Team Orders at Mercedes?

[Stan Marlow]

The commies said that Ferrari have to think about their public image when ordering their drivers. Like Merc should not? Double standards - Ferrari are ruining the sport and Merc are just using common sense. Hopefully this weekend will stop this double standard.

 

[Ricoow]

Like Kimi received a penalty 2016 for driving in to the box but not pitting (he left the entrance): And Hamilton don't receive a penalty for the same. On the SAME Track.

I can't recall the kimi incident, but if the kimi incident was not under SC conditions I can understand the difference.
Lewis caused no danger to oncoming traffic (there was none) and neither did he get an advantage since the pitlane speed is not much lower than SC speeds. He would have kept position in both circumstances (going drive through or cut the grass). If the kimi conditions were the same then yes I agree, otherwise this is the wrong moment to call out on inconsistencies.

As a referee myself in a sport I experience this a lot, you can sometimes justify breach of a certain rule to keep the game going as long as nobody is disadvantaged.

 

[LeSunTzu]

Kimi was just getting some slipstream in the pitlane entrance at 300km/h. (it was Baku, not Hockenheim)

The inconsistency is to think Hamilton deserved the same penalty. The rule is there for safety reasons after all.

 

[F1Aussie]

To the op it is obvious as the ba#$s on a dog that Merc would invoke team orders sooner or later, one is a 4 time chump and earns a gazillion bajillion coin whilst the other is on pocket money and does not have the killer instinct.

 

[Ole Marius Myrvold]

Kimi was just getting some slipstream in the pitlane entrance at 300km/h. (it was Baku, not Hockenheim)

The inconsistency is to think Hamilton deserved the same penalty. The rule is there for safety reasons after all.

The rules are actually quite simple when it comes to these situations though.
Did Driver A cross the white lines completely? If Yes, was it after the bollard noted in the event notes? If Yes, it is a breach of ISC Appendix L, Chapter IV, 4d.
Do we have precedence in penalties? Yes, we have.
Was it Force Majeure? No, it was deliberate. Ok, case closed.

In Räikkönens case, he was following a car, and when he realized the car was pitting he jolted out of it, but too late. A penalty was fair regardless, as he broke the rules.

The rules regarding speeding in pit, white lines etc. is quite black and white, and should just be "noted", "investigated", "decided" within 5 minutes. The fact that F1 and FIA are struggling to do so points more towards a weakness among the stewards than anything else.

 

[gamer19]

Like always...
Ole have the best, most accurate and I would say the simplest answers !
Another great one Ole, congratulations ! Like.

 

[LeSunTzu]

Hamilton was penalized for the breach of the rules. That is simple as black and white.

What you are questioning in reality is whether the punishment fits the breach. That is a different story than black and white.

 

[Glaurung]

It's not the first time this year that Mercedes strategists put Bottas in second order after Hamilton.
At Silverstone they decided to throw away any chance from Bottas to win or to secure an easy 2nd place not pitting him under safety car.
Result: the 2nd place was gifted to Hamilton and Bottas ruined to 4th.
It's clear this year that after Mercedes and Hamilton have reached their economic agreement it's good for both sides to fully support their golden boy, eventually it's a wise choice and I would do the same being in charge of Mercedes team.

 

[Dirk B RM eSports]

baby racers need to be protected by nannies

 

[Ole Marius Myrvold]

Hamilton was penalized for the breach of the rules. That is simple as black and white.

What you are questioning in reality is whether the punishment fits the breach. That is a different story than black and white.

Crossing the line that separates the pit entry and the track is a thing that's easy to keep consistent with penalties. You either have breached that rule, or you haven't. There is no "breach a" is worse than "breach b" in that case.
Thus the penalties should be the same.

Also, the way penalties are handled by the FIA, a reprimand is a non-penalty.

 

[Stuart Gillard]

I have to say that I am rather disappointed with how Mercedes handled the Lewis/Bottas switch yesterday and I think it was totally unnecessary.

Season after season when Niki Lauda has been interviewed on numerous occasions he has always gone on about how they will let the drivers race irrespective of who is leading the championship, in 2016 they went into the final race with Nico having a 12 point lead over Lewis and they still didn't impose any team orders at that time and just let them race and get on with it, so why do it now and why at such an early stage in the season when both were pretty much guaranteed a 1-2 finish irrespective of who finished in what position...?

