Mercedes won’t gift Hamilton a ‘payback win’

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Mercedes do not intend to ‘repay’ Hamilton for the victory they cost him in Sunday’s Monaco Grand Prix.


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

Mercedes won't hand Lewis Hamilton payback win for Monaco gaffe by 'playing Playstation' with results (The Mirror)

"Lewis Hamilton's Mercedes boss has ruled out 'playing PlayStation' with the Formula 1 results to gift Lewis Hamilton a payback victory for their massive Monaco Grand Prix gaffe."

Arrivabene responds to Ecclestone criticism (Reuters)

"If Bernie has doubts about my way of doing, he should ask the team."

Alonso not frustrated by retirements during 'test year' (F1i)

"It’s not a winter test it’s a whole year test and all of my mind, all my focus is on 2016, so we will try to go through 2015 with maximum learning."

Massa critical of 'dangerous' Verstappen (Motorsport)

"He was not in the position to overtake, he was not even near to go inside. He was behind, so to be honest, it was too much what happened."

Ferrari F1 boss gives Kimi Raikkonen qualifying 'homework' (Autosport)

"If I have to give him some homework then he has to write 100 times 'I have to be better in qualifying'."

Lewis Hamilton's trust in Mercedes will be dented by Monaco shocker (The Telegraph)

"I experienced my own share of strategic mishaps, if not anything quite as blatant as Sunday, and it is hard not to let it affect your trust in the team. The Canadian Grand Prix in 1997 springs to mind."

Five things we learned from the F1 Monaco Grand Prix (The Guardian)

"Even if the (Strategy) Group comes up with a good idea – and it never does – it has to be confirmed by the F1 commission and the world council. So let’s get rid of it now."


Comment of the day

No surprises about which subject has dominated the discussion since Sunday’s race:

All the comments here suggest that Mercedes should have rectified their mistake while at the same time they didn’t realise they had made a mistake. They didn’t know they made a mistake until Hamilton was back out on track, simple.

This other argument which people are saying its the drivers’ fault is also interesting, yes Hamilton could overrule the team, but being inside the cockpit of a car out on the track doesn’t afford one to know every single gap.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Lustigson and Zazeems!

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

Ex-F1 driver Danny Sullivan scored his famous “spin and win” in the 1985 Indianapolis 500 on this day 30 years ago. Sullivan completed a 360-degree spin at over 200mph while trying to pass Mario Andretti, but recovered and went on to win the race.

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.

101 comments on “Mercedes won’t gift Hamilton a ‘payback win’”

  1. Mercedes Really? How about Monaco last year?

    1. @wil-liam You have to see both sides to this, and it is a very difficult decision to make. On one hand, yes, they do, in a way, owe it to him, but on the other hand, it can’t work like that.

      This is F1, it isn’t a fair sport, and never has been. People make mistakes, whether it is on the pit wall, in a pit stop, or on track. Hamilton doesn’t need to repay Mercedes if he crashes or throws away a good drive, and don’t forget, Mercedes have given Hamilton (and Rosberg) the winning car last year and this year, and pay him an absolute fortune to drive it. The occasional mistake, even if it is a pathetically big one like this, is ultimately forgivable.

      What I am trying to say here is that while it is frustrating, Mercedes have made a clear decision, and are managing the problem very well.

      1. Lewis would not accept that. He wants to win on merit, I think the Monaco GP is already behind him. He will bounce back in Canada.

    2. Mercedes shouldn’t even consider gifting Hamilton a win. That is too sentimental, corny, cheesy and absolutely immature.

      As someone who admires Hamilton as a driver and will rise to his defence/support anytime, I am much more a die-hard fan of F1 and I don’t subscribe to gifted wins and artificial manipulations of races.

      A mistake of a century was made by MercedesAmgF1, yes, but it is time to move on. And I believe Hamilton wouldn’t want any such gifts from anyone.

      Such blunders as that of MercedesAmgF1 in Monaco, difficult as it may be for some fans to take, is the reason why we are awed by competion in sports. And why we tune in or attend each time hoping that something extraordinary happens so we can talk about and say we were there when it happened.

      1. Well said!

      2. Well said indeed. Talk about ‘gifting a win’ merely brings to mind the US 2002 race and brings the entire integrity of the sport into question.

