142 replies to this topic

[EthanM]

You cannot be sure that Merc would have 3 stopped minus a SC. If anything, I have heard Toto repeatedly mention that all they need to do is mirror their opponents and they have put it to good effect over the last year. Vettel definitely seemed more at ease with his tyres than the Mercs but minus a SC, he wont be running in clean air and a car ahead was maybe all that was needed to negate their slight tyre advantage and force Vettel to stop as many times as the Mercs did.

 

that's awesome that Toto said that, however they couldn't make the tyres last long enough for a 2 stop. Hamilton was running out of tyre on the primes in under 20 laps and the options in 12

[RubalSher]

that's awesome that Toto said that, however they couldn't make the tyres last long enough for a 2 stop. Hamilton was running out of tyre on the primes in under 20 laps and the options in 12

 

He did 14 laps on options in his 3rd stint and 20 laps on primes in his 2nd stint. It is not unreasonable to think that he could have done 16 laps on options in his first stint and 20 laps each on his next two stints on the hard tyres.

[EthanM]

He did 14 laps on options in his 3rd stint and 20 laps on primes in his 2nd stint. It is not unreasonable to think that he could have done 16 laps on options in his first stint and 20 laps each on his next two stints on the hard tyres.

 

it is, the 14 laps on options were a brand new set on a lighter car. Start of race was a used set, heaviest car.

[RubalSher]

it is, the 14 laps on options were a brand new set on a lighter car. Start of race was a used set, heaviest car.

 

And Vettel would have been able to do the 17 laps he did on his options minus a safety car? Hamilton could easily have gone 16-17 laps into the first stint just like Vettel did, because of the safety car.

 

Minus a safety car, both Vettel and Hamilton would have been way slower on a 2 stopper as they would have had to stretch all their tyres more than they ended up doing. As I said, staying ahead of Vettel on track, keeping a 4 second gap and mirroring his strategy is all Merc wanted to play for and would have won them the race.

[EthanM]

And Vettel would have been able to do the 17 laps he did on his options minus a safety car? Hamilton could easily have gone 16-17 laps into the first stint just like Vettel did, because of the safety car.

 

Minus a safety car, both Vettel and Hamilton would have been way slower on a 2 stopper as they would have had to stretch all their tyres more than they ended up doing. As I said, staying ahead of Vettel on track, keeping a 4 second gap and mirroring his strategy is all Merc wanted to play for and would have won them the race.

 

do you grasp Vettel did a 20 lap stint on options whereas Hamilton's longest was 14 and he was running a lighter car? It's not even in the same neighborhood as being comparable.

[RubalSher]

do you grasp Vettel did a 20 lap stint on options whereas Hamilton's longest was 14 and he was running a lighter car? It's not even in the same neighborhood as being comparable.

 

Hamilton would have gone option, prime, option in my reckoning and had every chance of taking the win and making his tyres last just enough. Hamilton himself reckoned that he could have gone 19 laps on options in the final stint when he told his RE he was on the wrong tyres.

Even Paddy and Merc have themselves said that they may have gone for a 2 stopper minus a SC.

[Button4life]

Can someone start a topic' Is Chilton so good at every motor sport he wasn't tanking his whole career'

[Jon83]

Can someone start a topic' Is Chilton so good at every motor sport he wasn't tanking his whole career'

 

You're taking it too far now mate!

[ViMaMo]

We are going to see a carefully orchestrated 4 way battle for 2015 championship. Muahahaha.

[garagetinkerer]

This reminds me, I think Vettel tanked his 2014 season.

 

Can someone please start a new topic 'Are Honda so dominant they're tanking the first half of the season?' I've got a lot of views to get out there.

Your avatar is the most blasphemous thing i have ever seen in a F1 circle. You got a McLaren driver for a profile named RedBaron... 10 lashings

[quaint]

He did 14 laps on options in his 3rd stint and 20 laps on primes in his 2nd stint. It is not unreasonable to think that he could have done 16 laps on options in his first stint and 20 laps each on his next two stints on the hard tyres.

 

And Vettel would have been able to do the 17 laps he did on his options minus a safety car? Hamilton could easily have gone 16-17 laps into the first stint just like Vettel did, because of the safety car.

 

You do realise that Hamilton also got a few easier laps for his second stint under the SC – and still his drop-off was pretty bad towards the end (also, he was nowhere near getting 16 laps from Options, even with a lighter car). Vettel would've won quite easily had Merc sticked to 2 stops.

Edited by quaint, 01 April 2015 - 17:59.

