and Lewis and his side look at where HE is faster. I’m reminded of the radio comm we got to hear where LH was asking for help from his side in the remaining laps of Austria as to where he could find some pace to catch and pass Nico.

            I can’t say I saw this sandbagging thing happening, but I guess it makes sense in this type of competitive environment, but what a luxury to have. At the same time, while I get that they may shade each others’ speed here or there, they have also shown themselves to not be bulletproof, so I’m not convinced they have the luxury of just cranking everything up with confidence they’ll not only finish, but finish miles ahead of every other team. And then there’s the concept that both drivers were adding boost on their own prior to Monaco and were told not to do that unless instructed so, and presumably haven’t done so since. ie team imposed sandbagging. I really just thought that what we were seeing was teams like Williams doing what we were told would happen, that being reducing the steepness of the learning curve as they have had some time with this highly complex new formula. We were told the field should tighten up and get closer to the Mercs. Especially the other Merc powered cars.

            So Wolff may be concerned about sandbagging, but as the guy in charge of both sides it is his job to manage everything, and I don’t see both sides going so far as to letting the competition win, even without being scolded.

    2. Yeah, remember in Canada when even on heavy front bias braking, and with no ERS Rosberg was as as quick if not quicker on a whole lap basis, it’s truly amazing how well the mercedes power unit works with their chassis. The lads in Brackley have had an incredible winter creating the WO5.

  6. The COTD makes a very good point, Formula 1 will turn into Formula Penalty for the second half of the season, annoying and confusing fans even more, as the qualyfing on Saturday will have little resemblance to the actual starting grid on Sunday.

    1. Perhaps in the last few of races in the season when everyone’s run out of components and EVERY driver on the grid has a 10-place penalty, it will be neutralised. If everyone has a penalty, no-one has a penalty :P

      1. Not really, it also depends in which order the penalties will be applied. Could be a real lottery!


      2. @celicadion23 Even in that situation it might not work quite like that as I think that the order in which penalties are applied can make a difference. For example if the driver who qualifies first has his penalty applied after all of the drivers behind him then I think he will end up moving backwards on the grid? It could get very confusing in that case and could lead to strategic timing of penalty events!

        1. “strategic timing of penalty events!”

          I´m really looking forward to that. Trying to start the change of the respective engine-part (or transmission) as late as possible, but early enough to be ready to drive in qualifying. A whole new dimension of the sport, this could really make the pre-show of the qualifying-coverage interesting and exciting to watch. Hopefully they´ll have more cameras in the pits.

      3. Fumbles (@)
        24th June 2014, 13:39

        Won’t it be whoever gets the FIRST penalty that gets on pole? Who can take the penalty first and see how far up the grid they can get :D

        1. Chilton for pole!

      4. Where is that pretty little table keeping track of restricted components each driver has used?

    2. @mantresx Annoying and confusing for fans? Really? Do you think fans are that dumb that they won’t understand standard grid penalties for going over component limits lol? Come off it pal.

      Anyway, I look forward to it. a) if teams go over the limit then they should be punished, that’s how it’s been for years and should help improve reliability massively which in turn should help road cars. And b) on-track engine blowouts and component failures is the very essence of F1. It seems fans have been spoiled by the last 10-15yrs of bulletproof reliability. Go back to any time before the mid-90s and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Exciting and unpredictable times ahead!

      1. And when the grid on Sunday bears no resemblance to Saturday quality thanks to 17 drivers being penalised in an arbitrary order, you think the fans will just lie back and accept it?

    3. Makes me think of the farcical rule checking application of penalties at the 2009? Japanese GP! That was also near the end of a year with new regs…

  7. Why people think like that for Eclestone and the likes?
    Dont you see that every other week 11 teams of multimillionaires just have fun while selling their company brand names all over around the world. Meanwhile ordinary people think that they matter enough to those millionaires or billionaires in some cases and should at least be heard… ummm dont think its gonna happen.

    Its like mundial in Brasil. In every match 22 multi millionaires are having fun playing with a ball while the ordinary people who live in poverty just cheer and taking sides of either team while at home (if they have one left) they might be starving.

    If that isnt funny and pathetic at the same time then what is I wonder…

  8. Off topic but,

    Can we give Niki Lauda a go at running the show when bernie expires

    Please !!!!!

    1. To be honest, I do not think that would change a lot for us, F1 fans. Lauda might not be as controversial in his comments but he is a sly fox and would do a lot of things the same way to keep his employer happy. Many powerful figures tell the world that they care about cost cutting and do not like the double points but their actions do not support their words. So I believe that Ecclestone often just tells us what Horner, Montezemolo, Dennis, Lauda and many others think.

      I want Bernie to go (mainly because of his criminal charges) but we need to replace him with @KeithCollantine to significantly change the way our sport is run…

      1. petebaldwin (@)
        24th June 2014, 12:47

        I couldnt’ care less about the criminal charges as it doesn’t really affect F1. The fact that he is running the sport into the ground to make even more money for himself is however.

        Whatever your motives, we need Bernie out of F1 asap!

        1. hope he gets locked up, that would really hack him off, cant spend his millions in jail.

      2. Sadly I think Niki has now become a business man, so I can’t see a huge change occurring if Niki was given the chance.

  9. BJ (@beejis60)
    24th June 2014, 6:35

    In what sport could you imagine the commercial rights owner and/or upper level league executives stating that they could care less if they lost teams? This is easily among the most asinine things I’ve read all year.

