Mercedes drivers told to obey team orders in future

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dj_bytedisaster

IN Mercedes' view it wasn't a team order to change the result to a more favourable one. Lewis was on a two-stopper, ROS on a three-stopper, so all Lewis had to do was to stay within 20 secs of Nico. There had been a clear agreement at Merc - when the cars are on different strategies, they don't interfer with each other, and Lewis broke that agreement and cost ROS unneccessary time.

---

So you're against what Lewis did? That comes as a huge surprise.
We still need to know why the team didn't fit Hamilton with more soft tyres, costing him unneccessary time...

Yeah it's a tough call whether he did the right thing, but things have been so uneven against Lewis this season, part of me can't blame him. He had to think of his own strategy too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by driveace

Nico,s problem seemed to be with Charlie bringing the safety car out ,in Nico,s eyes at the wrong time .But Charlie can see all the race on cameras where as Nico only see,s what's happening around him !

---

Nico has done pretty well with safety cars this year I think. One in Bahrain wiped out Hamilton's 10-sec lead for him, plus the lack of one in Germany helped him as much as it didn't help Lewis.

Maybe the first team order should be for Mercedes to order some more reliability, or a more balanced level of reliability for Lewis compared to his team-mate, then think about orders for Hamilton after that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjbetty

Yeah it's a tough call whether he did the right thing, but things have been so uneven against Lewis this season, part of me can't blame him. He had to think of his own strategy too.

---

No he hasn't. He is an employee of Mercedes. First and foremost he has to serve their interests. Putting his own ambitions over those of the team is a clear breach of contract. If any of my employees put his own ambitions over what I have in mind for the company, he would be gone.

What you can question, is the wisdom of Mercedes even asking something like that - just as my employees have the right to question my motives if I'm obstructing their ambitions, but first they have to carry out what I'm telling them, unless my request is unlawful.

I had the same reflex last year, with Vettel in Malaysia, thinking he was right to disobey. But it was the same case. Vettel disobeying the order was essentially wrong. And it was complete stupidity from RB to ask him to stay put. But he still put his own interests over those of the team and that's essentially wrong.

Well what's done is done, he can't take back what he did and the team can't reverse the silly call. They all messed up and thankfully Lewis got something out of it. I disobey my boss a lot and usually argue my point until we reach an agreement. Drivers disobeying their teams is not new and will continue in future.

If Lewis breached his contract, I'm sure Mercedes breached too for hampering his challenge when I'm sure they promised him a championship when they signed him. Handbags at the end of the day and they need to let these guys race, sod the comfortably placed team in the championship. That's a foregone conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

I disobey my boss a lot and usually argue my point until we reach an agreement. Drivers disobeying their teams is not new and will continue in future.

---

Then I'm wondering how your boss runs his business. Democracy doesn't really work in a business, as he is the one who carries all the risk and resposibility, so he needs to call the shots. That's what people often misunderstand - The company is MINE and so is the risk. If I muck it up, my employees lose their job and their incomes. So I seriously have no use for employees, who think they know better than me an think they can take risky decisions in contradiction to my orders.
It's not as crass at Merc of course and the teams existence doesn't hinge on Lewis obeying the team's orders. But it certainly will have an impact on the atmosphere. You could see it last year at RB. The relationship between VET and the team was visibly soured for quite some time and a strained relationship to the team is what Lewis needs the least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dj_bytedisaster

No he hasn't. He is an employee of Mercedes. First and foremost he has to serve their interests. Putting his own ambitions over those of the team is a clear breach of contract. If any of my employees put his own ambitions over what I have in mind for the company, he would be gone.

---

I think you may have a rather rose-tinted view of your employees. When they have a choice between doing what's best for the company and what's best for their own career, which do you think most people are choosing most of the time?

I would not be suprised if, when its time to choose the strategi before a race, Nico will have the call first, all times. It´s only fair, afterall, he is the one obeying orders.

Ohhh, forgot about pitting to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dj_bytedisaster

No he hasn't. He is an employee of Mercedes. First and foremost he has to serve their interests.

---

Actually I guess it's pretty easy to see whether this is true or not. Lewis chose his own priorities over those of the team, and has he been sacked? No. So as it turns out, he can do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyL

I think you may have a rather rose-tinted view of your employees. When they have a choice between doing what's best for the company and what's best for their own career, which do you think most people are choosing most of the time?

