This page will be updated throughout the day.
Please if you are on Twitter press the tweet button below. If you re-write and tweet individual story headlines don’t forget to include #F1.
You may not realise how hugely important this is and has helped grow our community significantly
Previously on TheJudge13:
#Formula E – The Next Frontier?
#F1 Forensics : Mercedes Festival in Italy – Ferrari’s embarrassing nightmare
OTD Lite: 1967 – Jim Clark’s greatest drive
Bernie waltzes in to rescue Sauber – surely not
Schumacher stopped Ferrari move – Montoya
‘Luck’ helped Hamilton win in Monza – Rosberg
What a difference a year makes
Santander boss dies, what now for Ferrari and Alonso?
OTD Lite: 1967 – Jim Clark’s greatest drive
Jim Clark. A name that conjures up visions of driving genius. Idolised by his contemporaries and by Formula One fans throughout the ages. His death, at just 32, brought to an end a career that was strangely unfulfilled. Of course a double World Champion and a record 25 victories was a staggering record but everybody expected further trophies. His death left motor-sport numb, if it could happen to the best..
On this day, Clark ran what many consider his greatest drive yet he only finished third and retired. With Jack Brabham and John Surtees fighting up to the line, the annals of history have forgotten his race, but on this day Jim Clark blessed the Italian track with fairy dust.
He started in pole position and fought with Dan Gurney from the start but disaster struck on lap 12 when he picked up a puncture and by the time the car had pitted and was race worthy, he was over a lap behind. Monza in the late sixties was famous for slipstreaming battles, but Clark unlapped himself and pulled away from the leaders. By lap 60 he had caught the leaders again and he was through into an incredible first position. On lap 67 his car coughed as the fuel pump failed and he ended up finishing in third place.
One lap was all that was needed for his performance to have been placed beside Nuvolari’s 1935 German victory, or Fangio’s 1957 German win. But fate decreed otherwise. Black and white pages give little away but the aficionados know..
The Jackal
Bernie waltzes in to rescue Sauber – surely not
It would appear that in the two days since we received news that Lawrence Stroll was looking to purchase Sauber – talks have broken down between the Candian billionaire and the Swiss team.
Sauber are facing financial collapse but their insistence on a value of 55 million Euro has been adjudged to be exorbitant. The founder of the Tommy Hilfiger brand has tired with the Swiss because it seems that every time they sit down to discuss the purchase of the team, the debt has further increased.
Stroll is a huge motor-sport fan who owns the Mont Tremblant circuit in Canada as well as some highly collectible Ferraris including the legendary 330/P4 as pictured on Monday. His initial talks with Mr E. were in relation to buying CVC shares but his sights have turned to Sauber in a quest to build a Ferrari Junior team in a similar manner to Red Bull’s Toro Rosso
Ferrari has now intervened in the hope of resurrecting the deal and would have the organisation run by Luca Baldisserri who would in turn accommodate the Ferrari Driver Academy. Jules Bianchi it appears has outgrown the Marussia team and Ferrari wants him in a team that has the facilities to aim higher than the equally strapped Marussia team.
The added benefit for Stroll is that his 15 years old son, Lance, is also part of Ferrari’s Academy and a seat with Sauber would be assured with his father’s investment.
Sauber’s valuation is in part due to the money that Sergey Sirotkin’s Russian backers had promised the team. It seems that Sauber, and other financially desperate teams, have been taken in by promises of non-existant sponsorship which is rapidly evaporating from the F1 circus.
Ultimately, although Stroll has a large liquid disposable income, he did not earn his wealth by being a fool. So with the negotiations currently stalled, it is left to Bernie to see if he can salvage the sale. Although with the payments that FOM make to the different teams – maybe it was always Bernie’s intention to stifle the weaker operations out and have 8 teams with 3 cars each.
(sourced from GMM with TJ13 comment)
Schumacher stopped Ferrari move – Montoya
Juan Pablo Montoya says F1 legend Michael Schumacher blocked his potential move to Ferrari a decade ago. The Colombian, now 38 and having switched to Indycars at the end of a long stint in Nascar, was back in the formula one paddock last weekend at Monza.
It was a rare visit to a grand prix for Montoya, but he said he has nothing against the sport he left suddenly in 2006. “I have seen so many friends here,” he is quoted by Italy’s Autosprint as having said at Monza. “It’s not like when I had to work,” Montoya smiled.
He was also asked about rumours that, when his F1 career transitioned from Williams to McLaren in the middle of last decade, he also toyed with a switch to Ferrari. “It was never possible,” Montoya explained. “Michael Schumacher was there and he hated me. But I’m really sorry about how he is now — I just hope he continues to recover.”
Montoya said he doesn’t have a strong opinion about today’s F1 compared to the V10 monsters he drove to 7 grand prix wins between 2001 and 2006. “They still seem difficult to drive, challenging,” he said. “They’re slower, but that’s because of the tyres.”