    1. Whichever one involves them then making more money…

  10. maarten.f1 (@)
    24th June 2014, 6:41

    Now why does Lewis have to be such a poopy head and debunk any good conspiracy theories some people here had going on, it was just getting entertaining :P

    1. Tomorrow’s Sky headline will be “Hamilton denies slow pit stops didn’t cost him win” or “Horner sticks oar in about Hamilton pitstops”…
      Gotta keep feeding the news monster.

    2. As if it isn’t conspicuous that Hamilton would say these things in public. Literally echoing the words of his boss. He obviously had a stern talking to.

  11. @WilliamStuart But as much as the new regulations are meant for its relevance to road cars isn’t reliabilty relvant to road cars aswell? I don’t want a fast car that saves a lot of fuel but needs a new part every other 300km.

    During the Monaco race people said Hamilton his four wins should be worth more (in points) than Rosberg his win and four seconds. But again I’d rather have a car that finishes all my travels, not 80% of them. Reliability is a big part of this sport and it has always been.

    1. Thank you! A lot of people seem to forget reliability is as essential as speed.

      1. it has always been essential because it gives your team points, but now it is regulated to be essential…

        If a manufacturer could build a car that went like a rocket but was more fragile and it competed against a more durable but less extravagant engine, then that would produce competition on many different levels.

        I have nothing against these V& turbos, I think they are REALLY cool psu’s, BUT I don’t like that they are forced to run within such a narrow RPM restriction as well as fuel flow.

        An engine running close or at its’ maximum capacity will always be cooler than safing it below the red… Imagine these V6 engines reving a bit higher than 11,000 rpms and all discussions about sound would go away.

        It’s about balancing on a knifes’ edge, not trundling along a sidewalk…

    2. how many cars do a 300km plus distance with engines going at 10000rpm? how many of those cars brakes with over 4g’s? You got to put it in perspective, if a car can go that distance in such a stress, it will go for longer in a road car rpm range…

    3. I see where you’re coming from, but I don’t think that F1 should get too hung up on trying to be as road relevant as possible, the contributions of F1 over the years to road cars, while definitely relevant aren’t hugely game changing. I think the nature of F1 being a competitive race inherently means that the contributions will be more relevant to fast, luxury cars which are out of reach of 95% of us. I think endurance races will he more relevant because as @porsche mentioned reliability is perhaps the most important aspect for road cars, whereas F1 components are only designed to race for 300km at a time, a hundredth of the lifetime of a typical road car component. But if there’s no justification for manufacturers to be in F1 if they don’t make much money from it, then there’s no point to remaining in F1.
      (Thanks Keith for the comment of the day!!)

      1. Although maybe if reliability is improved we’ll get more flat out racing?

  12. If shrinking F1 grid is not an issue then what was wrong with the 2005 USA Grand Prix?

    1. Lol, oh there was nothing wrong with that grid, as long as you were a fan of a Bridgerock clad car/driver.

    2. yes, why can’t F1 be reduced to some Red Bull PR events where they run on city streets by themselves.

      Someone needs to grab that bernie and shake some sense into him… All his statements makes me think the retirement home or looney jacket isn’t that far away for that old (alleged) criminal

    3. Not shrinking the grid, but the number of teams… if the Bridgestone teams tripled their car counts that weekend there would still have been 18 cars racing at least for instance.

  13. Just like when a journalist tried to enter Shumacher’s room disguised as a priest, this time another “idiot” have actually stolen his medical records from Grenoble Hospital and he is trying to sell them to any media part that will pay for them (rumors suggests he wants no less than 50000 euro). I know that the Police are already moving to stop this happening but knowing the Media’s morality in general , i’m sure that they are doing everything they can to get the exclusivity of those documents even if they know that they will be in trouble if they publish their content just like what happened in 2008 when News Of The World published the video and then paid a fine for the damage it made to Max Mosley

  14. Niki always so POSITIVE about Hamilton.

  15. “When a driver crosses a white line he will be punished. That’s wrong.”… WTH?? So, if a car just takes random shortcuts through out the track, it is okay with Bernie? I think Bernie has held back the sport enough. He has mooched off the fans for too long. Considering his age, it is a tough call between who ceases to exist first. the sport or himself.
    Please leave already.

    1. If the shortcuts make them faster, then why are they there?

      1. Because most people don’t like to see race drivers die …

  16. I think it has become quite a fashion to say the Mercedes are very fast. I can acknowledge the fact that they are fast but not like it is made to sound.

    The field was blocked by the ‘two stopping’ Force Indias of Perez and Hulk. Ricciardo was doing good times before his last stop and after coming upon Perez never quite managed to replicate it. Similarly with the rest of the top 7 being blocked behind Hulk, I believe it has made Mercedes’ advantage look bigger than it actually is.

    And if Mercedes are concerned with turning up the wick because of reliability problems then it is an option they don’t have. I think the teams need to just concentrate on improving their car rather than ‘catching’ Mercedes.

    They succumb to reliability as well and the other teams must exploit it like in Canada.

    1. This was the Bahrain GP BTW, the one place where Mercedes were supposed to have shown their hand.

  17. Dear Bernie: Having less teams wasn’t what made 2003, 2005, and the latter part of 2008 good.

  18. Isit me or does Lauda prefer Hamilton? I would sy he does and im a huge Ham fan, and it does make me feel alot better knowing he has Lauda’s support. I don’t trust Wolff, i no that is wrong i just think he prefer’s Nico. Every Ham win Nico is talked about first like China, and then same when Ros win.

    1. Thing is, Lauda is only a part team owner and Wolff runs the show there. Lauda obviously got Hamilton into the team and indeed Wolff doesn’t seem overly pleased with that. A bit like Whitmarsh at McLaren.

Comments are closed.