I understand that team orders are necessary to protect your position regarding the constructors championship, or course, but when it comes to both of your drivers being at the front in P1 and P2, orchestrating a situation where the faster driver is told not to overtake the slower one in front just leaves a sour taste in my mouth when I really don't think it was necessary at all, I held Mercedes in quite good regard because they always seemed to have the approach to let their drivers race, this however has been tarnished.

In my opinion Valtteri could have won that race however Lewis was handed the win because the team ordered valtteri to hold his position.

 

[gamer19]

Good point.
Guess Valtteri doesn't have status Nico had.
Yet.

 

[Ricoow]

Crossing the line that separates the pit entry and the track is a thing that's easy to keep consistent with penalties. You either have breached that rule, or you haven't. There is no "breach a" is worse than "breach b" in that case.
Thus the penalties should be the same.

Also, the way penalties are handled by the FIA, a reprimand is a non-penalty.

Referring back to my statement on being a referee myself (volleyball btw). The rules clearly state that the coach should remain within his coach box at all times, sometimes he steps out of it to give an instruction in between points. Rule clearly breached, no disadvantages so I am not going to throw around warnings and/or cards. In the spirit of the game.

Wherever there is a human involved in judging, there is space for lenience. As long as nobody is disadvantaged and nothing got in danger, you can allow a rule breach in the spirit of the game/sport/race. Being a steward/referee means understanding the reasoning behind a rule and interpret if that underlying reasoning is applicable or not.

With this line crossing, the rule is there for safety matters (and perhaps pitstop faking for cars behind) and therefore the stewards have more room for a 'more freely' interpretation of a rule. Was safety endangered? No. Lighter/no penalty required.

 

[Ole Marius Myrvold]

Referring back to my statement on being a referee myself (volleyball btw). The rules clearly state that the coach should remain within his coach box at all times, sometimes he steps out of it to give an instruction in between points. Rule clearly breached, no disadvantages so I am not going to throw around warnings and/or cards. In the spirit of the game.

Wherever there is a human involved in judging, there is space for lenience. As long as nobody is disadvantaged and nothing got in danger, you can allow a rule breach in the spirit of the game/sport/race. Being a steward/referee means understanding the reasoning behind a rule and interpret if that underlying reasoning is applicable or not.

With this line crossing, the rule is there for safety matters (and perhaps pitstop faking for cars behind) and therefore the stewards have more room for a 'more freely' interpretation of a rule. Was safety endangered? No. Lighter/no penalty required.

Then I take it, I could, in a theoretical situation as a volleyball coach, not care about the the box, as long as there won't be any additional advantage/disadvantage? Though, then again, that's entirely down to the individual steward(referee) ain't it?
That's what you'd ideally like to not happen with clear cut rules.

And in 6 previous instances in F1 where the crossing of the white line after bollard, or crossing of the white line with no bollard this have happened:
In race situation:
Two Drive-Trough penalties (Perez, Monaco and Massa, Interlagos).
Two 5 Second penalties (Räikkönen, Baku and Wehrlein, Barcelona).
In free practice:
One 2500 EUR Fine (Räikkönen, Montreal)
One Reprimand (Hamilton, Silverstone)

When it comes to advantages/disadvantages, that becomes a whole own area of "what ifs". We don't know, if Hamilton had followed the rules if Mercedes would've believed they'd be able to send Bottas away quick enough for Hamilton to pit or not, he might've stacked up, he might've done a drive through the pit.
What we do know is that there is a precedence for these situations. It is a black&white situation, and for some reason. The stewards did not have it in them to follow that, but rather give Hamilton what's usually been a practice-penalty in this case. And if you think strictly safety, Massa at Interlagos was not dangerous IIRC, neither was Wehrlein at Barcelona, neither was Räikkönen in Baku as he pulled out as soon as he saw the line, however that had the potential to be dangerous. Perez at Monaco was not dangerous either, but it was noted he did impede another driver when pitting late.