TJ13 comment: Stop Press! Stop Press! Montoya reveals mighty secret after suffering its weight all these years. Tell us something we didn’t know. Whether it was Montoya, Hakkinen, Villeneuve or eventually Raikkonen – one of the mot disappointing factors of Schumacher’s career was his refusal to share a team with a competitive team-mate.
From his time at Benetton where he had a contract clause that allowed his release if Senna ever signed to the team, through to his first retirement from F1 at the end of 2006 because Il Padrino had tired of the Todt/ Schumi double act.
In much the same way that his questionable driving ethics split opinions amongst fans, so too did his refusal to allow competition. The saddest thing is that this would have cemented his brilliance even further. After witnessing the laboured efforts of Raikkonen in 2007 and Massa in 2008, there could be no neutral observer who doesn’t believe those years would have been his 8th and 9th titles.
The other thing that is clearly forgotten amongst all this is that Montoya’s team-mate from 2001 to 2004 was a certain Ralf Schumacher – so the chances are high that Michael would have had inside information of how this volatile man operated.
(sourced from GMM with TJ13 comment)
‘Luck’ helped Hamilton win in Monza – Rosberg
“Luck” helped Lewis Hamilton to win Sunday’s Italian grand prix. That is the view of his Mercedes teammate Nico Rosberg, even if the championship leader didn’t initially want his arch title nemesis to hear it. At Monza, with the controversy surrounding their Spa crash still raging and Rosberg having been internally punished, the German made two mistakes whilst leading in Italy that allowed Hamilton to pass and go on to win.
These errors combined with an odd caption of Toto Wolff smiling in the pits, triggered the conspiracy theory that Rosberg made the ‘mistakes’ on purpose to right the wrongs and hand some points back to Hamilton. Wolff has called the theorists “paranoid” and denied that Rosberg’s mysterious penalty involved handing back an ill-gotten win to Hamilton. “It definitely wasn’t any kind of punishment that affects the sporting side,” the Austrian told Kleine Zeitung newspaper.
Still, not everyone is convinced. Safety car driver Bernd Maylander admitted what Rosberg did on Sunday was “not normal. They were braking there at 360kph,” he told Austrian Servus TV, “so you can easily make a mistake and go into the emergency exit. But two mistakes in the same place? It’s not normal,” Maylander admitted.
Red Bull’s Daniel Ricciardo, an outside shot to take on the warring Rosberg and Hamilton for the title, agrees. “It is definitely one of the hardest braking zones throughout the season,” said the Australian. “We have very little downforce as well so it’s really difficult. Then you add the pressure from Lewis Hamilton in the heat of battle, a mistake can happen. One mistake, for sure it’s actually pretty normal. The fact that it happened twice, I found interesting,” Ricciardo smiled.
Arguably, the Mercedes duo’s off-track battle is even more interesting than their wheel-to-wheel encounters. On Friday, during a tense pre-weekend press conference at Monza involving Hamilton, Rosberg admitted that the psychological war “Of course in sport plays a part”. Hamilton has been obviously playing that game recently, but Rosberg’s combative skills have been arguably more covertly deployed in 2014.
After the Monza ‘mistake’ and Hamilton’s win, Rosberg switched into Italian to discuss the pivotal moment of the race with Mercedes’ electronics chief Evan Short — who is Canadian. Commentators speculated that Rosberg chose to speak in Italian not only to Short but also Brazilian Felipe Massa in order to exclude the exclusively English-speaking Hamilton. Germany’s Bild newspaper has revealed that Rosberg, whose conversation was clearly audible on television, said to Short: “He (Hamilton) was so damn lucky — how is that even possible?”
TJ13 comment: With Hamilton having being christened recently as ‘Hollywood’ it would seem that Monsieur Rosberg wants to take his part in similar fashion. But his acting would only win a Rotten Tomato award.
Of course it’s fired up people with varying views on what happened at Monza, but it is just possible “Woof” (Wolff) could have been smiling whilst contemplating world domination, he could have been smiling at the fact that Mercedes were writing the sports headlines once more, he could have been smiling and committing the cardinal sin of finding himself amusing.
What a difference a year makes
Santander boss dies, what now for Ferrari and Alonso?
Santander chairman Emilio Botin, who was the man behind Santanders entrance into F1 sponsorship, has died. Aged 79.
Under Botin’s leadership the bank has grown by acquisition from a national player to one which is global with almost 250,000 employees and more funds than the British National Debt, just over £1.1 trillion.
Emilio forged a relationship with Fernando Alonso, promising to back him to the hilt. This saw Santander also sponsor McLaren, Ferrari and become the Title Sponsor for a number of Formula 1 race events.
Ferrari have commented on twitter, “Sad day today. Our thoughts are with the family and friends of the chairman Emilio Botin.”
Further, Botin was a popular man in the paddock and Ron Dennis adds, “Passionate and charming, he was firm but always fair. I feel privileged to have known him, and proud to be able to call him a friend. He adored motor racing – there was no one more enthusiastic in the McLaren garage than he was when a race win was in the offing. The world has lost a great man.”