        1. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
          26th May 2015, 8:17

          Or Australia 1998

    3. The simple fact is a contract is a contract, and Hamilton didn’t finish first, therefore he won’t be paid at “first place” rates (unless his contract covers such an eventuallity, which I doubt). Rosberg, by contrast, probably got a bonus for being first, and Mercedes will honour that part of his contract.

  2. Massa straight on the case with the safety of other people’s maneuvers, of course.

    What people should remember about crashes, is that, while we all dislike seeing drivers taken out, and drivers making stupid moves, etc., realistically, almost everybody loves the drama when a crash occurs. The crash itself unfolding live, cars flying off the track at 100mph, smashing into the barriers, dramatic pieces of debris everywhere, the safety car, restart etc. F1 needs that to keep it alive.

    Even if the fanatics such as ourselves like it less, look at BBC F1’s introduction. It is basically made up of crashes and fires. People love that sort of thing.

    1. It may sound dark and somewhat messed up but when I was a young kid one of the main reasons I enjoyed F1 was for the crashes. A few of my friends who don’t follow F1 much and only watch it on a casual basis say that one reason F1 is boring now is because the crashes are less frequent and not as spectacular, which I am inclined to agree with even though it doesn’t seem right. Without Verstappen’s crash the race would’ve been a complete borefest.

    2. I haven’t heard Massa say anything I agree with for some time.

      Max’s move wasn’t overly dangerous. He’s amazing under (trail) braking and had he not slightly mis-timed his maneuver around Grosjean I think me may well have made the corner and pulled off an amazing overtake.

      Massa forgets his own early days. He was WAY more erratic and showed far less judgment than Max has so far.

      1. @fletchuk Don’t forget Massa also drove much much faster cars…

        It was bound to happen soon, and it will happen more again this season. Verstappen throwing valuable points away by rash actions and inexperience.

        1. Well, he throwed one point away and took Grosjean out, which benefited his team-mate.

          When you’re 11th at Monaco, you have to take risks to score some points.

      2. He always said he entered F1 too early…

        1. I think Massa’s mind has been weirdest on the grid. Why?
          The effect of his accident in 2009 is coming to life?

          1. That post of yours is a disgrace, nothing else.

    3. @strontium Yes people really are irrational. I think you are right even if I think it does not apply to what Massa said.

      Massa is wrong, Max did try from a little far in Monaco terms. Grosjean did brake later (5metres) meaning that Max did run into Romain’s rather than the opposite, however the same fact also proves that Romain put his car on a defensive inside line later than the usual braking point, and this in my view is similarly the real reason for this crash. In the end this reason was the defining reason behind Perez penalty last year in Canada. The difference is that Pérez trajectory in Canada is normal even if it means swerving in front of people, Romain was defending. Anyhow in my opinion Massa is an hypocrite… C’mon Massa say again why isn’t Bottas fit for Ferrari #Not jealous.

    4. Massa is a ridiculous character. A bit of a whiner like countryman Rubens, but with double standards.

      Massa is notorious for his rash and ridiculous driving as well, his overly zealous defending and silly attempts to pass have resulted in many a contact and crash.

      So it’s silly for him out of all people to comment on driver error

    5. I was expecting people pulling the “teenager card” after that crash. In fact, that’s a very marginal error from Max Verstappen.

      Experience is an asset but I don’t think that move was all down to lack of experience from Max.

      1. Absolutely agree. Massa himself had a similar accident in Canada last year, and Mark Webber flew over the guy in front of him in Valencia a few years ago when they were surprised by braking.
        In Max’s case, it does seem he tends to break unbelievably late (his overtakes so far this season, in China for example, prove it; and some highlights I’ve seen of his short career before F1 also). So he’d be prone to this sort of mistake and he’ll learn.

        Thank god for a guy who actually tries to race (Ricciardo also), and this is indeed what most people want to see. Sometimes it ends in a spectacular crash, which suddenly reminds how fast these guys are going, and thank god the safety is incredible these days to minimize risk even when they do crash at high speed.

        1. @majormilou selective memory probably.

    6. Felipe has very conveniently and quickly forgotten about his accident with the force india at canada last year. Almost an identical incident, with suspicions of the lead driver “making a late move” and braking earlier than expected. Yet that time round, the force india was labelled dangerous. The boy has to have an opinion on everything, why does he feel the need to wade into something that didn’t involve him?

