‘I wish you could see Rosberg’s data’ – Hamilton

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Nico Rosberg, Mercedes, Monte-Carlo, 2014In the round-up: Lewis Hamilton raises suspicions over Nico Rosberg’s driving at Mirabeau when he went off the track during qualifying at Monaco.

Links

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

Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg relationship hits new low in Monaco (The Guardian)

“I wish you could have seen the data. I saw something late on last night and all I could do was smile.”

Hamilton-Rosberg feud began before Monaco (The Telegraph)

Toto Wolff on Hamilton and Rosberg using powerful engine settings when they are not permitted to: “It’s never going to happen again. I think they are probably exploring how far you can step above the line and what the consequences are. But isn’t that normal?”

Rosberg keen to avoid Prost/Senna end (ESPN)

“He said in the press conference that it’s been turned around, saying that he thinks he has the most passion, or whatever, from his childhood. He didn’t talk so much about me he just was mentioning himself and that’s what he said in the press conference.”

Flavio Briatore backs Azerbaijan Grand Prix in Baku as an ‘F1 kind of place’ (The Independent)

“I have a lot of friends there (in Baku), have had for many, many years, and we hope it happens in 2015.”

Ecclestone rules out French GP return (Autosport)

“They are knocking on the door, but I don’t think we can do that.”

Pirelli F1 tyres too hard – Alonso (BBC)

“When they bring normal tyres with good grip, we finish the tyre in two or three laps. When they bring harder tyres we finish the tyre in eight or nine laps but we go very slow.”

Alonso sure Bianchi has a great career ahead of him (Reuters)

“Hopefully with this result he can have a more competitive car next year and show his talent even more.”

Mercedes W05 – new front-wing endplate (F1)

“Despite their dominance, Mercedes keep developing their car in the hope of keeping their advantage for as long as possible.”

Where has the glamour gone? (James Moy)

“There is another type of Monaco Chav. The ones that sit on their boats, hugely overweight, surrounded by pretty Russian hookers whilst blasting out RnB at full volume. The ‘nouveau riche’ Chav.”

Tweets

Comment of the day

Many were delighted to witness Marussia’s breakthrough points finish last weekend:

The highlight for me was Bianchi and Marussia scoring their first points, it is something I didn’t expect to see this year. Those points are so valuable to them, it is easy to forget how smaller they are than other teams (even Caterham), not only is it a morale booster for the team it also brings them valuable FOM points.

I am a big Marussia fan so seeing them celebrate like they won the race was so special it almost brought a tear to the eye. It was not a points scoring occasion like in the past where a Jordan or perhaps a Minardi would only get in the points because of the high attrition rate that used to happen during races in the past. They did a better job on the weekend than the other teams, Marussia have built a reliable car, obviously got the strategy right on race day, Bianchi did everything he could dragging that car into the points, a brilliant overtake on Kobayashi all culminated in a fantastic weekend for them.
Lucas Wilson (@Full-Throttle-F1)

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Graigchq!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

1994 F1 seasonFerrari, Sauber, Tyrrell, Minardi and Larrousse were the only teams to participate in the first practice session for the Spanish Grand Prix, held 20 years ago today. The remaining nine teams sat it out while they confronted the FIA over its plan to introduce drastic changes to the cars on safety grounds.

Once they did return to the track disaster struck again. Andrea Montermini, who had taken Roland Ratzenberger’s place at Simtek, crashed at the final corner. Fortunately his injuries were not serious.

Image © Daimler/Hoch Zwei

Advert | Go Ad-free

294 comments on ‘I wish you could see Rosberg’s data’ – Hamilton

1 2 3 4
  1. Dave (@raceprouk) said on 27th May 2014, 0:09

    The media’s already inflating tensions between Hamilton and Rosberg. All Hamilton seems to be doing right now is adding fuel to the fire. Whatever people think of Rosberg, at least he’s trying to keep things sane.

    • Fer no.65 (@fer-no65) said on 27th May 2014, 1:13

      @raceprouk Hamilton can only blame it on himself. Honestly, he was playing with matches and a tank of fuel for the last couple of weeks with those comments about Rosberg having an easy childhood or whatever. He was on a roll, and seemed to have the world under control, then something happens and he snaps…

      There’s no way to keep things sane anyway. One of those two is going to win the world championship and all it’s glory. It surely is their last chance to have a championship so “easy”, with no other contender bar your team mate, on equal equipment. Cannot get any better than that, they know it, hence the tension was always going to raise, unless, of course, Hamilton kept winning and Rosberg kept finishing second… then it’d have been easier for the team, but no… Now, it’s equal between the two.

      • Jason (@jason12) said on 27th May 2014, 7:32

        +1
        Lewis looks set to win it on merit.
        Nico also looks set to win it through dirty tactics.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 27th May 2014, 8:41

        The funny thing is, and what Button mentioned too, the only one it seems to affect is Hamilton himself. Nico knows Hamilton well enough to recognize these tantrums for what they are and simply ignores it while looking at the data to find a way to go quicker.

        I just think Hamilton needs to vent a bit like this, not unlike Webber got himself worked up at times playing the “no2 driver” card.

        • dragoll (@dragoll) said on 27th May 2014, 11:15

          @bascb +1 I think in all the politics that Hamilton puts on for the media, whether its driven by him or by others, his venting really does affect him more than anyone he may be trying to target.
          Don’t get me wrong, I think HAM is the better driver and will only have himself to blame if he doesn’t win the championship, but I’m starting to think that HAM can’t handle pressure, if you look back at the season he was teammates with ALO, I can now see why ALO was going spare week after week with all the media. ROS on the other hand, damn calm and damn cool… Forget kimi, I think Rosberg, if he can win the championship this year should be dubbed the ice man.

      • DMC (@dmc) said on 27th May 2014, 20:48

        Hamilton intimates that Rosberg had a priviledged childhood etc
        But it is him who is behaving like a spoilt brat, wether its the way he deals
        with his team mate or his team over the radio. The Guy needs to man up
        and let his driving do the talking.

        • William Jones said on 27th May 2014, 21:13

          Rosberg DID have a privileged childhood, that is objective fact not an intimation. Also you’re making up a quote loosely based on what was really said. He said that they had a different type of hunger due to their different upbringing, which when taken in context both makes sense and is not insulting. He certainly didn’t call Rosberg a spoilt brat, though my misquoting him, you actually have.

          What does “man up” actually mean, should he stop saying what he thinks? Do real men let their PR agencies write everything they say? Do real men adhere to sexist caricatures where they may never show emotions in public? Perhaps real men write snarky comments on the internet. We don’t want or need more PR quotes in F1, we should celebrate that drivers are showing some personality these days, rather than punishing them for it by distorting their words and making assumptions about what they meant.

          • chris said on 28th May 2014, 10:38

            +1
            its amazing how many people want to react when they hear the worst but are not willing to read the truth for themselves.

          • DMC (@dmc) said on 28th May 2014, 17:25

            Dress it up any way you like, the Fact is hamilton behaved like a sore loser and a child who didn’t get his own way. I did not make up a quote I said intimates as that is the way I saw it and a lot of other people judging by the comments. I am neither a Hamilton or rosberg fan but rosberg is rapidly gaining my respect and Hamilton losing it.