It is believed Alonso’s 32 million euro a year salary is funded by Santander, and there may be concerns that the post Botin Santander board, may decide to become detatched from Formula 1.
The Scuderia are about to face a whole new world in terms of finance. Budgets will be introduced and enforced and the Ferrari brand royalties, previously used as a slush fund for the racing team, have already been stripped out from Maranello and moved elsewhere in the FIAT/Chrysler group.
Most likely, Botin will have provided from his personal fortune of over $1bn, for Fernando, however, Ecclestone and the ‘uncles’ in Ferrari land may not be penned in any will.
Formula one is already facing an unprecedented time in recent memory, in that around half the races have no title sponsors. A handful of years back this was just the usual Monaco and one other.
Santander sponsored the British and German GP this year, though whether there is a long term is uncertain as Santander have at times been perceived as whimsical, particularly with the sponsorship of the Spanish GP.
Rosberg, whose conversation was clearly audible on television, said to Short: “He (Hamilton) was so damn lucky — how is that even possible?“
Curious question.
And if Rosberg doesn’t know the answer to it, then no one else is going to be able to tell him.
Was he lucky because on this occasion he was able to capitalise on one of his numerous errors? Or was he just mad that unlike Canada, he wasn’t able to straight line the run off area and maintain his lead?
No eyebrows were raised when he made the same mistake twice into the same corner.
Lucky still to be in contention for the championship ?
Had they finished the other way around, Hamilton would have had to win every remaining race of the season (assuming Merc finish 1-2, and no mechanical failures).
As it is, on those assumptions, he needs to win four of the next 5 GPs in order to be able to go to the decider less than 15 points behind.
True, he was not only lucky in that sense, but also with what happened in Q2, with the car not being able to start and what happened at the beginning of the race.
Maybe his luck might change for the better. Like Alex Ferguson once said….
“This is squeaky bum time”
That goes for both drivers.
….then again… maybe it’s not bad luck….
…Lucky Merc told Nico he had to give Lewis a win…
I’m not going to be drawn into a conspiracy theory conversation. If you have irrefutable evidence that they told him to do that, then I’ll part take in the conversation.
Because if that’s what really happened, then it’s not something I’ll defend him or the team from, because that’s cheating and I don’t condone cheating in any sport.
…Podcast recording tonight – we should also be available for download, on ITunes and android…..
I prefer the explanation that Rosberg knew he was about to be passed, bottled it, and decided to let Hamilton by in a manner which would give ammunition to all the partisan conspiracy theorists out there… 🙂
Equally likely/absurd.
When you have some information which can distinguish between those two theories, I’d love to see it.
…..all will be revealed in the podcast…. I have given the boys all they need….
Will you be writing this up, or will it just be on the podcast? I do listen to podcasts a lot, but TJ13’s one is just not my thing, if its podcast only, would it be possible to put a note where (timewise) the evidence/discussion is please? thanks!
do you listen to any F1 podcasts?
Or lucky he was able to survive a sabatoged race start sequence?
If this is so Your Honour……can we expect at least another mistake or 2 to bring back those 18 points he earned to Hamilton?
I do your honour, and many non F1 ones on a variety of things from literature to computer games!
+1 KRB
My immediate thought, also. “How’d he get outta that one?”
Because it’s so close to being “mathematically impossible” if Lewis had been out of the points.
Of course, if it was a deliberate head fake, it was a very clever one…
Are you able to ensure the podcast stays under control and even, relevant, Judge?
Sure as hell can’t do it with the written word.
Fortunately it only takes seconds to scroll to the bottom of the page rather then wasting 30 minutes or so of my life hoping to hear something interesting, or maybe even, relevant.
Which calculations, of course, provide further motive for Rosberg not to have risked trying to make the corner and destroy his tyres after missing his braking point (as he claims).
Rosberg finishing third rather than second would have left Hamilton needing to wine fewer race – something I’m pretty sure a ‘calculating’ driver like Rosberg would be aware of.
Whatever ‘evidence’ is about to be revealed it had better be a little more convincing that the equivocal statements of JYS, Mylander and Ricciardo, if it’s not to be shredded by Occam’s razor.
(Edit) ‘win one’ not ‘wine’.
🙂
Another one in the win column for TJ13…
GPupdate have just reported that LDM has stepped down from his role at Ferrari.
….. Thanks Fortis
I think we did an obituary on 5th August – looked back at the history – and said he was offski soon…
I found the reason he gave for leaving, quite strange…
”
Di Montezemolo, who is to step aside on October 13, with Marchionne replacing him as Chairman, said the impending floatation of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles on the New York Stock Exchange prompted his departure.”
Why leave because the company will be placed on the NYSE?