    7. What happened to Massa on the first lap anyway? All I saw was a brief radio message, and then he was in the pits, losing a lap. Was he hit by a younger driver?

      1. According to Smedley, Massa was hit by the Hulk in the first lap.
        Anyway: it doesn’t matter WHO says it, Verstappen maneuver was ridiculously out of place, HE smashed Grosjean car. Just because is Massa saying it, this board makes it sound like the accident was a normal race situation. It was not.

    8. Massa is just one big massive tit.

  3. Mercedes boss has ruled out ‘playing PlayStation’ with the Formula 1 results

    Good; the correct response is to work with Hamilton to stop it happening again, not fix the results out of some misguided twisting of the concept of fairness.

    1. exactly, racing will get ridiculous if all the teams go down that road of making up for the mistakes.

    2. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      26th May 2015, 2:20

      I dunno, it’s tough. I fear that Lewis is going to second-guess them every time and he might make the wrong call which will be a double penalty. He shouldn’t have to run his own mini-strategy department while driving. These guys have 100 guys – it’s ridiculous if they rely on Lewis to be the main strategist…

      Mistakes like that have a massive tendency to compound. I don’t like this one bit – I really don’t.

      Most champions would have lost their job after that result… Prost would have been gone the next day, Senna disqualified for 3 seasons, Vettel would have signed with Ferrari, Nigel would be yelling at everyone and so on and so forth…

      This was a career-defining mistake possibly for Lewis by Mercedes – he took time to cool down – you could tell. That’s what saved him!

      1. Lewis second guessing the team is what contributed to this incident I suppose. I believe the team asked him to stay out and it was his suggestion to come in for a change of tires after wrongly assuming that Ros/Vet has pitted for SS.


      2. Well, maybe Hamilton should second guess himself first next time and not panic/be suspicious his team is helping his teammate when he sees them out on the screen. Had he not felt under threat from thinking Nico and Vettel pitted, he wouldn’t have requested to stop, highlighting how his tyres would have issues warming @freelittlebirds.

        Actually he should trust the team MORE next time, because they were the ones to tell him to stay out initially, only going along after he convinced them that his tyres would be in bad state.

        I think one of the reasons Hamilton didn’t rant at the team is, that as soon as he came out behind Vettel, he must have realised his OWN mistake (in wanting to come in at all). Then he realised Mercedes must have misjudged the gap. You win together, you lose together. Both the driver and the team made a misjudgement here.

        1. “he wouldn’t have requested to stop”

          You keep saying that, but that dosn’t make it true. At no point did Lewis request to pit, check the radio messages in the other article. Lewis let the team know the tyre temps would drop under the safety car (as they did), and the TEAM told him to pit in thinking he had time to do so.

        2. I do think you are a bit too hard on Hamilton @bascb, he can’t know the distances – sure he told them he was worried about the tyres, but a) team can say he’s not the only one; b) the team should have been able to see it would be too marginal for little gain, and tell him that; even 4s extra is risky in SC pitstop, with many cars coming in, and really not much risk -> see a).

          So yes, Hamilton can wonder what he can do better, but mostly it seems the team needs to get better at in-race changes of circumstances where they can’t know everything. I think in that respect Coulthard is right: teams should use their eyes and common sense, and not just rely on what the computer says.

          1. Wholly agree with point b there @bosyber, Hamilton was in no position to judge whether he could make a stop (he probably thought it would be fine, afterall if Rosberg and Vettel had stopped that would have made a huge gap). That is the job of the team and they bungled it.
            Yes, the team could have told him, and he might have asked. Neither did, which made the way for an unfortunate decision to stop.

        3. @bascb – That’s a pretty good summary. And since I’m not clear on what is allowed/disallowed on the radio, could HAM have asked about other cars pitting or tires or the gap between himself and others? I’m assuming not(?), because if he could have asked any of that then it all could have been avoided.

          And even if the team can’t answer those questions, it seems like HAM could have asked, “Did 2nd/3rd cars pit? Should I pit?” To which the team could have simply replied, “stay out!” I know they initially told him to stay out but that way it would have been more clear. I know I’m thinking about things after the fact and not in the moment, in a car, with half a lap of Monaco to sort out strategy, but it just seems like this could have been sorted more easily.

