Hamilton Vs Rosberg 2014

[basti313]

Nice post. Just a few remarks:

Looking at Barcelona - perhaps that feeling is more "damn, I was struggling a bit during the race, Nico was faster and had this race gone on for much longer, he would have had me".

To a degree, I can completely understand this line of thinking. It's not "if you win races" - it's "how". And in that sense, the feeling after this race perhaps was indeed that Nico looked quicker.

I think Nico did not look quicker. He was quicker...you have to keep in mind, that Nico lost more than 4 seconds at the pit stops on Lewis just because he did two laps more on every pit stop. And this with the fact, that Lewis had two bad pit stops.
Bringing Nico in for the first pit stop one lap after Lewis would have brought him out in front of Lewis. Pitting him right after Lewis for the second stop would have resulted in a 2sec gap instead of a 4.8sec gap.

I think there was something like a "soft teamorder" after the bad pit stops of Lewis. But as I can see it you can not claim that Lewis caused the bad stops.

Then there was the pace in the middle stint. I feel Lewis should have been faster, but effectively the gap remained quite constant - at times, it seemed Nico was even slightly quicker on the harder tyre relative to Lewis. This, IMO, was quite odd and unexpected.

Well, it was the same for the FIs.

Then, there's also that fuel graph - where Lewis was always quite clearly using less than his team-mate was. Was he underfueled? Was his max less than Nico, so he would have to conserve a bit more fuel throughout the race? Or did he simply push less, was more economic by driving style and carried around more weight than he needed? The answer to this question might answer some of the performance differential between the two - and why it was closer in the end, than it perhaps could have been.

You can not give anything on this fuel graphs. They are just computed from the pedal values. Things like the actual mapping do not go into the calculation.

Irregardless - the last stint was too close [from Lewis's point of view]. I'm thinking that perhaps the OHO tyre was the quicker strategy or Nico's car was just set up that little bit better.

I think it was just the setup. Lewis had a more "peaky" setup, which was better in Q, but made it hard in the race.
Between the strategies there was not much difference as both tires seemed to work similar.

Anyway, 4 wins now for Lewis - opposed to 3 2nd places for Nico. I still think, Lewis being the WDC - he is under slightly more pressure.

Pressure? I think that is not the reason. Just looks like Lewis is better in Q and at the start. Nico may be sometimes better in the race.

I personally think Nico will win a few this year - and I think Monaco might be the one. It will be very interesting to see how this progresses.

It will be interesting how they work out their setup. As stated in AMuS the mood is not that good between them and the setup will be a real game changer in Monaco. So maybe they stop talking about the setup in a useful way and in the end the one with the better setup will have a big advantage.

[Richard]

Hamilton hasn't driven poorly there, he's just had rotten luck. I remember one year when it looked like he really had a strong setup going into qualifying and he binned the car because it jumped over a bump.

Rotten luck? Did the bump unexpectedly materialise in front of his car? Or did the car spontaneously jump like a frisky horse getting spooked by something in the shadows?

[Gaz.]

Was the rotten luck attributed to when Perez red flagged a qualifying session with his enormous accident? I guess you could say that was bad luck but it's also typical of Mclaren not to put in a banker lap just in case things go pear shaped.

[Phil]

I think Nico did not look quicker. He was quicker...you have to keep in mind, that Nico lost more than 4 seconds at the pit stops on Lewis just because he did two laps more on every pit stop. And this with the fact, that Lewis had two bad pit stops.
Bringing Nico in for the first pit stop one lap after Lewis would have brought him out in front of Lewis. Pitting him right after Lewis for the second stop would have resulted in a 2sec gap instead of a 4.8sec gap.

Good point. I think my post was not to say that Lewis was quicker than he looked, but perhaps more to the point in understanding "why Nico was faster". Was he faster by being the quicker driver, or was he faster, perhaps due to fortunate strategy? I personally think Nico and Lewis are extremely close in pace - irregardless of Qualifying or Race. I think if you let them race in two identical cars on identical set-ups, I think they'd be extremely close. So I guess I'm trying to understand why Nico was quicker. Was it because he was just driving better or due to something else we're not seeing?