….He has been kicked out because FIAT believe he has been buggering about for years in politics etc and not properly focusing on the job in hand…
Car production is woefully inefficient process compared to McLaren and Scuderia is ‘not at the races’ despite LdM’s dictator-esque control of the team’s decision making
JS and Adam Cooper spelled it out – Marchionne is implementing his plan for FIAT. Buy Chrysler, get rid of the debt using Ferrari, HQ in Amsterdam, tax arrangements in London and float on the NYSE.
It’s about making FIAT a global player again, and di Montezemolo’s time had now passed. Ferrari is now under control of FIAT – so the budget now might be, too.
And Ferrari I believe are going to increase production, and target America, which will incline them to give F1 a kick, in that direction, also. I have a hunch that they are pretty active already, figuring out how to get that achieved, and some muscle is going to be very gently flexed, soon. Maybe even Sauber is part of that equation.
Who are the Caterham investors? Swiss and “middle eastern”… I don’t think it’s any paint by numbers game, but that amuses me.. say you wanted three cars a team, or official second team status, or just to wield influence by numbers.. it would be very inexpensive to snap up both Caterham and Sauber, compared with more overt ways of trying to persuade F1’s powers that be, to listen up. If you could influence those two, you could argue it both ways, both mothballing a team, and playing white knight, and swing from one position to the other, as to keeping status quo, or changing to different constructor rules. And when you think constructor rules, you have to think of Ferrari’s privileges. Only this time, they need more than usual concessions. They need F1 to mold to their needs, to expand their marketing for red road cars…
As you say, F1esty, and you are right on it, Ferrari is being used to see a way clear form a lot of overhanging woes. They will be very keen to reap cash now, get rid of debt. When rates are next to nothing, hardly a blip means doubling or tripling servicing costs… and they could shift a awful lot of Ferraris, if they so chose. If anything they built up unusually high pent up demand. They may see this as time to cash in. Just look at the *trillions* held in cash, by the top firms. No CEO worth his salt, is going to miss the chance of building a war chest, or, more likely, a siege supply.
I’ve been saying all year, that the F1 future is being decided far away from the race track, and there must be a reason for M Todt’s silence. His connection, his filiality, may explain much: there’s many a way he could align the FIA with a radical overhaul plan, and be seen to do good for (mainly European) motorsport overall. I think that distance must be calculated, and timely, while teams are making fools of themselves and sympathy is in short supply, even among fans.
hmm,wonder what he meant by he was so damn lucky?
Clark is rightly regarded as brilliant – but his comeback drive that day was mesmerising.
And all on a circuit which was famous for slip streaming and if you lost the tow you were nowhere… He was a lap behind 😳
I’ve seen another angle, and Clark, slowng after Grande, drives on the right with his arm up as Surtees and Brabham passed.
Clark had the most victories in ’67 but lost in the reliability stakes.. and Surtees winning in the Honda really shows off his abilities.
The list is growing… Those who know what they saw, and are willing to say it, or insinuate it for libel saftey, is growing.
At some stage one has to sit up and think, “they all can’t be hopeless fanatical paranoid lunatics.”
These are pro’s. Stewert, Maylander, Ricciardo. They have raced, as have I. It’s clear what happened. He wasn’t even trying to make the corner. Smile it up Toto, a shit storm will come for you one day and you can hang out with that fat-ass Flabio Cheatatore.
….. you are right there will be a s^&t storm of epic proportions – but this is no Flavio scenario. The team can tell their drivers to do a switch – though lying about it is pretty DER!!!
even if this was a teamorder, is it really worse than fernando is faster than you, vettels gearbox problems that allowed webber to take a win at the final race of the season, senna letting berger pass, and the countless other instances where drivers switched positions for different intra team reasons? it has happened for decades in f1 and is a normal part of the sport, that’s why the ban of teamorders was lifted. as a matter of fact, the only reason team orders were banned was the completely ridiculous extend to which they were employed by ferrari during the schumi era.
comparing this to crashgate is stupid because the problem with crashgate was that renault put it’s pilots life in danger, endangered other drivers and compromised other teams races. if it had been piquet being told to let alonso pass, nobody would have had to resign.
As far as I remember none of those scandals involved two people in equal contention for the championship.
Spot on Mark Jones. Massive point there IMO.
+1
Judge you cannot seriously believe this was rigged, where is your evidence? Just because he made 2 mistakes, at the same corner at the heaviest braking point of the year running with the least downforce of the year? He’s feeling the pressure and maybe you have to admit that he’s not as cool under pressure as you thought. Come on, a bit of objectivity and reasoning here judge…..
Objectivity isn’t so good at generating comment though huh? I mean come on, it’s not like Hollywood was faster all weekend and could have beaten the uncrackable Britney just through talent alone is it? Oh wait, err maybe that’s not so crazy after all 🙂
Careful Mr A, you should think twice about making sensible and well thought out comments on here…..
Won’t be long before you attract the attention of SISsy if you go on like this 😉
It’s upsetting you that this “conspiracy theory” is gaining traction… Was so much easier when people could just say, “oh that SiS and Hippo”. 😀
Sorry bud… Does Sparkles win being undermined really sting that bad? lol
The only place it’s gaining traction, is on here and the only ones continuing to fan that flame, is yourself and thejudge with his evidence that’s of sh!t storm proportions.