          • Sleepy Will said on 29th May 2014, 15:48

            Why did you capitalise the word fact right before giving a subjective opinion and drawing on false similes? It’s almost like you don’t want anyone to take you seriously.

            You also don’t seem to understand that colourful interpretation of a quote is exactly making it up. Nothing in Lewis’ words imply that Rosberg is spoilt, but that you did interpret it that way proves that you believe in your heart that Rosberg is a spoilt brat. Shame on you sir.

            Anyway, you didn’t answer my question, why are you using tired old sexist stereotypes such as “man up”? We are in the 21st century, we’ve all moved on from the idea that men are strong and women are weak.

    • Atticus (@atticus-2) said on 27th May 2014, 1:26

      I completely agree. I even think this should be the next COTD. Getting some exposure and putting things right in this mess in other people’s mind.

    • Stewart said on 27th May 2014, 11:39

      This is a quote from Sunday ie “saw data last night” I am not sure how he can be blamed for dragging it on if the media are the ones printing it on Tuesday. The most important/fascinating thing will be how they deal with it at next race, if Ham is still sulking then it will be fair enough to have a go at him, but you can bet the media will spend the first two days talking about it first……

    • Victor. (@victor) said on 27th May 2014, 12:17

      Excuse me, but as much as I like Hamilton sometimes, he seems stupidly childish. After the stewards and the team have settled that Rosberg has not cheated, Hamilton coming out after the race weekend, during which has has consistently been outperformed by his teammate, claiming that fundamentally the reason for that lay with Rosberg’s foul play, is pathetic. Despite Rosberg having been cleared by pretty much everybody (including the pundits), it looks like a sign of a bad looser. Alternatively, I guess, he could always tweet the telemetry; he’s done it before, why not again Lewis?

      In fact, I would not be surprised if this turns out to be a 2011. I just looked it up and Hamilton was indeed on top form until Monaco, that is before the ‘Ali G’ incident. For Hamilton there always seems to be an ‘Other’, something separate from himself, that justifies his loosing. Whether that’s racist stewards, a worse set-up (which he has an urging need to tweet to the world) or, now, a cheating teammate. If he’s not in that sort of mindset he’s simply slow or clumsy, like through half of 2011 where he was apologising for stuff that in my opinion were not even his fault.

      But even if we give him the benefit of the doubt, and he has indeed found something indicative of Rosberg’s cheating, then surely he knows that he cannot come forward with it. Thus, chances are he’s making it up or a it’s simply a case ‘I’ve got something, but I can’t show it.’ It just seems to me like Hamilton is enjoying the Senna/Prost rivalry comparison – as long as he’s Senna, of course. He seems to revel in it, it bloats his ego. When you look at Rosberg he doesn’t care (but hey, maybe he is simply too posh for that). He accepts that they’re not closest of friends, but doesn’t go to the TV cameras with it like it’s some reality TV show. The whole saga to me is just Hamilton being immature again and relishing the ‘rivalry’ which he is to a large extent fabricating himself.

      • Stewart said on 27th May 2014, 13:32

        “Consistently outperformed” Lewis was faster in FP1, FP2, FP3 and Q2, leaving a run on primes and a run on scrubbed options in Q3 as the only times Nico outperformed Lewis, there is not enough evidence to say Lewis was faster in the race but neither did Nico romp away.

        Bottom line is whether Nico did it deliberately or made a mistake he was not punished or disadvantaged in fact he was rewarded by guaranteeing pole position and effectively the race win, I don’t think that is right or fair, it might just be life, it might just be tough luck, it might just be F1 but it wasn’t right or fair so given what is at stake I can understand Lewis being frustrated about that for the outrageously long period of 24 hours especially as he was asked about it consistently. I have yet to see a quote from him “after the race weekend”.

        Let’s wait and see what happens from here before condemning anyone.

      • DaveD (@daved) said on 27th May 2014, 19:28

        “After the stewards and the team have settled that Rosberg has not cheated”

        I disagree with your interpretation there. There is a difference between not being able to prove he cheated and saying he didn’t. The stewards have not been very forthcoming on this and I’ve heard it was a split decision but I’m trying to find a good source to confirm that.

        And certainly the team is not going to say he cheated because they stand to lose. They’re happy as long as they can lock out the front row in Monaco as it nearly guarantees a win and lots of points so even if they thought it was bad, they’d only talk to Nico privately.

      • DMC (@dmc) said on 27th May 2014, 20:52

        Spot on!

    • Velocityboy (@velocityboy) said on 27th May 2014, 19:51

      The real test may come when one has an advantage and the other wants to review their telemetry to figure out why. Lewis has been very quick in Montreal so if he’s significantly faster after P1, it might get very interesting. At least we have something to follow between races. World Wrestling anyone?

  2. Michael C said on 27th May 2014, 0:14

    I’d like to see Rosbergs logs too. This Rivalry is great for F1. Hamilton keep adding fuel!

    • D (@f190) said on 27th May 2014, 0:22

      I’d love to see it. Hamilton clearly feels hes seen something there, but what could the Fia miss ? Mercedes would obviously backing Nico in the investigation, but I cant see how they could hide anything from the Fia ? Could there be something more Mercedes specific that the team could know about but the Fia dont? I really doubt that. Genuine question tho.

      • gDog said on 27th May 2014, 0:35

        I’m sure the telemetry shows something very suspicious, the onboard footage certainly does. But suspicious is not enough to penalise someone. To penalise they would need more than that,they would need proof.

        I’m sure the stewards saw the same as Lewis but to prove it was intentional would be extremely hard.

        • Jason (@jason12) said on 27th May 2014, 7:36

          It was always gonna be difficult to prove beyond doubt that Nico was indeed guilty.
          I cannot blame the FIA for their ruling.

        • Mark in Florida said on 27th May 2014, 21:14

          If you noticed it during the race Nico was locking up his front wheels in the exactly the same spot where he lost it in qualifying. I don’t think that he was trying to do anything wrong. If Lewis had set a fast time the previous lap no one would have cared everyone would have said that he over cooked it coming into the turn too bad for him. It amazes me that Lewis needs a good enemy to justify whatever problem he has at the time. Nico seems to have one thing that Lewis can’t buy, Class.

      • David BR2 said on 27th May 2014, 2:26

        but what could the Fia miss ?

        Nelson Piquet deliberately crashing at Singapore 2008? After practicing his spin in the same spot earlier? When it clearly favoured just ONE driver who happened to be his team amate? And that didn’t set any suspicions off? Unless they hire Benedict Cumberbatch to do more than just interviews for them, I wouldn’t take their findings as exactly watertight.

        • Matthias (@mattds) said on 27th May 2014, 10:34

          The FIA didn’t “miss” anything back then. They just had no proof. You can’t simply punish people on the basis of “suspecting” something. And the principle is and remains “not guilty until proven otherwise”. The proof was Piquet coming out and stating it was done intentionally.

          In this case here, apparently there’s no proof Rosberg did it on purpose, otherwise he would have been punished. No doubt in my mind, if the FIA could give another team a shot at second place or victory (Ricciardo starting well taking the lead, for example) they would take the opportunity. But they didn’t. So no proof, just like Crashgate. And it will take Rosberg owning up to any deliberate wrongdoing to punish him or to have proof. Just like Crashgate.

          • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 27th May 2014, 11:32

            @mattds I’m not entirely sure what your argument is, but comparisons to crashgate in the nature you have just made seems to imply you feel Rosberg has wrong done.

          • matt90 (@matt90) said on 27th May 2014, 11:35

            No proof? Had they even looked at the telemetry?

          • Matthias (@mattds) said on 27th May 2014, 15:28

            @vettel1: David BR2 made the point that the FIA might easily “miss something”, just like they did for Crashgate.

            My argument is that the FIA didn’t miss something back then, rather that they can’t convict someone without solid evidence.

            Past weekend the FIA didn’t punish Rosberg which means the telemetry didn’t prove deliberate wrongdoing. If it was deliberate, we’ll only really know if and when Rosberg owns up to.

            At no point I implied Rosberg did do wrong. I am not judging or debating that.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 27th May 2014, 8:44

        To be honest, Hamilton also thought he saw something strange in the overlaps of him and Button he posted on Twitter, I wouldn’t put too much value in it.
        Its well possible that Hamilton just saw what he wanted to see (confirmation of his thoughts on the matter) as humans tend to do, especially when under stress.

        • iFelix (@ifelix) said on 27th May 2014, 10:16

          spot on!

          • Ryan (@ryanisjones) said on 27th May 2014, 16:12

            @ifelix @bascb

            Hamilton DID see something in the data posted on Button. If I remember correctly he was saying that he was loosing more time on the straights than he was gaining on the corners, and thus he was a couple of tenths down with that set up. His engineers could obviously see this, yet were advising him it was the best set-up which clearly it wasn’t – the reason for his outburst.

            So if Hamilton’s previous data analysis is anything to go on, then he is probably right about this too.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 27th May 2014, 23:02

            ehm, @ryanisjones the point was, that while Hamilton did see that in the data, he was in fact wrong in his understanding of the data.

          • Ryan (@ryanisjones) said on 28th May 2014, 10:07

            @bascb
            As far as I remember his interpretation of the data was spot on. Do you have a source that confirms why he was wrong. Or can you explain why he was wrong? I’m genuinely intrigued.

        • Maybe it shows he broke later/harder than at any other time that they’ve been teammates, so Hamilton already knows his driving characteristics. The stewards cannot punish him because it just looks like he was pushing too hard.

        • kpcart said on 27th May 2014, 16:32

          when fools want to see what they want to see – ie conspiracy theorists… not every human is paranoid.

    • trublu (@trublu) said on 27th May 2014, 1:36

      I still not sure who to believe but it does seem suspect how quickly it was determined. With Schumacher it took over eight overs to analyze his data.

    • JCost (@jcost) said on 27th May 2014, 8:03

      At first I thought Nico made a genuine mistake but if take a second look at it… seems to me he did not miss his braking point by mistake. There was so much room to turn in and the line he chose was so off his pole lap…

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 27th May 2014, 8:45

        I think he made a mistake pushing it. Not the first time anyone made a mistake at that point in Monaco, nor the first time Rosberg lets the pressure get to him and mess up his best lap.

        Now whether he helped those yellows stay put a bit to make sure Hamilton was impeded, I wouldn’t completely dismiss. What driver wouldn’t.

        • It’s not that no one has made a mistake in that part of the circuit before, its the manner of the mistake, its bizare. People, including Hamilton, have made errors there before. Look at Erikksons and Hamiltons own mistake into that corner while actually trying to make the corner while pushing too hard….rear lost and into the barrier heading right.

        • Michael Brown said on 27th May 2014, 17:33

          It was a win-win for Rosberg. If he pushed harder, his time would be faster. If he pushed too hard, he’d go off or crash and yellow flag the session.

      • Hamilfan (@hamilfan) said on 27th May 2014, 8:50

        @jcost Okay , let us assume he locks up or the car bottoms out a bit . The only thing I find suspicious is how early he decides not to try to make the corner and not even take the line. Very suspicious indeed .

    • John H (@john-h) said on 27th May 2014, 8:08

      Hamilton said this on Sunday, not yesterday. This isn’t new fuel at all. Here is the quote:

      “We’ve sat down and cleared whatever air was needed to be cleared. We’ve been through the data and seen what needed to be seen. I wish you guys could see it. Otherwise, we’re good.”

      Sure, Hamilton has acted like a child, but for me in this case he’s just answering honestly. Rosberg’s post quali interview (and the wacky races steering input) was the givaway for me, but then again I am wearing my Hamilton bias glasses so I guess I’m incapable of objectivity.

      Anyway, just to say, pleased to be talking about this and not engine noise!

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 27th May 2014, 8:42

      If it shows something as suspicious as when Hamilton posted Button’s and his Telemetry overlaps …

    • Eddie (@wackyracer) said on 27th May 2014, 8:46

      I think what happened is, HAM used more power in Spain, ROS lost, HAM apologized, ROS didn’t need an apology he needed a win then ROS causes yellow flag to keep HAM from taking pole and winning, now they are kinda equal, both of them cheated.

      • leotef (@leotef) said on 27th May 2014, 9:12

        No you are wrong here. The score for sort of cheating is 2 to 1 then ’cause Nico used more power in Bahrain first. At Spain, they got squared.
        But it’s not so sure thing of cheating using the engine maps which is said not to use by the team, not the FIA.

        • iFelix (@ifelix) said on 27th May 2014, 10:20

          Nobody other than Lewis backed the occasion in Bahrain and Lewis is a proven liar (Australia 2009) and rash in accusations (Jensen’s telemetry).

          • matt90 (@matt90) said on 27th May 2014, 11:39

            and Lewis is a proven liar

            I think it’s fair to say that his team pushed him along in that, and also that one event from 5 years ago doesn’t mean you should dismiss something from the present.

          • ShoponF (@shoponf) said on 27th May 2014, 12:16

            ‘…and Lewis is a proven liar (Australia 2009)…’

            This is an extract from the stewards hearing at the time
            “During the hearing, held approximately one hour after the end of the race, the Stewards and the Race Director questioned Lewis Hamilton and his Team Manager David Ryan specifically about whether there had been an instruction given to Hamilton to allow Trulli to overtake. Both the driver and the Team Manager stated that no such instruction had been given.”
            What would you have done as 22/23 year old kid sitting next to your Team Manager, would you have contradicted your Team Manager? Without taking the circumstances into consideration calling somebody a liar like that is unjust…

          • LotsOfControl (@for-unlawful-carnal-knowledge) said on 27th May 2014, 12:51

            @ifelix
            Agreed. Guess that’s the page he’s taken a from Senna’s book.
            Some role model.

          • iFelix (@ifelix) said on 27th May 2014, 13:34

            @shoponf: if he had done that in a court he would have gone to prison for perjury. And this was no kid at that point: he claimed that he has (in his own words) “blown away” double champion Alonso and was already a World champion. This was no Piquet about to be fired and ready to do anything to get more of a chance.