I also think that Nico's side of the garage was absolutely trying to get the best from their driver and their strategy. In that sense, I'm not sure the 'late' pitstops yielded that much, if any disadvantage for Nico. While it's the advantage of the leading driver to get priority on pit-calls, it's also a disadvantage because you are effectively going into unknowns where as the driver right behind you can perhaps use that information to make better judgement calls or take a gamble by doing a different strategy, as Nico did in this race.

If Nico had pitted right after Lewis on the first stint - he may have come out ahead (especially due to the slow pit-stop Lewis had). Assuming identical pit-stops, I think they would have been close - perhaps Lewis retaining the lead just slightly. Pitting early, would have ment a longer stint on mediums - which at that point was an unknown - so I think the 'safe-bet' was to stay out and monitor the gap, try to get the most out of a moderate stint on primes and then for a shorter stint on again the option tyre at the end. Miraculously, the hard tyre proved to be very good on performance, so I think it didn't hurt him that much.

Then, the last stint - Lewis was just increasing the gap before he pitted for his prime-stint and yet, the team got him in. I wonder if at that point, he should have stayed out longer - though if he had, perhaps Nico would have pitted (who's tyres just started to grain at that point accoarding to his radio-message), effectively getting the "undercut" and closing that gap that bit more, while getting onto the quicker tyre. It's a hard call.

I think this race was foremost a result of one strategy being slightly optimal. Then again, if the race had gone on for a few laps - perhaps we would have seen the medium tyre go past its optimal phase and the two tyres equalize to the point where passing would be again difficult. This would then surely highlight that the optimal pit-stop timing was in fact found and we're simply fooled because the driver on the quicker tyres was quicker at the end?

I am actually looking forward to James Allens graph when it hits his blog - because IMO it'll be interesting to see how Lewis's 2nd stint compared to Nico's. As the leading driver though, you do have one inherent disadvantage. You are setting the pace. If the math doesn't add up, you'll be in big trouble. As the following driver - to a degree, you may be able to react to these things to a degree the leading driver can not.

[turbof1]

One thing I thought was weird, are the slow pitstops from Hamilton. I can't shake the feeling mercedes didn't want to take risks with him and deliberately took more time to fasten wheels in order to reduce the risk of a wheel not getting properly attached. Rosberg might have decided against that since he wanted first place. Just throwing something in there; by no means I'm claiming mercedes tried to sabotage Hamilton's race. Just that they took less risks since he was in the lead with a margin.

[MercedesAMGSpy]

Nico didn't get the win he needed, but it was a wash for the drivers. Only the engineers will know who was compromised more.

Monaco is the one race this year that is totally up for grabs. There's no assurance that Merc will take pole or even hit the front row. I don't think it's even worth trying to guess. And if it rains...

Really? Mercedes have one second in hand and it's not only the engine, the whole package is brilliant. And engine power isn't only useful on the straights.

[astracrazy]

One thing I thought was weird, are the slow pitstops from Hamilton. I can't shake the feeling mercedes didn't want to take risks with him and deliberately took more time to fasten wheels in order to reduce the risk of a wheel not getting properly attached. Rosberg might have decided against that since he wanted first place. Just throwing something in there; by no means I'm claiming mercedes tried to sabotage Hamilton's race. Just that they took less risks since he was in the lead with a margin.

I tend to agree more with that than this idea of Merc sabotaging the race for Lewis

In some ways it was strange how the time Lewis lost in the pitstop was equalled out (more or less) by Nico losing time doing and extra lap or something. Maybe Merc tried to even it out in that regard. Because I don't really remember Lewis over all actually losing out in the pitstop fazes - if anything slightly gained.

or maybe there is nothing to it.

[Manoah2u]

Nico didn't get the win he needed, but it was a wash for the drivers. Only the engineers will know who was compromised more.

Monaco is the one race this year that is totally up for grabs. There's no assurance that Merc will take pole or even hit the front row. I don't think it's even worth trying to guess. And if it rains...

Really? Mercedes have one second in hand and it's not only the engine, the whole package is brilliant. And engine power isn't only useful on the straights.

I've got a scenario: Hamilton and Rosberg clash in Monaco at the chicane after tunnel straight, DNF for both, Alonso wins,
Ricciardo 2nd, Bottas 3rd, Raikkonen, Vettel + Massa DNF aswell.

we'll see.