Isris Elba’s voice….
“Next formula 1 race, Singapore”
* Idris Elba…
See! What did i say Mr A?! Told you you’d get the attention of SISsy! My commiserations though as you’ll probably be put on his dartboard along with all the other rational commentators on this website 😉
@SiS, gaining traction, really? More like it’s giving the thick-headed bunch free reign to out themselves. Gives ’em something to gab about.
I have no time to check, but didn’t you lean hard on Warwick’s verdict out of Monaco, to claim as fact that Nico didn’t deliberately botch his Q3 run? Well, Warwick has dismissed the “theory” as silly, along with Whiting and Button.
Lewis was 15 kph faster thru the Lesmos … Nico’s only hope of winning on Sunday was if Lewis ran into trouble in the race (maybe at the start?). If Bottas didn’t also bog down, Lewis likely would’ve dropped down to 8th or lower. Missed 5/6ths of FP2, start issues during Q2, broken nose on race day, then a muddled race start sequence? Lewis did great to ride through all that, and take a commanding victory.
@Fornula
“See! What did i say Mr A?!”-Formula
The comment I made starting with, “It’s upsetting you..”, was a response for you bud. Surprised you didn’t pick that up. Guess we’re not all switched on. 😀
@KRB
I agree with everything you say. Does that make you feel better now?
-eye roll-
Pick and choose whichever opinions suit the day… lifeblood of the conspiracy theorist 😉
Well if Rosberg is so damn good in faking lock ups and abusing run off area’s, you would agree Monaco was deliberate aswell?
I mean if Monza was intentional it would mean Rosberg doesnt mind to do some acting in braking zones. And it would just be for the benefit of the team and Hamilton. So why wouldnt he have done the same at Monaco in that case? That would have been purely for his own benefit (even better motivator than Monza gate) after Hamilton won 4 races in a row.
Sorry, Monza aside, I don’t see how you or anyone else can think that Rosberg’s move at Monaco was an innocent little mistake. Watch the onboard honestly, he’s playing with the steering wheel like a schoolchild in his plastic dump truck.
But when it happened in Monaco, weren’t the guys who came our and questioned what (Brundle, Herbert, Button, Peter Windsor etc) also said what happened was deliberate, it was dismissed because the stewards said they found no evidence of wrong doing? In fact he was praised for it, because he showed that he’d do anything to win the championship. JYS said it was just a driver error, but he’s question in what happened on Sunday, because it happened twice at the same corner, but it also happened twice at the same corner at Monaco, in qually and in the race.
He didn’t try to make the corner then either. So if what happened on Sunday was deliberate, then who’s the cheat, Lewis, Nico or the team?
I have been wondering if in fact it was deliberate by Rosberg. Hamilton was catching him hand over fist every lap and was going to catch and pass him sooner rather than later. Rosberg is not well known for his wheel to wheel skills, and with strict instructions not have another coming together with Hamilton, and also the ignominy of Hamilton easily passing him, he decided to fake missing the corner. Hamilton is passed him, where he was always going to be, in front, there is no accident and Rosberg doesnt look such a bad driver. Just a thought. 🙂
Wow! I hadn’t made this connection myself but it is spot on and good on you for noticing it. Some of the same individuals that staunchly defend Nico’s Q3 off in Monaco as being ‘driver error’ now claim Nico’s off in Monza couldn’t possibly be ‘driver error’. Lol.
@SIS,
Re Cheatatore, I held off this, as the slang “to chore” or chaw, to steal, may not be recognized, was new to me not long ago, so I liked Flabunga BriaChore. Won’t catch on, unlike if you mistook his speedos for yours, by accident..
The list is growing… Those who know what they saw, and are willing to say it, or insinuate it for libel saftey, is growing.
At some stage one has to sit up and think, “they all can’t be hopeless fanatical paranoid lunatics.”
These are pro’s. Stewert, Maylander, Ricciardo. They have raced, as have I. It’s clear what happened. He wasn’t even trying to make the corner. Smile it up Toto, a shit storm will come for you one day and you can hang out with that fat-a.s.s Flabio Cheatatore.
Here’s what I’m finding hard to comprehend…
If merc wanted to instruct Nico to give Lewis the win, why didn’t they just messed up his pitstop by keeping him stationery for say 8 seconds, wouldn’t that have been a better way to do it, rather than have him apparently locking up and taking to the escape road?
We’ve seen botched pitstops before, so no team is immune to it and can be easily explained. So why take the risk when all the world media is watching, to do something like that?
Because doing it in the pitstops would look highly suspicious if not blatant, more so than a driver making a mistake out on track in the same place. I would guess from a PR perspective Mercedes would want it to appear as though Nico bottled it under pressure from Lewis (which he has done earlier in the season so it is plausible) and not as a team order “Punishment time Nico, move over and let Lewis win” which would generate negative headlines.