---

If what they choose is against my orders, they can do what's best for their career somewhere else, as they will be dismissed. It's as simple as that. I do of course try to not order something which I know is against the interests of my employees, but there are situations where it is unavoidable. Which is why Merc have to question themselves why they ordered something without strict necessity that they knew would be against lewis' ambitions. But that doesn't give Lewis' the right to simply disregard anything he doesn't like. What will it be next time? He thinks he's called in too early, stays out, blows a tyre and costs the team valuable points?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dj_bytedisaster

Then I'm wondering how your boss runs his business. Democracy doesn't really work in a business, as he is the one who carries all the risk and resposibility, so he needs to call the shots. That's what people often misunderstand - The company is MINE and so is the risk. If I muck it up, my employees lose their job and their incomes. So I seriously have no use for employees, who think they know better than me an think they can take risky decisions in contradiction to my orders.

---

Just the sort of attitude that both makes too many workplaces horrible environments, and leads to companies going down the toilet. Very often the employees know how to do things a hell of a lot better than their bosses — after all, it's been said that the people who become bosses rise to the top precisely because they are expendable in terms of actually doing the work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dj_bytedisaster

If what they choose is against my orders, they can do what's best for their career somewhere else, as they will be dismissed. It's as simple as that. I do of course try to not order something which I know is against the interests of my employees, but there are situations where it is unavoidable. Which is why Merc have to question themselves why they ordered something without strict necessity that they knew would be against lewis' ambitions. But that doesn't give Lewis' the right to simply disregard anything he doesn't like. What will it be next time? He thinks he's called in too early, stays out, blows a tyre and costs the team valuable points?

---

He was right on this occasion; the team was wrong. There need be no sanction. Let the drivers get on with driving. That's what they're extremely well paid to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyL

I think you may have a rather rose-tinted view of your employees. When they have a choice between doing what's best for the company and what's best for their own career, which do you think most people are choosing most of the time?

---

Exactly.

Hello BD ,have you been away for a while ?
Nice to see you back .
Let's get this straight ,Lewis was told to let Nico past ,Nico could not get near enough,or fast enough to pass without Lewis slowing by 2 seconds a lap ! He was only a short distance behind Fernando ,and probably have passed him ,had he not been sidetracked by the message from Paddy !Merc then issued NO team orders to Lewis after Nico came out with new tyres? If they were that bothered about Nico catching both Dan and Nando ,and probably passing them ,then why no team orders then ? They realized the mistake of asking Lewis to slow earlier

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dj_bytedisaster

Then I'm wondering how your boss runs his business. Democracy doesn't really work in a business, as he is the one who carries all the risk and resposibility, so he needs to call the shots. That's what people often misunderstand - The company is MINE and so is the risk. If I muck it up, my employees lose their job and their incomes. So I seriously have no use for employees, who think they know better than me an think they can take risky decisions in contradiction to my orders.
It's not as crass at Merc of course and the teams existence doesn't hinge on Lewis obeying the team's orders. But it certainly will have an impact on the atmosphere. You could see it last year at RB. The relationship between VET and the team was visibly soured for quite some time and a strained relationship to the team is what Lewis needs the least.

---

Well I'm pretty good at my job and my boss wings it most of the time. I'm an industrial designer and he's a mechanical engineer by trade so he's good at the workings if our projects but not the aesthetics. We often clash and swear at each other but ultimately we know that we each know better in our fields. My boss doesn't run our department, the employees do and he gets the credit and the flack in equal measure. It works. At the end of the day as an employee I am out for myself, nobody else. We work as a team for success, but this has a largely selfish motive too, to get more money. ;)

I'm not too worried about Hamilton's relationship long term. If he wins the WDC and then moves to another team, I won't be losing sleep over it.

Most people don´t disobey orders from their boss/company and moore so, not in front of a very big TV audience and get away with it scot free. Add to that that the audience knows that you are doing it for your own only and are payd zillions from the team on top of that.

Nice discussion.:p:

As with everything, a lot depends on situation, but also on personalities and how open they are. One of the most strict examples is army - there you have to obey, because if you started democratically debating about decisions, you'll lose the war, while others are attacking. So you have to follow orders regardless of how good or bad they are.

In businesses it is more open and it is in the interest of the business if the owner is able to use as much wisdom of his employees for the good of company as possible. So discussing about things can be good for universal well-being. Obviously there are some nuances of leadership (especially if it is a big company), of which the employees aren't and can not be experts at, so these decisions have to be made by the employer. And there can be some unique and critical situations, which demand quick decision-making, for which you also don't have time to have a democratic discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

He was right on this occasion; the team was wrong. There need be no sanction. Let the drivers get on with driving. That's what they're extremely well paid to do.

---

That's right , let them get on with the driving , but leave the decisions on strategy to the team .