[RubalSher]

You do realise that Hamilton also got a few easier laps for his second stint under the SC – and still his drop-off was pretty bad towards the end (also, he was nowhere near getting 16 laps from Options, even with a lighter car). Vettel would've won quite easily had Merc sticked to 2 stops.

 

Nope he wont have. He would have had to pass Hamilton on track and would have eaten up his tyres way quicker in the dirty air of Lewis.

[LORDBYRON]

Link speaks for is self really no safety car no stretching the 3 stop to a 2 stop

 

  http://www.autosport...t.php/id/118314

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

Even before the weekend I suspected that this was a prime time for Mercedes not to try as hard. Not that they intended to lose the race, but rather allow the gap to close. Ever since Australia a lot of teams have campaigned to change the rules to allow them to catch up to Mercedes (or cripple Mercedes enough to fall back into the pack).

 

Malaysia is one of the hottest races of the season, it would be a complete disaster for either Mercedes to blow up an engine. So if the engine was detuned to a safe level, it should still win. Vettel and Ferrari get the first feel-good story of the year (unexpected), Mercedes have both engines survive, the pressure to change the rules to cripple Mercedes have vaporized, all went well, it WAS NOT A COMPLETE DISASTER for Mercedes.

[garagetinkerer]

Even before the weekend I suspected that this was a prime time for Mercedes not to try as hard. Not that they intended to lose the race, but rather allow the gap to close. Ever since Australia a lot of teams have campaigned to change the rules to allow them to catch up to Mercedes (or cripple Mercedes enough to fall back into the pack).

 

Malaysia is one of the hottest races of the season, it would be a complete disaster for either Mercedes to blow up an engine. So if the engine was detuned to a safe level, it should still win. Vettel and Ferrari get the first feel-good story of the year (unexpected), Mercedes have both engines survive, the pressure to change the rules to cripple Mercedes have vaporized, all went well, it WAS NOT A COMPLETE DISASTER for Mercedes.

With the seasons you have seen the circus come and go, i wouldn't second guess your hunches. I shall send an email, a long one soon. 

[Dmitriy_Guller]

I'm not saying that Mercedes detuned their cars, but the reasoning of people flatly denying the possibility is a little questionable.  So, you think it's possible for a team to be clever enough to design a world beater, and yet be completely oblivious to the fact that sometimes a short-term retreat can guarantee a long term gain?  Is it really that unreasonable, in the political world that is Formula 1, for a team that is not Ferrari, to fear showing too much strength too consistently for too long?  Is it reasonable to assume that such a clever team would be so out of their mind competitive that they wouldn't even ponder doing something that may be pragmatic?  Please.

 

And as for this being a "home race" for Mercedes, what does that even mean?  That seems like something to blabber about for all the pundits who have dead silence to fill, but would such a professional organization ever treat any race differently from any other race, just because it is their "home race"?  And would Petronas at the end of the season go "Well, Toto, you did win 16 races this year, I give you that, but not winning in Malaysia was unacceptable.  I don't think this is working out.  I'm going to give Manor a call, I hope their phone line hasn't been disconnected yet."

Edited by Dmitriy_Guller, 02 April 2015 - 03:17.

[surbjits]

Dont be silly lol.

[RubberKubrick]

So, even another team (i.e. Ferrari) is included in the so called "Mercedes-scripted reality"?

 

WTF? Get a grip, folks!

Edited by RubberKubrick, 02 April 2015 - 11:21.

[Sanzx81]

At their main sponsors home? Not likely

[Tardis40]

If they did the drivers knew nothing about it.  The pain in Hamilton's voice was unmistakable. 

[icecream]

I voted maybe, but leaning towards probably not now.  50% of poll respondents don't think it's outside the realm of possibility, and I guess that's the way I feel about.. probably didn't happen, but wouldn't be shocked if it did. 

 

As for it being their home race, well it's a good point but who knows. Perhaps that's why it's the perfect race to do it at. Perhaps the talk of regulation changes behind the scene was getting pretty serious, and Mercedes decided they can't wait. Not saying it's likely, but we've seen crazier **** in f1. 

 

Also, perhaps they dialled things down not intending to lose, just to be closer to the pack.. and then with the safety car they got the strategy wrong.  I also agree that *if* it happened, the drivers probably weren't in on it. 

 

In any case, will be interesting to see how the season pans out.  Hopefully it wasn't a one off, and we can see someone challenge the mercs... if not for the wdc/wcc, then at least a few races.