At least with Ferrari when they give a team order it’s blatant and they ride out the media storm. If the information the Judge has is as explosive as he thinks it is, then the smile on Wolffs face will likely be replaced with a snarl, while Ross Brawn will probably have a rueful smile on his face whilst fishing somewhere.
Anyway I don’t think Nico or Lewis’s mind games have been very effective. It’s just lead to a squabble and team orders. The danger for the pair of them is that they could suffer PU failures in the coming races. If Lewis has any more failures his title chances are pretty much shot. If Nico has failures that cause DNF’s and grid drops and Lewis gets a bit lucky then the same for him. Or Mercedes lose control of both drivers and they do bad impressions of Senna vs Prost. Leaving the way open for Riccardo to snatch the title from under both their noses if he has a good run of reliability and luck. If I were Bernie, that’s what I’d want to happen. Triumphant Red Bull driver wins drivers title with a bad car, whilst the drivers in the best car squabble so much they both lose out. And probably continue fighting all winter long. Or it prompts Lewis into signing for Ferrari. Keeps F1 in the headlines.
While all you have said is plausible, I doubt a failed wheel gun, nut or jack would raise as much suspicion as to what many are claiming happened on Sunday.
But like @anjis asked above, was it cheating or just team orders?
It would be hard to say it’s cheating, given that what they apparently did, didn’t disadvantage another team, given they were about 1/2 minute up the road from their closest challenger Massa.
Singapore was cheating, because what Renault did, disadvantaged both Massa, Lewis and those who were in front of Alonso at that time.
But I’ll wait to hear what evidence is available when the podcast is uploaded.
Cheating or not, it does mean Lewis didn’t win on his own pure steam if true, and like I said, it’s not just Hippo and I holding this bucket as was said immediately after Monza. There are big names, credible names, putting their names on the line.
Sometimes you have to maybe think, oh it’s not Hamilton hate, maybe something is odd. Look at the “lock ups”. Pathetic. Just pathetic.
Hope Toto likes sh|t sandwiches…
So was the lockup in Monaco. Pathetic, just pathetic all the same.
So who’s credibility is in question here? Lewis? Nico? Toto?
If this theory at some point in time is somehow proven to be true, isn’t it more damaging for Nico? Won’t it now add more fire to the flame that his Monaco error was in fact deliberate? Won’t it make his dad, who cried for schumi to be kicked out of the race look silly, knowing his son too is a cheat?
JYS is losing it, and Maylander?!? Really?? Ricciardo loses nothing by stirring the pot.
I thought Nico was supposed to be a strong personality? But now he’s a doormat?! If Merc wanted to hinder Rosberg, he wouldn’t know about it.
These names are only “credible” to you if they match up with your viewpoints….You just can’t face the fact that Nico lost due to pressure from HAMMERTIME!
The monaco incident was clear for all to see but you prefer to put that to one side and don’t consider that as fixing results. And don’t tell me it wasn’t intentional at monaco. If you can’t see that it was, then Nico’s got you fooled mate….
@Formula
There, there… It’ll be ok.
😉
rofl
@SISsy HAMMERTIME!
@Formula
Caps = mad.
Umad bro?
Heh… It’s ok matey. Let the big boys debate.
Well Nico cost Lewis a chance at a win and the team a 1-2 finish, so I guess the punishment was to order Nico to remain behind Lewis to allow Lewis to claw back vital points and to ensure the team got maximum points for the constructors championship. Is it cheating ? Hard to say, though given the FIA have deemed team orders legal, not a lot you can say about it other than it not being a fair fight between the drivers. Had Lewis not had his glitch at the start I doubt we’d have seen Nico chasing Lewis that hard.
Really this is nothing that shocking if you’ve been a fan of F1 for long enough. Shocking was Flavio and co making a driver crash on purpose to win a race. This isn’t on that kind of level.
If i were Bernie i wouldn´t want Smilie to win the title, because this would be teh very end of free driving between teammates!
And this with 3 car in one team would secure more boring races than ever.
It wouldn’t be the end of free driving between team mates. What you’ll have with 3 car teams is likely to be the more experienced drivers having pressure heaped on them by a younger driver that’s got something to prove.
Problem with that theory @Fortis96 is that more people would have to be involved, as it is it could just be Toto and Nico in the know, but for deliberately botched pit stop at least 1 more person if not 2 or 3 would have to be in on it to make it happen.
I’m sort of on the fence as I can see both sides of the argument but until solid evidence is provided I have to abide by ‘innocent until proven guilty’
@CV…
You’re right, I didn’t factor in involving others into the botched pit stop theory.
Shows you how terrible I am when it comes to conspiracies.
Although I’m on the fence, it’s a very wobbly fence and I’ve been swaying in both directions in the last 3days. Something will see totally plausible in the morning and by evening I’ve seen counter evidence (theoretical) that had caused me to U-turn. This debate will go on for years no matter which driver takes the spoils of war.