            They went to the stewards knowing what they want to say and he could have told him that I am not going to lie. I personally that the 2008 got into his head, because the 2007 Lewis was decent enough not to play dirty politics when McLaren wanted to get the championship with disqualifying the two BMWs saying that he wants to win it fair and square which he did next year! What happened to that nice boy…

        • Deb Luhi (@debeluhi) said on 27th May 2014, 12:31

          But then in Bahrain Hamilton pushed Rosberg off the track in a aggressive overtaking move in which was obvious that Rosberg was the one that backed off to avoid collision.
          It’d hard to say who’s playing dirtier here.

          • ShoponF (@shoponf) said on 27th May 2014, 14:08

            @ifelix: ‘They went to the stewards knowing what they want to say …’
            I am glad you are saying ‘They’ instead of just LH. You must recall LH paid the price by loosing is 3rd position (now also being called a liar) by abiding his Team Manager’s instruction, with no fault of his own…

          • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 27th May 2014, 18:32

            @debeluhi

            in Bahrain Hamilton pushed Rosberg off the track in a aggressive overtaking move

            It was perfectly legal and there was nothing wrong with it. I don’t understand why some people keep bringing it up.

          • Deb Luhi (@debeluhi) said on 28th May 2014, 5:27

            @keithcollantine
            I didn’t write the comment to question the legality of that move. Hamilton’s pass was legal and that’s why he wasn’t punished for it, and the same goes for Rosberg’s mistake.
            However, Rosberg wasn’t too happy with that pass and Hamilton obviously has different opinion about the Rosberg’s mistake.
            I didn’t explicitly say it in the post but my point was that the last couple of comments, (to which I replied and some more in a different articles) turned into the ‘chicken or the egg’ question. However, unlike with the real ‘chicken or the egg’ question it seems a lot of people here know the answer of who started it first with Hamilton and Rosberg question.

        • First Hamilton used more power in Spain, now Rosberg uses more power in Bahrain?

          • leotef (@leotef) said on 28th May 2014, 1:39

            Reverse the order. Score-wise, same, but sometimes there’s causation thing when finger pointing sets in the game.

      • vin1658 said on 27th May 2014, 9:16

        You must know it was Ros who started it in Bahrin then Ham in Catalunya.

    • elf341 said on 27th May 2014, 11:58

      I think Hamilton sees what he wants to see. Remember that ridiculous tweet that Hamilton posted of his and button’s telemetry, pointing out that button gained on the straight and clearly glossing over how he was faster in the corners – it was as if he didn’t understand the impact of having more downforce /and/ more drag.

      • Ryan (@ryanisjones) said on 27th May 2014, 16:25

        That is exactly what he was trying to show! There was like a 0.7 gain with the car set up to be quick on the straights, and a 0.4 gain with the car set up to be quick in the corners (both numbers made up for example). His highly intelligent engineers were advising him to set up the car for the corners, instead of the straights, putting him at a 0.3 deficit to Button’s set-up. It was the reason he could not keep up with Button in the race, and the reason for his anger, as he thought he should have set up the other way, but was advised against it by the team.

        Technically, they handed that race to Button. The telemetry also shows that he braked later than Button in almost every corner, meaning had the car been set up the other way he would have most likely been quicker. People took issue with the fact he posted confidential data, but his argument was completely correct.

  3. OmarR-Pepper (@omarr-pepper) said on 27th May 2014, 0:24

    So Hamilton saw something that the stewards didn’t? To me, the only possible reason is that the debris in his eye has given him the superpower to see beyond reality.

    • trublu (@trublu) said on 27th May 2014, 1:47

      It’s quite possible the stewards saw something but chose not to do anything. If I was a steward I might done the same in that position. Going into the race, anyone would have thought not having the two Mercedes up front would make a boring race.

      • Matthias (@mattds) said on 27th May 2014, 10:39

        anyone would have thought not having the two Mercedes up front would make a boring race.

        Then again, a well-starting RBR taking the lead would be a possibility and a great prospect for the F1 to break the everlasting dominance of Mercedes.
        Especially when it’s Monaco and when in the lead you can keep it even with a car that’s a bit slower. Next tracks we’re going to have Mercedes dominance again.

        So I’m doubting the FIA’s motives would lead them to benefit Rosberg – rather the opposite.

    • Tom (@newdecade) said on 27th May 2014, 5:02

      The stewards didn’t see Piquet Jr crashing deliberately in Singapore. That wasn’t even investigated at the time. I have to ask, exactly what level of confidence you place steward’s decisions at. There was also a report that the decision on Rosberg was also split – however I have yet to find evidence for that. I have nothing more than anyone else who watched quali on TV, but the absence of proof does not stop anything being deeply suspicious.

      • Andrei (@crandreico) said on 27th May 2014, 7:27

        @newdecade why they should’ve investigated Piquet Jr. crash ? To me, and I’m sure to the vast majority of spectators out there, at the moment it was a loss of control in a corner by a mediocre, at best, driver on an absolutely new track. Sure like hell everybody was like, “Holy cow, that SC helped Alonso” but also sure, nobody thinked that it was intentional at the time.

    • JackJ said on 27th May 2014, 5:58

      It’s pointless now anyway. The stewards have already ruled no action so the only thing that Hamilton’s comment does now is add to the speculation and fueling the fire. Unnecessary really.

    • AdrianMorse (@adrianmorse) said on 27th May 2014, 6:02

      @omarr-pepper, Hamilton studies telemetry all the time, knows how the car should be driven, and probably even knows how Rosberg drives the car. If there’s an anomaly in Rosberg’s data, Hamilton is much better placed to detect it than the stewards. Sure, if Rosberg had braked 15 meters later and went straight on in a clould of tyre smoke, it would have been easy to determine it was intentional. As it was, the Rosberg incident may not have been conclusive enough for the stewards to rule a verdict of guilty. Doesn’t mean he could not have kept it on the track even if his initial approach to the corner was a mistake.

      • Tyler (@tdog) said on 27th May 2014, 7:08

        If there’s an anomaly in Rosberg’s data, Hamilton is much better placed to detect it than the stewards.

        @adrianmorse, the stewards analyse telemetry data at every grand prix in reviewing incidents for potential transgressions. That and the video are their primary investigation tools. They have plenty of experience at using the telemetry data to determine whether driver inputs were a bona fide mistake or something else.

        The stewards also have the advantage of being objective.

        Hamilton made it clear as he was getting out of the car at the end of qualy that he was very unhappy with Rosberg’s incident at Mirabeau. That is, he had decided it was a deliberate act by his teammate

        before

        he had even had an opportunity to look at the data. It is hardly surprising that when he did review his teammate’s telemetry, he saw what he wanted to see (psychologists call it confirmation bias).

        And frankly, given the comments which came out of Hamilton’s mouth over the weekend (eg. “I also knew you guys wouldn’t pit me”) it’s plain that he not only lacks objectivity about the incident, he has entered the land of the paranoid.

        • salcrich said on 27th May 2014, 8:46

          @tdog I think your analysis is absolutely correct. However the comments on this page show that Hamilton has achieved his objective as despite the data based analysis his unsubsubstantiated innuendo has already caused people to question the facts. I don’t think he will be allowed to tweet the telemetry al la Button’s so it will remain innuendo – which is unsavoury.