I also find it interesting how the FIA are more lenient when it comes to incidents behind the safety car, just like Vettel at Baku last year. Making a mockery of the whole point of a safety car. Then again, they do not enforce the double waved yellows either, and we all know how that ended up.

 

[Deleted member 531501]

Kimi was just getting some slipstream in the pitlane entrance at 300km/h. (it was Baku, not Hockenheim)

The inconsistency is to think Hamilton deserved the same penalty. The rule is there for safety reasons after all.

Oh okay i thought it was H. But now i got it

 

[maelstrom]

Lets not forget that Lewis was also much faster. He broke the lap record several times during the last few laps. He was only at risk from Bottas initially as used tires take a little longer to warm up.

Disagree. Hamilton only appeared faster than Bottas because Bottas was told to hold station. There's no evidence to say that Bottas wouldn't have been equally as fast (or faster) had he been allowed to race and overtake Hamilton.

 

[my life]

Like Kimi received a penalty 2016 for driving in to the box but not pitting (he left the entrance): And Hamilton don't receive a penalty for the same. On the SAME Track.

Kimi's accident happend in Baku and Hamilton's in Germany and in Kimi's example the FIA clearly stated that if someone crosses the PIt Lane entrance Line with all 4 Wheels he has to go into the pits and can't return onto the track
It was handled that way because of safety reasons

 

[Ole Marius Myrvold]

Kimi's accident happend in Baku and Hamilton's in Germany and in Kimi's example the FIA clearly stated that if someone crosses the PIt Lane entrance Line with all 4 Wheels he has to go into the pits and can't return onto the track
It was handled that way because of safety reasons

Which is an unnecessary add-on for the event notes. They already have to do that, as outlined in the International Sporting Code. You are prohibited to cross the pit entry line in any direction when entering the pits, which means you cannot drive on the inside, then decide not to pit and not be penalized, imagine how that would work at e.g Silverstone, where the pit entry is a shortcut.
Once you are in the pit entry, and have passed the bollard (if there is a bollard, and it is presented in the event notes) you are committed to it. If you have passed the point where the solid white lines start, and you are not able to throw the car in to the pit entry before your whole car is past it, you have to stay out. The ISC is pretty clear cut there. Which is why Hamilton was deemed to have breached the rules.

 

[Ricoow]

where the pit entry is a shortcut.

This case it would be gaining an advantage (unless SC conditions apply) so yes, that would need penalties.

The difficult point is, that this still is human decision. Everytime there is something to complain, cus if he had it, 'Was it too harsh? No advantage was gained etc etc'. There are two camps on this, the 'strict-rule' fans and the 'action-over-penalties' fans. In both ways there would be complaints. The bottom line is that the stewards want to do what (they feel) is best for the sport and follow the mindset behind the rules to achieve that.

Same case, a friend of mine ran a red light once. Simply mistaken the straight light for the left light. Cops let him off with a warning, since there was no intention of wrong doing and there wasn't a seriously dangerous situation (praise roads at 1AM). Rules are clear cut there as well. Its always up to the interpretation of the guy in charge. Inconsistent? Yes. Well handled? Yes as well.

Bottom line is, there is no 'right' or 'wrong'. Its a gray area in which the stewards have to operate and the discussion will never end.

 

[amogley]

Over the team orders, it's difficult, on the one hand I understand that Mercedes wanted to protect the potential points for the WCC, on the other hand, it does go against the racing principles. But to counter that again, we've seen what happened with Hamilton and Rosberg in Barcelona, and more recently between Ricciardo and Verstappen recently. You could see how stressed Wolff was in the pits.

What did stand out, was the calmness and professionalism that Bottas accepted the orders. We all know he wouldn't have been happy, none of us would, but he responded in such a calm controlled way. Kudos to him.

With the penalty/non-penalty, perhaps I'm being over-cynical, but I've a feeling the reprimand was FIA's attempt to save face. They were far too slow responding to the infringement. When Max Verstappen cut the corner last season, he didn't even get chance to get on the podium before he was penalised. Here, FIA were way too slow responding. Plus, Hamilton had just put in a stunning performance and was already voted driver of the day. Again, maybe overly cynical, but this seemed to be FIA's best way out.