One doesnt always need solid evidence.
Example: You enter a room to find someone is dead on the floor. They have a stab wound. Another person is in the room also holding a knife. That knife has the blood of the deceased on it. There is no CCTV.
The person holding the knife says, “I didn’t do it. You don’t have solid evidence”.
Despite the fact we didn’t see it, and there is no concrete solid CCTV footage, the probabilities are so low that the person holding the knife didn’t do it that indeed he/she is prosecuted on all other surrounding evidence. They are investigated for motive, and linked to the victim.
In this case, there will never be the equivilant of CCTV footage. Just a motive of the team to right a wrong as they see it, context of a fight after Belgium, two strange mistakes where no attempts to make a corner are made, then no further mistakes after Ham passed, in the face of the threat of unknown Merc punishments as context.
Less is needed to prosecute normally. And F1 has more than enough form in this stuff. It’s just dumb enough for them to have done it.
But who says they didn’t die from the stab wound? I too watch CSI😉
If there intentions was to right a wrong, he lost a potential 25pts, which would’ve cut the deficit to 4, the win hasn’t really changed anything at all.
Yikes!!!
I meant to have said…
But who says they died from the stab wound?
When Rosberg went wide in turn 1 at Austria while leading, was that fishy? Rosberg’s made quite a few mistakes this year, but finally one’s actually cost him (and not others).
I also fail to see how a 14-point turnaround makes up for a possible 25 in Belgium.
Forget it mate, you’re making too much sense to convince a delusional person (SISsy) otherwise…
I’ve said the samething. He has made those very same mistakes in numerous races this year, both whilst leading and while chasing (Spain). It’s now only suspicious because on this occasion, he was made to pay for it.
@Formula
“Forget it mate, you’re making too much sense to convince a delusional person (SISsy) otherwise…”
Lol – yeah and a delusional 32% of the voters around here, and a bunch of pro’s (in and out of F1) willing to put their names on the line, and a bunch of long term expert media…
We’re all delusional. Nothing to see here… Hahaha.
😀
Love it. It’s so nice being under your skin bud. Nice and snugly.
@SIS
And there’s a delusional 39% of the voters on here and many a pros (in and out of F1) are also willing to put their neck on the lines, as well as a bunch of long term media experts are also saying No it wasn’t fixed.
By the way, based on the final results of the pole, there’s a bigger gap between the No and Yes vote (7.86%), compared to the Yes and Consiparcy theories…meh vote (3.93%)
@Fortis
I never said the other 39% were delusional. I understand why people think it’s a normal incident.
I am however defending myself and others from being called delusional and that it’s clear the theory has traction, like it or not, and that all is not what it seems.
I don’t recall Hippo or I talking smack about others… It’s one way flow around here. We speak to the debate, you guys talk sh|t about us, the sources quoted, the poll stats etc.
Oh well. Np.
I know what I saw, and so does 32% of others and the pros I mentioned.
@sis….
I don’t know who’s talking sh!t about you or anyone else, surely not me…
But anyways, 39% of the voter also know what they say as well.
At least we all agree Britney’s made plenty of mistakes and will no doubt make a few more as the pressure ramps up…
#uncrackable 😉
It is possible that Mercedes knew if Nico ran away with the points and it became less likely that Lewis could catch up, people would know a Mercedes car would win the remaining races and if there is no real title fight anymore, viewers will be less inclined to make a point of tuning in to watch the close fight (especially more casual viewers) and this will not only reduce sponsors exposure but be generally bad for F1 if viewing figures continue to fall new sponsors will be harder to find and could speed up the slow-motion imploding of the sport we have been witnessing over recent years. So to prevent this and to stop Mercedes being accused of killing the sport, they made Nico give Lewis the win to bring him back in contention to keep the interest in this year’s season as its said to he higher than it has been for a long time.
But it’s also just as plausible that because Nico was running with a lower downforce configuration than Lewis it made it harder for him to break really hard from high speed and he would loose his downforce threw braking slightly quicker than Lewis which made it far easier for him to lock up, combined with not wishing to damage his tyres as if he could keep second place and not made a stop to drop him further back he still left the weekend in front on points. Not to mention he seems to have struggled with lockups all season long.
It’s making my brain hurt………
Both are definitely possible…
The first is more plausible to me, given what I saw and what other pros have mentioned too.
Good post.
I’m about 60/40 in favour of the Merc fiddling argument, I do however think if Nico had beat Lewis fair and square in Spa we wouldn’t even be debating it.
I’m excited to hear the ‘new evidence’ on the podcast.
@Clear Veiw
At least you reasoned it out. Well done.
60/40 still makes you a target for ad hom attacks from those of questionable intellect that are inept at debating.
It’s funny to me, and I enjoy it, but just fair warning mate. Guard up.