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

I'm not saying that Mercedes detuned their cars, but the reasoning of people flatly denying the possibility is a little questionable.  So, you think it's possible for a team to be clever enough to design a world beater, and yet be completely oblivious to the fact that sometimes a short-term retreat can guarantee a long term gain?  Is it really that unreasonable, in the political world that is Formula 1, for a team that is not Ferrari, to fear showing too much strength too consistently for too long?  Is it reasonable to assume that such a clever team would be so out of their mind competitive that they wouldn't even ponder doing something that may be pragmatic?  Please.

 

This is an exceptionally interesting train of thought.

 

In 1978 Brabham came up with a radical world-beating car, the infamous BT-46B, the "fan car". It raced only once, and won. But other teams were irate, and in a political stroke of genius, the team owner, a Mr Bernie Ecclestone, withdrew the car, further cementing his political position that later grew to today's complete control of Formula One's finances. The driver who drove that car and won was Niki Lauda. He was there, at the epicenter of a storm, and learned that a short term retreat can create a political gain that has tremendous long term benefits.

 

IMO Mercedes went into Malaysia with a car that was not 100% at it's full potential for the moment, it was detuned for valid technical reasons and the expectation was that they would still win, but not by a comfortable margin. The fact that neither Mercedes driver was capable of winning without a dominant car and that weaknesses in strategy displayed last year had not been fixed gave Vettel and Ferrari the opportunity to capitalize.

[sopa]

We are going to see a carefully orchestrated 4 way battle for 2015 championship. Muahahaha.

 

Usually FIA likes to orchestrate close championships. However, for a weird reason they did the opposite in 2013. They orchestrated a Vettel domination after banning bad Pirelli tyres.

[sopa]

I think we are talking different things here. It is possibly Mercedes tuned their engines to a safe level considering they must last at least 4 race weekends this year. Maybe in preparation to the weekend they were a bit arrogant and overoptimistic about their advantage and didn't take some things seriously (tyre wear, etc). Not just de-tuning the power unit "too much", but also race strategy.

 

They optimistically pitted early on, believing their advantage is enough to win in the end anyway, because - well - that was always the case in 2014. Remember team radio calls during the race. Both Hamilton and Rosberg were told they can overtake Vettel at the end of the race. Mercedes basically was caught by surprise and didn't believe they don't have pace advantage over Ferrari here. Even after half a race they thought they can beat Vettel. It is a different thing to deliberately tanking a race.

[Anja]

F1 teams should sell tinfoil hats as a part of their merchandise. The market is there.

[Menace]

It's hard for me to comprehend that nearly 20% of posters here think, that it is almost certain Mercedes tanked it??

 

Wow.

[hankalis]

Nope... In Australia they finished the race 38 seconds ahed of Williams. In Malaysia they finished it one minute ahed of Williams. In Australia they lapped Red Bull. In Malaysia they almost lapped them. In Australia, they lapped Toro Rosso. In Malaysia, they almost lapped them. They completely destroyed Force India and Sauber in both races. All that lies within the normal differences that can occur between different tracks with very different characteristics and different tyres. The only team that doesn't fit into this comparison is Ferrari (and McLaren, but that's for obvious reasons).

No, Mercedes didn't tank it. It's Ferrari who found something.

Those who answered yes should reconsider their position in light of the above argument
I peronnaly find it trully conclusive

[aditya-now]

It doesn't seem that crazy to me that they might turn down the wick to undermine the arguments of those calling for regulation changes. If they're as far ahead as they've looked up until this weekend, then there's basically zero risk for the WDC/WCC.

 

Discuss. 

 

Absolutely possible. It was funny how Rosberg gave Seb all the space in the world to overtake. It was funny how Lewis socialized happily with Seb on the podium. The whole body language and energy put forth by Lewis made it look interesting, to say the least.

 

The factual reasons for doing it are clear anyway.

[aditya-now]

It's hard for me to comprehend that nearly 20% of posters here think, that it is almost certain Mercedes tanked it??

 

Wow.

 

You develop a "strangeness" sensor when you are following F1 for a long time. Back in Singapore 2008 I also argued for the race being rigged (we even had a prominent member of the Renault team posting in RC back then), and I was shot down by the mods back then. One year later, though....

[Atreiu]

It's not impossible, but, if they did, it was perfect and seamless.

I wouldn't give it more than 1% chance to be true.

[Massa]

Hamilton would have gone option, prime, option in my reckoning and had every chance of taking the win and making his tyres last just enough. Hamilton himself reckoned that he could have gone 19 laps on options in the final stint when he told his RE he was on the wrong tyres.

Even Paddy and Merc have themselves said that they may have gone for a 2 stopper minus a SC.