        • The Blade Runner (@thebladerunner) said on 27th May 2014, 9:15

          I agree with you. I used to be a huge Hamilton fan but his petulant behaviour and paranoid ramblings now completely turn me off.

          • Lewisiabamf (@lewisisabamf) said on 27th May 2014, 9:30

            What petulant behavior ?

          • The Blade Runner (@thebladerunner) said on 27th May 2014, 10:33

            @lewisisabamf

            The dictionary definition of petulant is below. Take your pick!

            pet·u·lant ˈpeCHələnt
            adjective

            (of a person or their manner) childishly, sulky or bad-tempered.
            peevish, bad-tempered, querulous, pettish, fretful, cross, irritable, sulky, snappish, crotchety, touchy, tetchy, testy, fractious, grumpy, disgruntled, crabby, grouchy, cranky

          • DaveD (@daved) said on 27th May 2014, 20:09

            @thebladerunner I may not like the Lewis is acting all the time, but I’m not surprised. At this level, the best guys are egotistical as hell and driven.

            As my father always told me: Show me a good loser…and I’ll show you a loser.

        • Keith Campbell (@keithedin) said on 27th May 2014, 9:20

          @tdog this is probably the best summary of the event i’ve seen, i agree entirely. In any case, Lewis, Nico and Mercedes can’t be trusted to give honest and objective opinions for obvious reasons. All we have to go on is the footage we’ve seen, and the stewards decision.

          • Its obvious that Mercedes would not come out vehemently coz its their team which would get the penalties, I can imagine if it was Vettel in Rosberg’s shoes but driving a red bull car; remember the fuel sensor Issue how the Mercedes guys stormed into the court to demand big penalties; but now every one at Mercedes has to pretend on behalf of Rosberg so Hamilton can never get the fair hearing so he has to do the data queries himself after the race…..to achieve the only objective left as explained by @tog

        • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 27th May 2014, 18:34

          @tdog

          And frankly, given the comments which came out of Hamilton’s mouth over the weekend (eg. “I also knew you guys wouldn’t pit me”) it’s plain that he not only lacks objectivity about the incident, he has entered the land of the paranoid.

          I don’t agree that indicates paranoia – that indicates Hamilton understood that because Rosberg was ahead he would get first call on strategy and Mercedes wouldn’t give Hamilton the advantage of the undercut (unlike as Ferrari did with Alonso in Spain).

    • Edvaldo said on 27th May 2014, 18:24

      The stewards don’t drive the sister car to know its handling, how it behaves on that point of the track or anything like that.

      It’s easier to believe in Hamilton reading that data than them.

  4. SoLiDG (@solidg) said on 27th May 2014, 0:29

    Hamilton might be in the right, we don’t know.
    But he has to learn to keep it inside, and don’t show it this much.
    He tried to keep quiet, but his body language wasn’t good.
    Lauda will help him I am sure, but his reaction is why so many ppl dislike him.

    • trublu (@trublu) said on 27th May 2014, 2:01

      If it’s not his personality to be that way, have things bottled up might be detrimental for him. Personally, I’m tired of the over-the-top political correctness that people seem to like these days. I rather have the directness of Vettel, Hamilton or Kim.

      • While I like drivers that is more direct as you say, I think they must also have the tough skin to be at the receiving end of what they dish out. Hamilton doesn’t seem to have that and his actions when it happens makes me cringe.

      • timi (@timi) said on 27th May 2014, 15:44

        Amen @trublu! The irony is that people/fans dislike the political correctness of drivers. They complain about the usual PR lines that are spouted out week-in week-out. That is, until someone goes against the norm. And then they complain that they went against the norm, and suggest lines like ‘I’ll come back better next weekend’ or something. It’s hilarious really, and sums up just how confused some F1 fans really are

        • Albert said on 27th May 2014, 17:28

          @timi

          I don’t see why those two are mutually exclusive.

          Just because some drivers are overly political correct (which, btw, haven’t heard anyone complaining about in a very long time) it doesn’t somehow change the childish behaviour of others.

          Not being boring doesn’t magically make Hamilton less petulant.

    • Jason (@jason12) said on 27th May 2014, 7:47

      In the contrary I like it that he’s honest with his emotions.
      I dislike people who fake their appearances just for PR.

  5. 370HSSV (@370hssv) said on 27th May 2014, 0:30

    It’s clear that Nico was sawing away at the steering wheel during the breaking phase, he was intentionally trying to upset the balance of the car. Ergo he had a tiny lock-up and took the escape road. He knows Monaco, he knows the ease a yellow flag waves there in particular and most importantly he knew Hamilton was behind. Hamilton has seen the steering telemetry from Nico’s car and I bet its like a polygraph chart from Jeremy Kyle.
    Nico did the dirty, of that I’m sure. Hamilton needs to stop being so touchy and just beat him on track. Simple.

    • OmarR-Pepper (@omarr-pepper) said on 27th May 2014, 0:34

      come on! You see any video of any driver IN MONACO and they shake their hands all the time because Monaco is not a flat track, it’s all bumpy everywhere.
      If you want me to buy the theory of Nico’s doing something intentional, it could be, just maybe, braking a fraction of second later than normal, so he missed the right apex and had to go into the escape.

      • dam00r (@dam00r) said on 27th May 2014, 0:39

        The swirl with the steering wheel should have been caused by rear wheel lock up, but he did not lock up his rear wheels. He just swirled around with his steering wheel and then pressed hard on the brakes to create smoke from the tyres (front wheel).

      • JCost (@jcost) said on 27th May 2014, 8:50

        @omarr-pepper advice my friend.

        1. Go to YouTube
        2. Forget Hamilton is not your favorite driver
        3. Watch comparison of Nico’s two Q3 laps

        It doesn’t take an engineering degree to see what happened there.

      • Hamilfan (@hamilfan) said on 27th May 2014, 9:03

        @omarr-pepper
        Okay , you seem dead sure of your opinion . He didn’t even try to take the corner . The sawing off was to induce a lock which he does at the last moment and goes down the escape road . This is suspicious , whether you like it or not . Unless it is a multiple lock up or a big shunt , one does not just avoid making the corner .

        The stewards would have noted that there was a lock up , checked on that and then he went off the road , did not block it . so fine .

        Rosberg could have pulled this off so ingeniously . You may argue , that it is perfectly legal to do that .

        • Funkyf1 (@funkyf1) said on 27th May 2014, 12:07

          Get over it! You all sound like Lewis, its done, stop it with wah wah what about me comments. It’s racing, it’s mind games, it is what it is! Next round!

          • Hamilfan (@hamilfan) said on 27th May 2014, 16:47

            @funkyf1

            its done, stop it with wah wah what about me comments.

            This is a website where all opinions and thoughts of the fans are expressed without any bias as long as they are done without offense to other fans . If you don’t want to read comments about this , just skip the comments section man.

            it’s mind games, it is what it is!

            No it isn’t .

            Next round!

            Of course . Let us look forward :) .

    • Kimoni Nakamoto (@) said on 27th May 2014, 1:05

      Claiming that what you would like to be true is “clear” does not make it so. Why on earth would he saw at the wheel like he was driving the A Team van in order to induce a “mistake” when all he had to do was brake fractionally later than usual with no steering input? What was this in aid of? A signal to the Illuminati who told him to throw the corner that he’d done it deliberately? Utterly absurd reasoning.