They didn't ask him if he was destroying his tires, but they warned that he would if he kept racing Nico .

They could see a one, two , instead of a three, four , and didn't care which driver was ahead .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jens

Nice discussion.:p:

As with everything, a lot depends on situation, but also on personalities and how open they are. One of the most strict examples is army - there you have to obey, because if you started democratically debating about decisions, you'll lose the war, while others are attacking. So you have to follow orders regardless of how good or bad they are.

In businesses it is more open and it is in the interest of the business if the owner is able to use as much wisdom of his employees for the good of company as possible. So discussing about things can be good for universal well-being. Obviously there are some nuances of leadership (especially if it is a big company), of which the employees aren't and can not be experts at, so these decisions have to be made by the employer. And there can be some unique and critical situations, which demand quick decision-making, for which you also don't have time to have a democratic discussion.

---

F1 is war , and Merc have won some battles , but not the war , at least not yet .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Just the sort of attitude that both makes too many workplaces horrible environments, and leads to companies going down the toilet. Very often the employees know how to do things a hell of a lot better than their bosses — after all, it's been said that the people who become bosses rise to the top precisely because they are expendable in terms of actually doing the work.

---

Sorry mate, but socialism doesn't work. I must know, I was born in East Germany. I own a company, if it goes bust I am to blame, so I call the shots. I do value the input of my employees, but if they think they can disregard me and just do their own thing without risk, because the risk is mine. They're gone. period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

F1 is war , and Merc have won some battles , but not the war , at least not yet .

---

Unless you've ever been in a warzone, don't use that word. F1 is a playground for rich kids with a strange sense of entitlement. War is where people get killed. Don't be ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dj_bytedisaster

Unless you've ever been in a warzone, don't use that word. F1 is a playground for rich kids with a strange sense of entitlement. War is where people get killed. Don't be ridiculous.

---

Chill out , man .

I'd prefer any war to be waged on tarmac , rather in in any "war zone" you're talking about .

Take your "ridiculous" to someone else's door .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

I'd prefer any war to be waged on tarmac , rather in in any "war zone" you're talking about .

---

War - by definition means means killing people. I'm sick of people waging that word like it's the most normal word in the world. I've carried a dozen dead friends and quite a few dead and wounded Americans out of the line of fire. in Somalia in the early nineties and it makes me physically sick, when people talk about war, for whom the most distressing experience in life was that the espresso machine was jammed.

We are talking about motorsports here - a couple of spoiled kids, who never had to work for a living, driving cars really fast. What's wrong with words like 'battle' or 'rivalry'. War my ass - you kids never saw war.

lol But how am I supposed to make cappuccinos then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

That's right , let them get on with the driving , but leave the decisions on strategy to the team .

They didn't ask him if he was destroying his tires, but they warned that he would if he kept racing Nico .

They could see a one, two , instead of a three, four , and didn't care which driver was ahead .

---

A one, two was worse for Lewis than a three, four because it would have extended Nico's lead. These guys are raking in points for the team and their results obviously reflect this. Lewis was put in a position where he had to make the decision to give away or defend a position of getting more points than his team mate. There was no prior agreement to let the other through, they just had their strategies agreed. Both were able to continue to plan, but Nico lost out due to the SC, whereas Lewis benefitted. The team attempted to maximise an advantage they saw for Nico and this would have affected the championship for Lewis.

Team orders are necessary but are rarely popular with one driver or the viewing public. Lewis demonstrated his thirst for the championship and the team need to step up to the plate to give both drivers an equal chance of success and equally reliable cars. I'm not suggesting the team have favoured one over the other but they have two drivers eager for the championship and one has had marginally more mechanical failures than the other. This breeds frustration and the team need to rectify that before it goes out of control. Drivers want to win driver titles first and constructors second. The team have a different view on this maybe, maybe not. Both are worth a lot of money for all parties and the audience only cares for one. The market value also adds to the Mercedes brand, as we we'll know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dj_bytedisaster

Unless you've ever been in a warzone, don't use that word. F1 is a playground for rich kids with a strange sense of entitlement. War is where people get killed. Don't be ridiculous.

---

By that logic, unless you have ever been in a F1 car, lets not talk about F1 either... 2-seaters do not count :p:

Bagwan just used a common enough phrase in the English language, so you lecturing him on how war is bad (obvious) and how most of us haven't been in an actual war is churlish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Storm

By that logic, unless you have ever been in a F1 car, lets not talk about F1 either... 2-seaters do not count :p:

Bagwan just used a common enough phrase in the English language, so you lecturing him on how war is bad (obvious) and how most of us haven't been in an actual war is churlish.