          1. I don’t think there is anything against asking how large the gap to a car in front / behind a driver is @hobo.

            Yeah, we all have to remember that this was something they discussed shortly and decided upon within a short amount of time, its exactly when miscommunication and bad calls often get made.

      3. @freelittlebirds With all due respect I think you are way overblowing it. Second guess them now every time? I don’t see it.

        1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
          26th May 2015, 13:35

          @Robbie – wait, you’ll see it. It’s inevitable.

          @bascb he’s perfectly entitled to worry about the tyre temps and voice that concern – seems like Vettel felt the same way. He didn’t tell them I’m boxing even if you say no. It was their job to tell him you’ll lose position if you pit now or we are not sure if you can keep position if you pit. Their response should have been “Nico and Vettel are not pitting. You might lose position if you pit”.

          1. Well, sure was he entitled to share his worries, it makes perfect sense to do that. And yes, the team made a mistake in misjudging the gap. But since they thought there WAS enough time, Hamilton’s engineer checked and reacted to his driver’s tyre worries by changing plans and telling him to come in.

            I just do not see how anyone can say that Hamilton had nothing to do with it. Not that somehow he is to blame instead of the team. How could they have known that he thought that Rosberg had pitted when they never planned to pit Rosberg nor did Hamilton mention that he thought his teammate had pitted?

          2. It was already mentioned that Mercedes themselves might have not been aware that he would lose position to the other two if he pitted because of the VSC/SC change.

            Vettel voiced concerns about tire temps because he was driving a Ferrari that has trouble heating up the tires. I don’t remember Mercedes ever having issues putting heat on their tires. It was the reverse a few seasons ago and a secret test resolved that as well :)

            Hamilton tried to be smart but ended up being too smart for his own good.

  4. I agree that Hamilton shouldn’t be gifted a win but do Mercedes have to re-evaluate their pit-stop priorities. Three times this season Hamilton has been leading but Rosberg has pitted first (China, Bahrain and Monaco). This has generally been the case due to Rosberg covering Vettel, but this came perilously close to a disaster in Bahrain when Hamilton was nearly jumped by both of them. Is it fair for Hamilton to risk his lead because Rosberg is incapable of creating a safe gap to Vettel and is getting pit-stop priority.

    I understand Hamilton losing the win in Monaco has nothing to do with what I described but I have a feeling that if Mercedes continue pitting Rosberg first when Hamilton is leading just to cover Vettel, then maybe we may see in the future see another episode of Hamilton losing the lead in pit-stops due to Rosberg having to cover Vettel.

    1. Then again, Hamilton was pitted first twice in Spain to cover off Vettel. The team’s not going to jeopardize a 1-2 finish so their lead driver doesn’t have an emotional crisis.

      Don’t forget in Spain, Rosberg was behind Hamilton and was told not to worry.

      With the Monaco thing, look at Hamilton’s mentality – he say on the big screens Merc in the pit lane and assumed that Rosberg was put on to new SS. So when the team told him to stay out initially, he didn’t trust them. Why? So he gave feedback that would make the team decide to bring him in.

      It didn’t work out, but he has to take ownership of that.

      If there’s one big problem with the Merc team is that both Rosberg and Hamilton need to grow up. The team has been incredibly fair to both of them (beyond the random technical issues) and there’s no reason to suspect they won’t continue to be.

      1. He was pitted twice before Nico in Spain, not to cover off Seb, but to try and get ahead. He was quicker than Seb, but due to the nature of the track, particularly the last sequence of corners, it was impossible to pass and we saw that even Kimi was having the same problem with the Williams. I know people said other cars could overtake, but I’d suggest they look at the race again. The car that was getting overtaken, was the STR, which was horrendously slow on the straights.

        The moment the first stop was messed up and he came back out behind Seb, Nico effectively won the race, so went for maximum team points.

      2. altitude2k
        26th May 2015, 5:48

        Your order of events seems inconsistent with what I’ve read. Hamilton suggested he might be vulnerable, believing both Rosberg and Vettel to have pitted. The team told him to stay out, then, under their own volition, told him to come in.

        He suggested it, but it was up to the team to make the right call. He is blameless.