    • Joshua Mesh (@joshua-mesh) said on 27th May 2014, 1:24

      Looked like indecisiveness to me. He wasnt sure which way to go or if the wheels would grip.

    • reiter (@reiter) said on 27th May 2014, 1:32

      Guys you’re all making too much of a big deal here when we all know it was clearly Maldonado’s fault.

    • mateuss (@mateuss) said on 27th May 2014, 7:53

      How do you, or Lewis, or anyone distinguish the difference between a mistake and a deliberate mistake? What would you look for in the telemetry?

      Hint:You can’t!

      • Ryan (@ryanisjones) said on 27th May 2014, 16:31

        Historical data. Hamilton most likely has access to the telemetry data of all 100+ laps that Rosberg drove during the weekend. I’m sure with enough time, even I could work out if something was off, and I’m not a seasoned driver who has spent most of my life analysing my own driving data like Hamilton has.

        • mateuss (@mateuss) said on 27th May 2014, 18:42

          Firstly, you seriously think Ham went through 100+ laps of Rosberg’s data to compare that corner, are you serious? Also, Rosberg probably had not even done a dozen low-fuel qualy simulation runs prior to the incident.

          But that is not important here, what is, is that you did not answer my question! How would one tell the difference between a mistake and a deliberate mistake?!

          Tell me please, I’am curious, since you claim this would not be a problem even to you. What would be evidence in the telemetry for a deliberate mistake?

          I would like to be proved wrong, but unfortunately I feel you would do what Hamilton did, look for a mistake in the data, then claim:Here it is! Proof.

          Because a mistake is a mistake,and looks like a mistake, deliberate or not, and will show up us such in the telemetry. And frankly we already know he made a mistake, he did not post a lap time! Unless one of the telemetry channels is real time brain activity monitoring system, prior calibrated, to recognize devious acts of sabotage, to my knowledge, there is no way to make a distinction here. So please, enlighten me!

          • Ryan (@ryanisjones) said on 27th May 2014, 21:51

            How would one tell the difference between a mistake and a deliberate mistake?

            There are certain things that are hard to fake, such as reaction time. Then there is Rosberg’s style of driving. Look at a random 10 laps (you don’t need 100), he does exactly the same thing, then on the crash lap he does something completely different like inexplicably turns left when the cars G force register that it was not in a slide.

            What I’m saying is you can lie to someone easily and fool them. But try doing it whilst hooked up to a lie detector. To fake a lie detector you would need to learn ultimate control of breathing and heart rate. To fake a crash you would need to practice. I’m sure Rosberg has not spent his time practising crashing but he is a smart man, therefore if he did it on purpose, it is likely that he would fool some people, but extensive data analysis would show the truth.

            Also I never said Hamilton went through 100 laps. I said he has access to them. Rosberg had 3 practice sessions worth of data. before qualifying. If you can’t understand my point and are not yet enlightened then lets not debate it any more, and simply agree to disagree. Enlightenment will come to you soon ;-)

          • Ryan (@ryanisjones) said on 27th May 2014, 21:56

            @mateuss
            P.S. Because I know you will catch it, by g-force, I think I meant accelerometer, either way, I’m sure the data can work out if the car is in a slide.

          • mateuss (@mateuss) said on 28th May 2014, 8:45

            @ryanisjones We would first have to agree what it is we disagree on, I feel you either have not thought your position through or have not yet sufficiently explained to me that which you are claiming, to give you the benefit of the doubt.

            “There are certain things that are hard to fake, such as reaction time. Then there is Rosberg’s style of driving. Look at a random 10 laps (you don’t need 100), he does exactly the same thing, then on the crash lap he does something completely different like inexplicably turns left when the cars G force register that it was not in a slide. ”

            Accelerometer data alone would not show he was or wasn’t on a slide, but yes, wheel speed and car speed data would. But that still does not answer the question. Even if the rears were not locked up (which we don’t know, but from the on-board it looked like they were), how would you tell the steering movements were a deliberate mistake, as opposed to an honest mistake? How would a different reaction time in the telemetry show that it was a deliberate mistake and not just a mistake, a failure to react?

            All you are saying still, is that certain things would be different in the telemetry than on normal, non-mistake, laps. But that would be the case even if it was not deliberate. So, I will rephrase my question, maybe you will then tell me that which I’m curious to hear, how would the telemetry data be different on a normal lap, on a lap with a mistake AND on a lap with deliberate mistake?

            “Also I never said Hamilton went through 100 laps. I said he has access to them.”
            It did seem like you were implying it though, to make your argument seem more valid, don’t do that. If you claim you were not trying to do that, then I fail to see what was the relevance of that point. Sutil has access to 100+ Hamburgers, we can see it is not relevant, to him this year.

            P.S. “lie detectors” can not detect lies, they are crude reaction monitors, data from them would not even be considered in the court of law, and there is no subjective way to interpret the data from them (to be able to say someone lied or not, you can subjectively say a person had sweaty hands etc., but nothing more). They are only sometimes used as a prop, to squeeze out confessions from gullible unsuspecting folks, from what I hear.

          • Ryan (@ryanisjones) said on 28th May 2014, 11:47

            @mateuss
            Having access to all of Rosberg’s previous 100+ laps is completely relevant even though you have made it clear that you don’t understand why. I think this is because you don’t understand statistical norms.

            It’s really simple. Patterns. With enough data you will see patterns. Patterns as to how Rosberg takes a corner, patterns to how he tries to recover a sliding car, patterns in his reaction times. The data showing Rosberg trying to stop a crash, and Rosberg trying to make one happen WILL be different from eachother. We are not talking about a split second decision, the event went on for like 3 seconds. In that amount of time you are making multiple decisions, and trying to unsettle the car purposefully (not reactions) will show in the data.

            All you are saying still, is that certain things would be different in the telemetry than on normal, non-mistake, laps. But that would be the case even if it was not deliberate.

            NO. If it was not delibarate his reaction times would be the same when he was trying to recover the car as it is normally. Also it wont just be his reaction times, he may have turned the wheel sharply even when the car was balanced (not a reaction). Making a mistake is not the issue here, it is what he did before and after the mistake that will indicate whether he genuinely forced the mistake and wether he adequately attempted to save the car.

            >> A deliberate mistake is NOT a reaction… that is how you tell. <<

            Of course, nobody can get in his head, but I'm sure you wouldn't be trying to make a silly argument based on absolutes. Beyond reasonable doubt… that can be determined by the data.

          • mateuss (@mateuss) said on 28th May 2014, 12:16

            @ryanisjones So what you are getting at, is that a deliberate mistake is caused by the driver, and that can be seen in the telemetry, but non deliberate mistakes has no causes, they just happen, like supernaturally? Whith the driver’s prior inputs having no effect?

            A big mistake will of course show up as an annomoly in the data pattern, everything leading up to the off (which I would include under my definition of ‘the mistake’) and everything after, but that is the case regardless of the drivers intentions.