I think Mercedes is out of reach. The only thing that could stop them is mechanical failure or a collision between HAM + ROS.

I think Rosberg is close to a snapping point.. regardless of Hamilton being there. He's been having rough years not getting the results he desires, and now finally having a competitive car to his disposal Hamilton has the edge and he's just short of capatilising his efforts. That'll frustrate and might just make him suspicious even if there would be no need to.

Imho, Hamilton simply is more 'talented' than Rosberg. That would give Rosberg a handicap over Hamilton, and because they're both having the same extremely dominant car, I just don't see how he could overcome this handicap. If Hamilton would not have had that engine failure in the 1st GP, i think he'd won the 1st GP and been in front from day 1.

Now i think Rosberg (who performs massive though) feels he's 'robbed' of his 1st place and we'll see a different Rosberg coming into Monaco.

Last year it was said Alonso vs Raikkonen is gonna be explosive.....I think we're about to have an explosion between Rosberg and Hamilton though.

[turbof1]

Imho, Hamilton simply is more 'talented' than Rosberg. That would give Rosberg a handicap over Hamilton, and because they're both having the same extremely dominant car, I just don't see how he could overcome this handicap. If Hamilton would not have had that engine failure in the 1st GP, i think he'd won the 1st GP and been in front from day 1.

Imo they are too closely matches to put it down on a simple talent deficit. Hamilton has slightly more raw speed putting him in first position each time. Not being there automatically increases the chance you'll loose time already at the start trying to hold off others, or worse: trying to undo the lost places. Being not first also puts you at the disadvantage of not having first call on pitstops. Rosberg was almost able to completely undo the damage, so he has it somewhere to beat lewis.

The 0.166s deficit in qualy really snowball-effected for rosberg. Hamilton is consistent and relentless; you need to start beating hil before free practice begins else it'll be very difficult, no matter how talented you are.

[basti313]

Good point. I think my post was not to say that Lewis was quicker than he looked, but perhaps more to the point in understanding "why Nico was faster". Was he faster by being the quicker driver, or was he faster, perhaps due to fortunate strategy? I personally think Nico and Lewis are extremely close in pace - irregardless of Qualifying or Race. I think if you let them race in two identical cars on identical set-ups, I think they'd be extremely close. So I guess I'm trying to understand why Nico was quicker. Was it because he was just driving better or due to something else we're not seeing?

Yes, you are right with the pace. But in Q you really could see how hard the car of Lewis was to drive. He really went for oversteer in the setup and you could see it there. This was the faster setup for Q, but has compromised the race as he was complaining the whole race about this balance.

I also think that Nico's side of the garage was absolutely trying to get the best from their driver and their strategy. In that sense, I'm not sure the 'late' pitstops yielded that much, if any disadvantage for Nico. While it's the advantage of the leading driver to get priority on pit-calls, it's also a disadvantage because you are effectively going into unknowns where as the driver right behind you can perhaps use that information to make better judgement calls or take a gamble by doing a different strategy, as Nico did in this race.

But Toto said, that the strategy was nailed down after the start and that it was 6sec slower. So fpr me it look like the first "late" stop was planed late to keep the time on Primes short. But the second stop should have been earlier as the time on Options was much too short in the end. so I am rather sure about not only a priority pit-call, but a forbidden undercut.

Then, the last stint - Lewis was just increasing the gap before he pitted for his prime-stint and yet, the team got him in. I wonder if at that point, he should have stayed out longer - though if he had, perhaps Nico would have pitted (who's tyres just started to grain at that point accoarding to his radio-message), effectively getting the "undercut" and closing that gap that bit more, while getting onto the quicker tyre. It's a hard call.

The lap times do not hold for that. The gaps were oscillating all the time and Nico did nearly his best lap of this stint in the end. He was just managing the 4sec gap and was pushing when Lewis went to the pits.
Regarding the time of Lewis`s pit stop: He went to the pits in lap 43. This is a normal time for the OOP strategy. Others like Hulk went much earlier.
Rosberg's pit stop was much too late for OPO. Doing 23 laps on the Prime was nonsense.

I am actually looking forward to James Allens graph when it hits his blog - because IMO it'll be interesting to see how Lewis's 2nd stint compared to Nico's. As the leading driver though, you do have one inherent disadvantage. You are setting the pace. If the math doesn't add up, you'll be in big trouble. As the following driver - to a degree, you may be able to react to these things to a degree the leading driver can not.