        1. No, what @uan writes is correct. Hamilton saw the screen and asked to come in. He never mentioned to the team about thinking Rosberg had pitted, that was just in his own mind. When he requested to pit, he emphasized that his tyres would be pretty bad with a restart (because he thought the cars behind would be on newer tyres) and that convinced Mercedes to check if they could make a stop without losing position (which they misjudged) and then they called him in, as he had asked for it.

          1. llewis has already said he thought nico and vettel were pitting.the bottom line is,even if lewis demanded to be pitted,he should have been told if he pits he wont win.but they had the timings all wrong.they thought lewis had 3.5 seconds more than he had,so they were not able to give him the correct the strategist failed in his job.strategists are paid to make sure the right calls are made.

          2. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
            26th May 2015, 13:38

            well, there is no GPS apparently at Monaco – I agree, the strategist should have made accounted for margin of error and not taken the chance especially if Nico and Seb were on old tyres. Even with new tyres, it was probably not worth taking the risk.

      3. @uan your comment says it all. Lewis made a call based on wrong information. The team has more info than him and should have told him that Nico did not and was not going to stop; with this additional information Lewis would certainly skip that stop.

    2. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      26th May 2015, 2:23

      I dunno – the ramifications are massive. It changes your dynamic – you simply can’t trust them after that and all the other calls they’ve been making. Instead of thinking “what is my team going to do” you start thinking “what are the effers going to do this time”. Just like Vettel felt last year…

      1. “what are the effers going to do this time” LOL

        1. Btw, how many races last year Vettel lost out to Ricciardo because of strategy, does anyone know the numbers? I remember a couple of races he could have even won and ended up behind somehow or DNF’d with “Webber’s car” syndrome.

  5. That Guardian article is bang on! Beautiful read.

    1. Very good for a newspaper. Maybe the strategy groups role is to announce silly ideas early so even Bernie can see they won’t work.

  6. Felipe, I seem to remember quite a few mistakes in your rookie year. The 2002 Italian GP springs to mind.

    Perhaps you ought not cast the first stone?

    1. Oh come on, Massa the Crasher is the obvious choice to comment on Verstappen’s accident. Who knows better than he about driving into cars and then blaming the other guy?

  7. Loved Arrivabene response to Bernie

    “With all due respect, I don’t have to respond to Bernie for what I do, but rather to Mr Marchionne,” said the Italian, referring to the Ferrari chairman and Fiat Chrysler chief executive, in a comment to Reuters.

    “If Bernie has doubts about my way of doing, he should ask the team.”

    1. I know. Great put down, loved it.

    2. I suppose Ferrari has more muscle than Williams from the late 2000s, but you should know that Bernie forced Frank Williams to let Adam Parr go, because he didn’t like him and threatened to make life very difficult for the team. Now, you’d say Adam Parr responds only to Frank, but Bernie obviously didn’t like how Adam Parr was doing his own job too good, because it meant it was making Bernie work harder for his own too.

  8. lockup (@)
    26th May 2015, 1:25

    Lol it would be crazy for Merc to mess about like that, and they don’t need to. I don’t think it’ll dent Lewis’ trust in the team either, he had plenty of snafus at McLaren. The team love him, he’s going to win overall.

    1. Agreed. They get it right virtually every time. This was just a perfect storm of assumptions, and they likely couldn’t duplicate this again if they tried. LH has no need to doubt the next ‘box, box, box’. And I’m sure if any one individual is actually taking the burden of responsibility for this mishap, he is gutted and has expressed that to LH and the team.

  9. Something I found interesting about Monaco this year was what Lewis had said after qualifying.
    “I think I had a slightly different approach this weekend. Not that I haven’t been quick here before, but there were always two or three places that I wasn’t getting right. I went into this weekend with the sole objective to fix those weaknesses and used all the practice sessions to do so.”
    “I was just going through my lap now, and I was quickest in all those areas where I was weaker, which is a real positive.”

    While there are many reasons for Hamilton not taking more than his solitary 2008 win at Monaco, ultimately it comes down to him not being fast enough in qualifying here. Even in 2008 he had qualified third. Last year he may well have ended up beating Rosberg to pole without the yellow flags, but regardless of what happened, the reason why he was in the position to lose out to yellow flags was because he was marginally slower on their first runs.