            It seems that you have gotten into your head that a mistake that can be seen in the data is automatically a deliberate mistake, and you are just plain wrong! I hope data analysis is not a part of your job discription.

        • mateuss (@mateuss) said on 27th May 2014, 19:09

          @ryanisjones Oh, and one more thing, since you invoked “historical” data, you should know that what people who study history do, is they look at the evidence and make an explanation based on what is most probable.
          Although not quite as improbable as invoking aliens, short of that, this conspiracy is the most improbable explanation.

          You will notice that the most improbable explanation can not be the most probable explanation. If one were to give a historical account of what happened, one would have to say Rosberg made an unintentional mistake, since that is the most probable explanation, since that happens all the time, even more so in Monaco, even more so in qualifying. Nothing ever is certain, but there is no evidence to suggest otherwise, or to substantiate any of the more improbable explanations.

  6. Jay Menon (@jaymenon10) said on 27th May 2014, 0:32

    Wish we could see Rosberg’s data?…well Tweet it then.

    • OmarR-Pepper (@omarr-pepper) said on 27th May 2014, 0:34

      @jaymenon10 COTWEEK!!!!!

    • toiago (@toiago) said on 27th May 2014, 0:35

      @jaymenon10 – Good one!

    • tmax (@tmax) said on 27th May 2014, 4:05

      @jaymenon10 +10 LOL…… COTW….

      Mclaren must be thinking “Good Riddance….When will this kid ever grow up “……

      • Kingshark (@kingshark) said on 27th May 2014, 4:19

        @jaymenon10
        Good lord, you gave me the best laugh in a long time!

      • Magnificent Geoffrey (@magnificent-geoffrey) said on 27th May 2014, 9:45

        @tmax I’m fairly sure McLaren will be regretting having Hamilton getting away from them, given how poor they’ve performed every since he left.

        • Albert said on 27th May 2014, 17:32

          @magnificent-geoffrey

          Unless Hamilton is the best engineer in the paddock, he’s absence has little to do with McLaren’s performance.

          • tmax (@tmax) said on 27th May 2014, 18:20

            @magnificent-geoffrey @Albert I agree that a Key driver is important in developing a good car. Having said that the Team also needs to be upto the mark. Look at Ferrari they have Alonso who is a brilliant driver but the car is a lemon for no fault of Alonso. Similarly with Mclaren they have other problems than needing a good lead driver. A general cleanup is needed there. it is just that Lewis timed his exit well. Both Mclaren and Ferrari have problems which cannot be solved by having a lead driver.

            Coming back to the topic Lewis is a very heavy maintenance person. Now it seems like everything is coming together. Starting from his Monaco 2007 I am a Number 2 driver Quote , to the Maybe I am black Quote, to Ali G Quote to Tweeting Button’s setting to Tweeting Button Unfriended Me to I have a poor childhood et all. He has been whining all along but never came so much to the Limelight. I am even starting to rethink why was Alonso so upset with Leiws about qualifying in the Hungaroring 2007.

            If he continues this attitude there might be vacancy soon in Mercedes. While Nikki is is nice and everything thing they will not let him spoil Mercedes image. Maybe it will spice up F1 for a little bit but then people will be bored soon. Given the Dominance of the Mercedes car, They know pretty well that even without having Lewis they can win WDC with Nico !!!!

      • juan fanger (@juan-fanger) said on 27th May 2014, 10:56

        @tmax I wonder how long before Mercedes have had enough of “Turbo” Hamilton as well? He’s very fast, but very high maintenance.

        • DaveD (@daved) said on 27th May 2014, 17:33

          Speaking as a guy who’s had women who were so high maintenance you wanted to choke them….it is strangely addictive, that feeling that there is something special there and “if you could just get through these rough spots” it would be worth it LOL

    • Jason (@jason12) said on 27th May 2014, 7:55

      @jaymenon10
      Yea I think they should just be allowed to share the data with the public.

    • Mayank (@mjf1fan) said on 27th May 2014, 8:48

      Lol nice one :)

    • Keith Campbell (@keithedin) said on 27th May 2014, 9:09

      This was my thought too, you got there first ;)

      But seriously Lewis, pull the other one. Of course he’s gonna keep making comments like that, it doesn’t add anything to the evidence as he’s clearly not impartial. Nico knew he had done a good first lap so went a bit too aggressive on the second lap, carried too much speed, braked too late, chose to bail rather than risk ending in the barrier. He got lucky and it probably gifted him the win, but i don’t believe it was premeditated.

  7. Breno (@austus) said on 27th May 2014, 0:33

    Hopefully if Bianchi gets a faster car, it’s the MR04!

  8. James Wynne (@heisenberg) said on 27th May 2014, 0:36

    As usual, Hamilton’s detractors are already rubbishing his insinuation that there was foul play, but, to be honest, I don’t think we need to see the data. The TV footage is fairly conclusive, as far as I’m concerned, and I’ve yet to see anyone explain away any of the peculiarities of Rosberg’s incident.

    • tiredoldfeck said on 27th May 2014, 4:32

      Yes, we all saw how Hamilton without seeing any data knew Rosberg did it on purpose. Commented more about it before stewards hearing as well. I mean it was rather uncouth, given Rosberg is not just his teammate, but they were quite good friends.

      Video does explain a lot. Stewards must have had a look at all angles and then must have had decixded there wasn’t a case to answer.

      • David BR2 said on 27th May 2014, 20:40

        we all saw how Hamilton without seeing any data knew Rosberg did it on purpose

        The people questioning Rosberg’s spin off on my TV were the commentators before Hamilton got out of the car. Hamilton was annoyed because Rosberg was backing towards the track when he went past, not because he span off – that he didn’t see. Even so, he may have been immediately sceptical – and on the video evidence was indeed right to be. Half the grid was.

        • Colossal Squid (@colossal-squid) said on 27th May 2014, 21:09

          Healthy skepticism is one thing, getting in front of a camera and imply through your statements that your team mate has cheated, without any evidence or proof, is another. You continuously defend his behaviour without recognising how rash and unprofessional it was.

    • No it’s not. And the stewards already did; no action.

    • Dave (@raceprouk) said on 27th May 2014, 10:57

      Maybe you should go back and read the dozens of posts made on this thread and several others.

    • Colossal Squid (@colossal-squid) said on 27th May 2014, 11:57

      You clearly think you have it all figured out. Well done. You should send your CV into the FIA, they’re clearly in need of people with your incredible abilities and insights.

      Rosberg made a mistake on a very difficult circuit. He was pushing himself over the limit. It seems to be the simplest and most likely explanation. But you go ahead and keep saying what you say, after the Stewards have cleared him of any wrongdoing.

      • David-A (@david-a) said on 27th May 2014, 14:49

        @colossal-squid

        Rosberg made a mistake on a very difficult circuit. He was pushing himself over the limit. It seems to be the simplest and most likely explanation.

        Exactly. Rosberg made a mistake in China, and that’s okay. But, no, it’s impossible to make a mistake at Monaco, according to some people.

  9. mantresx (@mantresx) said on 27th May 2014, 0:38

    I think Lewis is becoming a bit paranoid, he has won 4 races in a row and has the most dominant F1 car in decades, he should be enjoying every minute of it, instead he fights with his teammate and puts in jeopardy his relationship with the team.
    But at least it gives us something to talk about.