 

 

After the race, Mercedes have said their strategy was 3 stops and race with the hard tyres.

 

There is only one team who could do two stop and be fast with, it was the Ferrari. It was the only team who were able to race the big part of the race with the soft tyres. Raikkonen was not in free air he had to overtake all the race, and he was one of the fastest guy on track, with a broken car.

 

 

Coming into the race, there were two main choices to be made: whether to make two or three stops, and whether the Prime or the Option would be the better race tyre. It was clear yesterday that opinion was divided on that question, as we saw the leading teams using different tyre compounds in Q1. We saved new Prime tyres for the race, while others saved new Options. We planned a three-stop strategy favouring the Prime tyre and, although the Safety Car came out early, it was late enough to be used as the first of our three stops. With hindsight, the advantage this gave to Ferrari on their two-stop strategy, and the time we lost in traffic in the first laps after the Safety Car, left us with a gap to Sebastian that proved too much of a challenge for us to recover – especially considering that we did not have an underlying pace advantage to Ferrari, who were very competitive this weekend.

Edited by Massa, 02 April 2015 - 19:11.

[RubalSher]

After the race, Mercedes have said their strategy was 3 stops and race with the hard tyres.

 

There is only one team who could do two stop and be fast with, it was the Ferrari. It was the only team who were able to race the big part of the race with the soft tyres. Raikkonen was not in free air he had to overtake all the race, and he was one of the fastest guy on track, with a broken car.

 

They did 2 stints on options and 2 on primes and only because they had wasted one option set in qualy, otherwise they would have raced with options. Point being pre-race strategies can change through a race.

 

Keeping track position with little to choose from between teams is a no brainer. Merc could possibly have stayed on a 2 stopper and won the race and Ferrari agree. Vettel would not have been able to demonstrate the same tyre advantage given that he could have been in Hamilton's dirty air and/or needing to push more than he eventually did.

[Rasputin]

No need for Ecclestone to involve Mecedes for a desired result, as we all know some Pirellis are more equal than others, remember this?

 

[MJ999]

Just watched the race again today.I cant say for sure if Mercedes decided to lose this race on purpose because i have no evidence to prove however i can see the benefits of them doing so for once as the pressure they were under from the FIA and other teams regarding engine equalisation will inevitably get eroded. The standout moment for me was when Vettel overtook Rosberg early on in the race and i certainly was NOT expecting the Ferrari to pull away from the Mercedes in its slipstream despite having its DRS wide open.

[JHSingo]

I did find it quite funny, how these things seem to happen in F1.

 

Last year, Luca di Montezemolo and others were calling the new regulations the worst thing for F1 ever, saying it was just taxi-cab racing etc. Then, the first race after those comments, in Bahrain, we had an absolutely brilliant race.

 

This year, at the first race after all the talk of equalisation, a team other than Mercedes wins. It seems the racing gods have a sense of humour.

 

But other than that, I thought nothing of it. To answer the question, I very much doubt Mercedes would deliberately choose to lose.

[Risil]

No need for Ecclestone to involve Mecedes for a desired result, as we all know some Pirellis are more equal than others, remember this?

 

 

Don't be daft, Maldonado was in contention for podiums several times that year. When he was out front it was just that there was no one for him to crash into.

 

I don't mind paranoia but ill-informed paranoia is the devil's work.

Edited by Risil, 04 April 2015 - 17:03.

[LORDBYRON]

I was thinking of it as well especially after Toto's comments

[Rhardrks]

The first time since the new engine formula that a Mercedes car been beaten on merit.

Posts on twitter posting that Mercedes ran the engines in Malaysia with the fuel flow settings that will be required from China onwards.

Edited by Rhardrks, 04 April 2015 - 20:20.

[kevinracefan]

clown - talk, Bro...

not worthy of a vote, I M O

[katmen]

no, not a chance

 

they lost because:

 

1. vettel managed to qualify well

2. winning  strategy and tactics was present only in Ferrari pitwall

3. Allison

4. Vettel

5. weather

[jjcale]

I still maintain that the Merc is so much better than the Ferrari that it should never lose to the Ferrari in normal dry conditions ... no matter what temps, even if it is eating the tyres. When they turn it up, the Merc is the better part of 2 seconds a lap faster than anything else out there ATM.

 

I have great difficulty understanding what I watched in Mal.

[oetzi]

Maybe you're watching last year.

[aditya-now]

It's not impossible, but, if they did, it was perfect and seamless.

I wouldn't give it more than 1% chance to be true.

 

I would give it a 70% chance to be true....

 

http://www.gptoday.c...in_in_Malaysia/