Well, you can see it from the laptimes. The gap was 3.7 after the stops and was closing to 2.8 until Nico had two bad laps (28 and 29, 4.5sec gap). Then nearly nothing changed until Lewis pited with a 3.8 gap.
An undercut would have worked well, I think.

[myurr]

Imo they are too closely matches to put it down on a simple talent deficit. Hamilton has slightly more raw speed putting him in first position each time. Not being there automatically increases the chance you'll loose time already at the start trying to hold off others, or worse: trying to undo the lost places. Being not first also puts you at the disadvantage of not having first call on pitstops. Rosberg was almost able to completely undo the damage, so he has it somewhere to beat lewis.

The 0.166s deficit in qualy really snowball-effected for rosberg. Hamilton is consistent and relentless; you need to start beating hil before free practice begins else it'll be very difficult, no matter how talented you are.[/quote]
This was, however, on a day where Rosberg had the better car setup so should have been able to capitalise. With equal balance and grip from the car my view is that Hamilton would pull away at couple of tenths a lap and would ultimately make it look quite easy.

What has really separated the two this year is that on those days where Hamilton hasn't had things go his way he's still been able to drag a pole position out of the bag (or nail it into the first corner) and has stolen the win despite having a slight performance deficit. He's really made it count when it's mattered.

Rosberg needs to stop the rot and at least take those wins where he has the quicker car. Then, with his engineers, he can build upon trying to make sure he ends up with the better car more often than not. We're talking about fine margins but despite what his detractors may say Hamilton has a real talent for dragging a decent performance out of a poorly balanced car so unless Rosberg is absolutely performing at his peak Lewis will keep stealing those wins from him.

My only other thought on them is that blind luck gave Rosberg the lead in the championship in the first place, I hope it doesn't play a further part in their battle. If Rosberg wins by default because Lewis has more DNFs through mechanical misfortune then that wouldn't be good. Likewise I hope Rosberg gets a fair shot at the title and makes it difficult for Lewis even if he does ultimately win rather than have it fall away from him due to a DNF outside of this control.

[myurr]

Yes, you are right with the pace. But in Q you really could see how hard the car of Lewis was to drive. He really went for oversteer in the setup and you could see it there. This was the faster setup for Q, but has compromised the race as he was complaining the whole race about this balance.

He was complaining about balance all of Saturday as well. He didn't choose the oversteer for speed, the team adjusted his setup overnight on the Friday, despite Lewis being happy with where it was, and the car moved away from where he wanted it to be. They made some more adjustments before qualifying which helped a bit, but after having the perfect balance on Friday the car was still a handful to drive in qualifying and the race. Davidson even commented during the replays that it looked like Rosberg simply had more downforce such was his grip advantage and that Lewis was really having to work hard to drag performance out of the car.

[dans79]

I think there was something like a "soft teamorder" after the bad pit stops of Lewis. But as I can see it you can not claim that Lewis caused the bad stops.

Nico himself, said he stayed out on purpose. it's pretty simple while the mediums are faster than the hards, they aren't as durable. Thus if Nico is going to push at the end, he needs the last stint to be as short as possible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG6XDmprack

[MercedesAMGSpy]

Imo they are too closely matches to put it down on a simple talent deficit. Hamilton has slightly more raw speed putting him in first position each time. Not being there automatically increases the chance you'll loose time already at the start trying to hold off others, or worse: trying to undo the lost places. Being not first also puts you at the disadvantage of not having first call on pitstops. Rosberg was almost able to completely undo the damage, so he has it somewhere to beat lewis.

The 0.166s deficit in qualy really snowball-effected for rosberg. Hamilton is consistent and relentless; you need to start beating hil before free practice begins else it'll be very difficult, no matter how talented you are.

Lewis taking pole every race (except Bahrain) has to do with his talent. They have the same car, so it depends on the driver. Don't forget without Lewis Hamilton at Mercedes, Nico Rosberg/Mercedes would have had pole in Spain and Bahrain. Red Bull would have had pole in Australia, Malaysia and China. A totally different situation.

[Emerson.F]

Calm down everyone. Paddy's here.