    Monaco is often mooted as a track where a driver can make the difference and where natural talent can shine through. But I think one of the most critical factors at Monaco is hard work and attention to detail, given the levels of precision required. Look at the drivers who have been most successful at Monaco: Graham Hill, Jackie Stewart, Prost, Senna, Schumacher. Rosberg has been successful there recently. While they are all obviously very naturally talented (especially drivers like Senna and Schumacher), they were all drivers with a strong work ethic and attention to detail. I remember Damon Hill talking about how Graham worked harder than pretty much all the other drivers. Talent still makes a big difference here of course, but in order for it to shine through it seems like you need to have to really work hard at the details.

    Lewis spoke of how he had spent a very long time re-watching his onboard footage from his past years, learning where he had weaknesses here, and how to improve. And all of a sudden he is extremely fast at Monaco. Talent is important here, no doubt, but I think at Monaco it is very important to work very hard at the details. If there’s one victory Lewis can take from this weekend, it’s that his hard work behind the scenes seems to have paid off, and he has found the blistering pace around the principality that he seems to have been missing over the past couple of years.

    1. @polo Very astute observations. Should be COTD. When the smallest nuance can make a difference, attention to detail and the willingness to work untiringly on the smallest of those details is key. Talent gives you the capacity to do actually apply the nuance to maneuvers that others may not be able to consistently master.

      1. No it shouldn’t be. Just because he said that, the writer is implying that he has been relying only on his talent alone. Now that’s not true.

        Lewis has spoken many times about his little ‘black book’ that he writes everything about a race weekend, tires, suspension, track conditions etc…. This is something he said he has been doing since his time in the junior formulas.

        Lewis works just as hard as anyone on the grid, however the media gives the impression that he doesn’t and consistently applying that notion to his team-mate. He has also said in the pass, that whilst his team mates may take 3 hrs to debrief, it takes him less, but they still cover the same things. That doesn’t means he works less.

        Let’s remember, most pundits said that this category of racing would favour Nico. But if you assess it properly, you’ll find that he’s better at race management, tire and fuel usage and has been generally quicker in the races.

        Failing to win in Monaco wasn’t solely down to lack of preparation, it was also down to not having the right equipment and sometimes genuine bad luck. All you have to do is look at Sunday. He was close to almost a second a lap faster than Nico and he said he wasn’t even pushing too hard. He was setting faster times in the opening stages of the race despite managing a brake issue.

        So far this season Lewis is easily out pacing Nico.

    2. Very true

    3. +1
      See, all this jet setting gives him plenty of time for reviewing videos on long flights!

  10. Neil (@neilosjames)
    26th May 2015, 1:29

    Ferrari, May 2014: Bitter, broken team that was giving Red Bull a run for their money in the whinging stakes.

    Ferrari, May 2015: Positive and more ‘happy-seeming’ team keeping Mercedes honest on the track.

    Given how highly Bernie prizes Ferrari, and given how they have no doubt gone up in the estimations of many neutral fans since they stopped moaning about everything and produced a decent package, I’d have thought Mr. E would appreciate the contribution Arrivabene – though not solely responsible – has made to the sport in general.

  11. 1 accident at Monaco and he’s dangerous? and this coming from a guy that crashed twice in the same way, locking hard both front tyres, at that very corner in 2013 (and the team itself that it wasn’t the car)? a guy that shut the door at the front of the grid on the first corner at Hockenheim last year and ended up upside down?

    Come on, Felipe…

    1. Don’t forget about ramming Perez last year in Canada!

      1. Exactly!! More to the point, Max wasn’t overtaking so much as he tried to evade an early breaking Grosjean. It was obvious that Romain had braked earlier compared to previous laps (and it was his prerogative), and Max couldn’t react. It’s obviously rookie mistake and he was rightly, in my opinion, penelised. But he wasn’t trying anything crazy to say he was being stupid or dangerous (more than chasing a car in fast speed in Monaco should be).

        1. @ifelix You have expressed the point I was going to make too. I can’t say I have read all the quotes from Max and Romain but I did read here that Max said he was not attempting an overtake at that point, which to me really changed the scenario. So FM is saying Max was not in a position to overtake, and obviously doesn’t know that Max indeed was not trying to.