---

Last time I checked, F1 was an entertainment, war certainly is not. I simply object to using the word war in connection with entertainment, because it makes people insensitive to what that three letter word actually means.

F1 is a motorsport competition. It is not entertainment, but some find it entertaining. As for the war bit, I don't have to explain that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dj_bytedisaster

War - by definition means means killing people. I'm sick of people waging that word like it's the most normal word in the world. I've carried a dozen dead friends and quite a few dead and wounded Americans out of the line of fire. in Somalia in the early nineties and it makes me physically sick, when people talk about war, for whom the most distressing experience in life was that the espresso machine was jammed.

We are talking about motorsports here - a couple of spoiled kids, who never had to work for a living, driving cars really fast. What's wrong with words like 'battle' or 'rivalry'. War my ass - you kids never saw war.

---

You're going off topic for a war of words , and I'm not interested , thanks .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

A one, two was worse for Lewis than a three, four because it would have extended Nico's lead. These guys are raking in points for the team and their results obviously reflect this. Lewis was put in a position where he had to make the decision to give away or defend a position of getting more points than his team mate. There was no prior agreement to let the other through, they just had their strategies agreed. Both were able to continue to plan, but Nico lost out due to the SC, whereas Lewis benefitted. The team attempted to maximise an advantage they saw for Nico and this would have affected the championship for Lewis.

Team orders are necessary but are rarely popular with one driver or the viewing public. Lewis demonstrated his thirst for the championship and the team need to step up to the plate to give both drivers an equal chance of success and equally reliable cars. I'm not suggesting the team have favoured one over the other but they have two drivers eager for the championship and one has had marginally more mechanical failures than the other. This breeds frustration and the team need to rectify that before it goes out of control. Drivers want to win driver titles first and constructors second. The team have a different view on this maybe, maybe not. Both are worth a lot of money for all parties and the audience only cares for one. The market value also adds to the Mercedes brand, as we we'll know.

---

One thing we seem to disagree on , henners , is that Lewis could have won , had he not held Nico up .
I think he would have had a really good chance to keep Nico behind him at the end .
But , you don't seem to have much faith in that idea .

Double post .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dj_bytedisaster

War - by definition means means killing people. I'm sick of people waging that word like it's the most normal word in the world. I've carried a dozen dead friends and quite a few dead and wounded Americans out of the line of fire. in Somalia in the early nineties and it makes me physically sick, when people talk about war, for whom the most distressing experience in life was that the espresso machine was jammed.

We are talking about motorsports here - a couple of spoiled kids, who never had to work for a living, driving cars really fast. What's wrong with words like 'battle' or 'rivalry'.

---

With you completely on that. One hears far too much immoderate language these days — 'tragedy' and 'disaster' when no deaths are involved, for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

That's right , let them get on with the driving , but leave the decisions on strategy to the team .

---

I tend to believe that drivers should be able to get on with both, without the constant interference from the pit wall. Sometimes with Massa one used to wonder whether he could make it round a single lap without Rob Smedley's assistance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dj_bytedisaster

Sorry mate, but socialism doesn't work. I must know, I was born in East Germany. I own a company, if it goes bust I am to blame, so I call the shots. I do value the input of my employees, but if they think they can disregard me and just do their own thing without risk, because the risk is mine. They're gone. period.

---

I don't wish to lecture you on the differences between communism and socialism, nor on why greater employee input is not in itself socialist, but the above response suggests it might be worthwhile. And please don't call me 'mate'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

One thing we seem to disagree on , henners , is that Lewis could have won , had he not held Nico up .
I think he would have had a really good chance to keep Nico behind him at the end .
But , you don't seem to have much faith in that idea .

---

I don't think Lewis could have won the race no. I think had Nico got past, he would have made up time on his newer tyres and been a real hassle for Lewis in the final stint earlier than he actually was. I can't extent on that more than I already have multiple times here already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

One thing we seem to disagree on , henners , is that Lewis could have won , had he not held Nico up .
I think he would have had a really good chance to keep Nico behind him at the end .
But , you don't seem to have much faith in that idea .

---

You're assuming Lewis held Nico up, but did he? Before the team order, Nico was catching Lewis quite rapidly. After Nico got relatively close, Lewis was either holding Nico up, or he sped up to match Nico's pace - and was therefore not holding him up. Their lap times should tell the story.

- If Nico's lap times increase after he gets close to Lewis, he was being held up and maybe Lewis should've let him past.
- If Lewis's lap times decrease, that tells us he made the decision to take the risk of ruining his tyres to avoid having to let Nico past.