    • David BR2 said on 27th May 2014, 2:47

      If Mercedes seriously think Rosberg’s escapade was anything but intentional, I’d be seriously worried about their professionalism. Likewise I would never expect them to do anything but defend their driver publicly. If that’s correct, then the people who’ve done the jeopardizing are Mercedes themselves, not because they had much the choice though. Hamilton has to accept that’s the reality though. Rosberg got away with it. In the end it’s just a few months he can win back next race, if it’s business as usual. Monaco is an aberration in all senses.

      • David BR2 said on 27th May 2014, 2:48

        *points, not months…

      • David BR2 said on 27th May 2014, 2:54

        That said… What I don’t like about this situation is the way Mercedes (a) share all the data between drivers, and (b) coach their drivers on track in how to beat the other driver. This ‘equalization’ strikes me as mostly one-way, boosting Rosberg, bringing him closer to Hamilton. I can see how that’s beneficial for the team, but after the team effectively backed Rosberg over Hamilton at Monaco, it’s starting to look fairly unbalanced. I think this is what is eating at Hamilton. With reason.

        • tiredoldfeck said on 27th May 2014, 4:38

          Thank you for the laugh.

          However, on a serious not, would you please explain how team favoured Rosberg over Hamilton at Monaco? If anything, Mercedes do prioritise their lead driver, so one could technically claim that they have favoured Hamilton more than they have had Rosberg so far.

          • David BR2 said on 27th May 2014, 16:30

            Two separate points. I said Mercedes backed Rosberg over Hamilton, meaning in relation to the qualification issue. I thought that was fairly obvious. ‘Favouring’ is something else: you’re right, they gave strategic preference to Rosberg in the pits, perfectly normal.

        • Albert said on 27th May 2014, 7:16

          My god you can’t be serious.

          Anyways, if Mercedes’ policies are so bad, Hamilton is always welcome to go back to McLaren and fight for the 8th place.

        • Deb Luhi (@debeluhi) said on 27th May 2014, 12:57

          I’m not sure about exact numbers but my impression is that most of the times this year Hamilton goes after Rosberg in Q3. Unless they have an agreed system about it, this favors Hamilton.

      • Keith Campbell (@keithedin) said on 27th May 2014, 9:16

        David BR2

        Usually the driver who is timed to cross the line last in qualifying is seen as the ‘favoured’ driver, as that’s when the track is fastest. So you could argue Hamilton was being favoured, unless the decision on when to run is purely down to the drivers. Or maybe you think Mercedes knew of Rosberg’s ‘plan’ to bring out the yellow flags?

        • Andrew said on 27th May 2014, 21:09

          It is the drivers decision and at Monaco is was Rosbergs choice to go first. Peter Windsor discusses it here

      • Breno (@austus) said on 27th May 2014, 12:19

        For “just a few points” he’d have two championships, or none.

  10. f1freek (@f1freek) said on 27th May 2014, 0:42

    Can someone please get a pacifier to this guy so he can shut up. Rosberg beat him fair and square just move on!

  11. Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989) said on 27th May 2014, 0:52

    knowing the nature of the relationship between Bernie Ecclestone and Flavio Briatore, it didn’t took me too long to realize Flavio’s role in this new middle of nowhere race, as long as these guys are in control the sport is only going backward. I don’t know about the political situation in Azerbaijan but i think that whoever wants to promote his image pays Bernie a lot of money just to get a race. Similar to the way the great fight between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman has been organized
    Found this link about the human rights situation in Azerbaijan by Human Rights Watch.

    • OmarR-Pepper (@omarr-pepper) said on 27th May 2014, 1:01

      @tifoso1989 first of all, don’t get me wrong, I know many countries have problems with human rights. But to say a race shouldn’t be set in those countries is no longer a real excuse. Just yesterday 7 poeple were killed in the US by (no surprise) a madman with the right to hold guns. The father of one of the victims said “People here have rights to carry guns, but where’s my sons right to live?” Every country has problems (see the info about protests in Brazil just before the soccer world cup) but sports are sports, corruption is in sports but not only in Azerbajan, it’s the same everywhere… ask Bernie.

      • JCost (@jcost) said on 27th May 2014, 9:02

        wait a minute @omarr-pepper, what does a murder has to do with abuse of power from the government? I’m not even talking about Azerbaijan’s humans rights record but your comparison is just wrong.

        Brazil is a democracy, that’s why those people a protesting against the world cup because they think their government misused public funds.

        F1 can go wherever they want but they really should avoid the quote “we do not mix politics with sports” when they know autocrats host F1 races with political purposes.

      • Optimaximal (@optimaximal) said on 27th May 2014, 9:09

        @omarr-pepper there’s a fundamental difference between a constitution that allows a man to wield a gun (he wasn’t legally allowed to shoot people) and a human-rights violation by a government or corporate body.

      • Bill Niehoff (@justafan) said on 27th May 2014, 19:12

        @omarr-pepper according to news accounts:
        The killings began with the stabbings in the apartment that Rodger rented, inside a two-story courtyard building fronted by palm trees.
        He was a killer, regardless of the weapon used.

    • spoutnik (@spoutnik) said on 27th May 2014, 11:27

      @tifoso1989 A shame I agree.

      I don’t know about the political situation in Azerbaijan

      It’s bad, as it is in:
      - Bahrain
      - China
      - Singapore
      - Russia
      - United Arab Emirates

      F1 should not race in those countries, but my opinion counts for little :)

      • Pipito said on 27th May 2014, 21:16

        @spoutnik I’m sorry but you need to do a quick research on what you are talking about. The political situation in Singapore isn’t not bad like Azerbaijan’s. In fact, it is good. I don’t know how you managed to include that country in your list, and hence I don’t see how F1 should not be raced in Singapore.

  12. Atticus (@atticus-2) said on 27th May 2014, 1:31

    I reeeeeeeeally wonder what Lewis might have seen.

    I’m still not convinced Nico was deliberate in overshooting the corner. I mean why not just park it close to the edge of the track, why go that far up on the service road? OK, he reversed back in, but that’s what everybody does regardless of the situation, that’s what Ericsson did in FP…1 or 3. He nearly collected, incidentally, Rosberg during the process, but I guess he was entitled to do what he did, because there was nobody telling him not to do that, marshalls, or anyone else.

    I respect Lewis, I think he’s a brutally quick driver, but I also feel like he’s just intentionally adds fuel to the fire, as others also said above this comment.

  13. Chris (@tophercheese21) said on 27th May 2014, 1:40

    No doubt Mercedes have got a lot of very very clever and important people in their team. If what the media are reporting on the Rosberg-Hamilton relationship to be true, then easily the most important person in that team right now is Niki Lauda.

    His experience and knowledge when it comes to these kinds of things will be a great help to Mercedes in trying to get their two drivers to have a good working relationship. Because at the moment, even their professional relationship looks to be going downhill… If media reports are to be believed.

  14. MtlRacer (@mtlracer) said on 27th May 2014, 1:42

    Lewis could learn alot from Kimi, and not about partying.
    I have four words for Lewis: Shut up and drive.

1 2 3 4

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.