          1. Yes indeed @robbie and such type of accidents (rear-ending the car in front who has braked unexpected earlier). It caught even an experienced Schumacher with JEV (Singapore?) in his 3rd year of return. So it’s a bit unfair to round on a 17 year old that otherwise despite being aggressive has a much better spatial awareness compared to say Romain himself or even Felipe in his first year with Sauber.

        2. Grosjean OBVIOUSLY didn’t brake early, he actually braked late.

      2. @f1freek

        You Sir, speak the truth.

        Massa was in an identical position as Max during the Canadian GP last year. He was attacking a slower driver and was about to dive down on the inside to make the move stick. There was a train of cars just ahead all following each other very closely in damp conditions. Perez had to take slight evasive action to avoid hitting the car in front, and Massa, lacking situational awareness ran into the back of Perez.

        It was the same level of ‘dangerous’ driving that he is accusing Max of now.
        Massa needs a reality check

    2. Those are not Massa’s fault.
      Well according to him anyway…

    3. @fer-no65 As I recall after Massa’s second crash, in the race, the team did conceded the car had contributed, but didn’t explain how.

  12. So funny to see Massa commenting about rookies crashing and being dangerous. In his Rookie year with Sauber, he was literally the Crash Kid crashing into anything and everything. Ferrari waited for him to tone down until they got him into the team. As late as 2011 he was ploughing his car into Lewis Hamilton almost every other race. So for Massa People living in glass houses should avoid throwing stones.

    Regarding COTD, my take on the while incident is that everybody is more interested in finding whose fault it was. the fun in the blame game is immense. My feel is that this is a team game and it is a team decision. Instead of finding whose fault it is , the right strategy is to see what went wrong and correct the mistake so that it does not occur again. As Lewis said “You win together and lose together” !!!!

  13. I’ve come to the conclusion that Kimi’s just not that good when it comes to one-lap performance. His style of driving makes tyre warming difficult, but it’s just getting progressively worse now. He’s still a fantastic racer, but I think his time has run down. He would make for a brilliant addition to some other series (I can see him rejoining WRC) though.

    I’m not at all surprised by Massa’s comments. He seems to have inherited his Ferrari predecessor’s penchant for shoting off his mouth too regularly without a thought. Yes, Verstappen may have been too eager (though Grosjean was weaving suspiciously as well), but if it doesn’t concern Massa, I don’t see why he should say anything. He seems to have forgotten his crash-prone days as well. Spinning nine times in the wets at Silverstone 2008? At the time, if someone had said Massa is a liability in the wet and does not deserve to start in rain-hit races, I would have partially agreed. And not even to mention his two crashes at Monaco in 2013.

    And I’m not a fan of how Mercedes are handling this situation. Hamilton is a part of the team, not an identity without. I don’t understand why it’s made to look as ‘Merc vs. Ham’ or ‘Toto vs. Ham’. If anything it should be ‘Ham’s strategist vs. Ham’. I’ve seen some people blame the team CEO for a pitstop call. Seriously?

    1. I think part of that is the english Media (newspapers, Sky as well) who keep making this “Hamilton vs X” either its Rosberg, or the team, or the track, or the stewards.

    2. @wsrgo Because they need a conflict or antagonist for a headline story. Because Mercedes is in their own tier, so they need to make it seems like internal struggle. The hero versus the evil boss/company/co-worker etc. Funny thing is Hamilton already summed his thought perfectly on the podium interview “We win and lose together as a team” and no media quotes that.

    3. “Grosjean was weaving suspiciously” NO HE WASN’T! You people all need to go see a doctor or something for your eyes. Where the hell did you all hear about this, and spreading untruths now…. He didn’t steer suspiciously and didn’t brake suspiciously, or early as many of you claim!
      I believe Raikkonen’s performance is hugely depended on his tyres. Starting from 2007, you can see how his performance changes depending on the tyres. Moreover Ferrari have a SERIOUS tyre warming issue as Vettel also mentioned. It compounds his woes.

      1. Well if all of us have a problem with our eyes, perhaps it’s not all of us who need to see a doctor…

  14. Such a strong team like Merc and they sound so fragile now because of the Monaco gaffe. I guess this drama will be the highlight for the season since F1 is boring now. Well Lewis was not smart enough to stay out which the team advised him to so the fault should be Lewis’s now after all the reports.