I haven't looked at lap times, but Lewis's reply on the radio to the team orders tell me it's probably the second scenario I've listed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Firstgear

You're assuming Lewis held Nico up, but did he? Before the team order, Nico was catching Lewis quite rapidly. After Nico got relatively close, Lewis was either holding Nico up, or he sped up to match Nico's pace - and was therefore not holding him up. Their lap times should tell the story.

- If Nico's lap times increase after he gets close to Lewis, he was being held up and maybe Lewis should've let him past.
- If Lewis's lap times decrease, that tells us he made the decision to take the risk of ruining his tyres to avoid having to let Nico past.

I haven't looked at lap times, but Lewis's reply on the radio to the team orders tell me it's probably the second scenario I've listed.

---

Had he kept the same pace , as Nico approached quickly , he would have been holding him up .
The pace he was keeping was more in tune with what the team wanted , as they wanted his longer stint on harder tires to get him to the end with some pace left in them .

As it was , though , Lewis sped up as he got close , and it prompted a reminder at the same time as the team order , which was to not race Nico because it would destroy the tires .

So , Lewis , technically , didn't hold him up at all in that sense .

Perhaps I should have written it as "held him behind" .

And , as it was , he didn't end up able to even really get a look into passing the Ferrari , a car with far less pace in it .
It was a great drive from the back , but , in my opinion , he could have played it smarter and had a real chance at the win .

Sounds like a pretty fair assessment Baggy. So Nico has no real complaint because he wasn't slowed by Lewis.

Lewis had to choose between a good chance at keeping Nico behind, or a slim chance at a win. His choice shows us that the WDC is more important to him than an individual win. Can't blame him for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

Had he kept the same pace , as Nico approached quickly , he would have been holding him up .
And , as it was , he didn't end up able to even really get a look into passing the Ferrari , a car with far less pace in it .
It was a great drive from the back , but , in my opinion , he could have played it smarter and had a real chance at the win .

---

His real chance to win was denied, when the team didn't switch him to the faster 3 stop strategy, which would have meant him staying ahead of the red bull and probably passing the ferrari.
In the previous race they (correctly) gambled on the SC and sorta lost out a bit, but typically the mercedes team seem too dogged to switch up strategies and actually optimize their situation.
that is the whole reason for the 6 guys on the pitwall and dozens of engineers both at the track and back in the factory. It was so obvious to fans and commentators, bur seemingly oblivious to the team.
Perhaps the thing that Hamilton did wrong was not insisting on coming in for a 3rd stop, but nothing else. He did play it smart with the situation he was in and the cars around him.

Nico showed no zeal to make a proper pass, and actually was not good enough to pass vergne which probably held up Hamilton as well. and as many have said, slowing down to let rosberg bye would surely have meant him finishing behind rosberg and deliberately giving away points to his championship rival. The team has already come out and acknowledged the poor decision and mistake of issuing those orders and that Hamilton was right to pursue his race. So, yes he played it smarter and managed to finish on the podium and more importantly, ahead of his championship rival.

I can't remember a summer break where Hamilton wasn't the hot topic in recent years lol. Come on Spa this is boring now!! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truefan72

His real chance to win was denied, when the team didn't switch him to the faster 3 stop strategy, which would have meant him staying ahead of the red bull and probably passing the ferrari.
In the previous race they (correctly) gambled on the SC and sorta lost out a bit, but typically the mercedes team seem too dogged to switch up strategies and actually optimize their situation.
that is the whole reason for the 6 guys on the pitwall and dozens of engineers both at the track and back in the factory. It was so obvious to fans and commentators, bur seemingly oblivious to the team.
Perhaps the thing that Hamilton did wrong was not insisting on coming in for a 3rd stop, but nothing else. He did play it smart with the situation he was in and the cars around him.

Nico showed no zeal to make a proper pass, and actually was not good enough to pass vergne which probably held up Hamilton as well. and as many have said, slowing down to let rosberg bye would surely have meant him finishing behind rosberg and deliberately giving away points to his championship rival. The team has already come out and acknowledged the poor decision and mistake of issuing those orders and that Hamilton was right to pursue his race. So, yes he played it smarter and managed to finish on the podium and more importantly, ahead of his championship rival.

---

Yeah I agree with this. The team should have switched Hamilton to Rosberg's strategy. I don't get Mercedes decisions to be honest with this. It appears to me as though these decisions always subtly favor Rosberg not Hamilton. We'll see in time what happens in the second half of the season I guess :)