    After six races Max can be a world champion given the W06 with the huge advantage the car has.

  15. Why would gifting Lewis a win would even be said?
    That’s the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard.

    1. @johns23 Ask the journalist who bl**dy asked :)

  16. I think a lot has been said about Max. Felipe shouldn’t forget his early days and even last year. Max surely is character but a character that Formula 1 needs. A great talent at 17, he has made some great moves and some not so good ones. Apart from Monaco, in China he made a late lunge on Marcus at the hairpin and if Marcus hadn’t reacted, it’d been a crash. So you see sometimes Max makes a move where if the rival doesn’t react, it could lead in a crash but that’s racing. Sometimes you win it and sometimes bin it.

    It’s not about a 17 year old mistake. Even Grosjean-leads-rosberg-impresses-alonso-crashes, Maldonado, Peter etc get it wrong and they’re not even in their teens. That’s called RACING!

    1. It’s not about a 17 year old mistake. Even Grosjean, Maldonado, Perez makes mistakes and they’re not even in their teens. That’s called RACING! ^

      I hate these auto correct features

      1. @neelv27 …Turn it off?

        1. @davidnotcoulthard sometimes they act weird but otherwise they’re good just like Max!

  17. Good job on that contract Lewis!

    Want to retract that statement yet Massa?
    Seriously though, yes he is inexperienced so is every young driver who gets their chance very early, Kimi was, JB was, they all raced about the same amount as Verstappen in juniors, he is as experienced as they were but because he’s 17 people are using that as a ploy to say he’s too young when in actual fact age is just a number experience is what counts and in all honesty he is as experienced as they were if not even more experienced

    1. @bezza695 Good memory! Let’s go to the action replay…

      1. @keithcollantine when you look at it from that, its no where near as bad as what I thought but I’m sure he crashed out at some point into T1 didn’t he?

        1. Wasn’t as bad as you thought? It actually looks way more ridiculous than Max’s error. Almost like it took him ages to realise that he was pushing Bernoldi’s car.

  19. ColdFly F1 (@)
    26th May 2015, 9:31

    The most interesting part of the article about Mercedes’ strategy is:

    over 100 people, gathers at the team HQ in Brackley on Tuesday to pore over the actions that cost Hamilton a crucial victory.

    It might actually not have been 100, but Mercedes’ problem is that they seem to have too many people in charge (started when they had Brawn/Wolff/Lowe in a funny threesome leadership structure).

    Lauda mentioned it at the Monaco Grand Prix: “too many cooks spoil the broth!”.

    1. The fact that Lauda says it makes it all the more funny!

  20. You make the point about the Jordan having over 45 sponsors on the car, but that isn’t the important aspect. If all those sponsors combined don’t pay as much as two or three modern sponsors would, why would you go for 45? It is just more people to negotiate and please. Maybe the Jordan sponsors did pay as much as modern sponsors, in which case it would be an embarrassing statistic, but people should be comparing more the money that each sponsor contributes, not just the number of sponsors.

  21. About the tweet considering Jordan´s 45 sponsors 20 years ago: There´s a real lot of more examples from the past. Even Andrea Moda was always full of sponsors, Zakspeed, Onyx, Rial had all their spaces on the car covered, Simtek had a title-sponsor, Minardi never lacked sponsors, and so on.

    I really feel certain that the whole problem of little teams surviving nowadays stems from the income-side mostly, rather than from the costs. Yes, the costs made a slight jump from 2013 to 2014, but when comparing today with 20 or 25 years ago, the costs didn´t rise with inflation, meaning they are effectively paying less. Yet we had full grids, in some years even pre-quali back then.

    So why are there so much less sponsors coming in? Is it solely the failed media-strategy? Has F1 lost its image of the extra-ordinary, does it need to share the viewerships attention with too many other things? And, (since they´ve lost considerably more sponsors,) did the way people see backmarkers change, and if so, when and how?

    1. Tobacco and Alcohol sponsorships aren’t around anymore, so that definitely added a huge hit to the income of teams.

  22. Hmmmm, Mercedes won’t give a payback win for Hamilton but I believe natural law will.

  23. Lewis doesnt need any gifts. Only Nico does!

Comments are closed.