In that scenario, Nico (if he had self-esteem whatsoever) would secretly go to an FIA official and tell them before the race what is about to go down. Then when it did, that’d be all the evidence needed of unsporting behaviour on Mercedes part, bringing the integrity of the competition into question. If Merc wanted to “redress” some perceived wrong, they would never involve Nico in it. UNLESS of course they said “throw this one, but we’ll make sure you take the title in the end”.
I just blew this up even bigger than before! Lol.
“a target for ad hom attacks from those of questionable intellect that are inept at debating. ” Ha Ha, irony, can you prempitvely ad hom, I think you did! brownie points for you!
@Adam
🙂 good pick up. I had to get creative on that one. Subtly is lost in here. Lol.
Roger’s got it figured out though…
I think your first sentence perfectly encapsulates your modus operandi.
I may be a cynic in that comment you call out, but clearly you’ve little exp with an archetypical western legal system…
Less is needed to prosecute normally.
Even those more inclined to prosecutorial exuberance tend to require some degree of certainty of a ‘crime’ actually having taken place.
in this case the preponderance of the evidence – Rosberg being under pressure from a clearly faster (at this race) teammate; the corner in question being one of the most difficult to judge the braking in F1; the clear benefit in championship terms to Rosberg finishing second rather than third should he destroy his tyres in making the corner (he has clearly stated that he could have made the corner had he tried, but at the cost of ‘square’ tyres) – is that nothing untoward went on.
There is also the pretty strong likelihood that Hamilton would have passed him anyway, even had he not screwed up his braking.
Against that you have… the equivocal statements of a few drivers; your own gut feeling; Toto Wolff’s Mona Lisa smile.
I’m glad you don’t hold any prosecutorial responsibilities IRL.
@Nigel
“Even those more inclined to prosecutorial exuberance tend to require some degree of certainty of a ‘crime’ actually having taken place.”
Do they? You could have fooled me. I disagree. But that’s beside the point here. That particular point could easily be debated until the cows come home.
“in this case the preponderance of the evidence – Rosberg being under pressure from a clearly faster (at this race) teammate;”
Not sure what your definition of “clearly faster is, but up until the suspected shenanigans, Rosberg was managing him. “Catching is one thing, passing is another “- Murray Walker. (Hopefully MW isn’t delusional also?)
“the corner in question being one of the most difficult to judge the braking in F1;”
Is that so? I have never heard that, by any driver, ever. A gut feeling of yours? Please illuminate me as to who has stated that T1 Monza is the most difficult of all corners in F1 to judge braking. I have indeed heard many drivers claim corners like the first degner in Suzuka is most difficult and a few others. I can back that/them up, but it’s your point, so I await proof, given your penchant for rock solid proof.
“the clear benefit in championship terms to Rosberg finishing second rather than third should he destroy his tyres in making the corner (he has clearly stated that he could have made the corner had he tried, but at the cost of ‘square’ tyres) – is that nothing untoward went on.”
Piquet denied it too. I would expect Rosberg to deny it, which would be consistent with the subterfuge. You actually helped partially prove my point, or at least stated a consistent aspect to what one would say if they were lying in this circumstance. Thanks in advance.
“There is also the pretty strong likelihood that Hamilton would have passed him anyway, even had he not screwed up his braking.”
Total supposition. Thought we wanted rock solid proof here? Hmmmm? Irrelevant.
“Against that you have… the equivocal statements of a few drivers; your own gut feeling; Toto Wolff’s Mona Lisa smile.”
Not quite. But irrespective of that, the “rock solid evidence” you use to underpin your argument is, frankly, terrible.
“I’m glad you don’t hold any prosecutorial responsibilities IRL”
I am sincerly not just saying this for effect, or as a get back, but ditto – in the strongest possible way. Better luck next time.
“Not sure what your definition of “clearly faster is, but up until the suspected shenanigans, Rosberg was managing him. “Catching is one thing, passing is another “- Murray Walker. (Hopefully MW isn’t delusional also?)”
Lol, the gap went down from 1.8 seconds to 6 tenths in just over 2 laps. Who is trying to twist facts here? Rosberg was managing him? Who is delusional here?
“Is that so? I have never heard that, by any driver, ever. A gut feeling of yours? Please illuminate me as to who has stated that T1 Monza is the most difficult of all corners in F1 to judge braking. I have indeed heard many drivers claim corners like the first degner in Suzuka is most difficult and a few others. I can back that/them up, but it’s your point, so I await proof, given your penchant for rock solid proof.”
Slowing down from 340-360 km/h to +-80 km/h on hard tyres without ABS. And Hamilton catching by half a second a lap. Its hard to imagine Rosberg making mistakes in that scenario?
Thats not rock solid but apparently its easier to believe Rosberg faked it? Even though Rosberg has misjudged his braking plenty of times this year (Germany, Hungary, Austria, Canada, Monaco).
@SIS
“the corner in question being one of the most difficult to judge the braking in F1;”
Is that so? I have never heard that, by any driver, ever. A gut feeling of yours? Please illuminate me as to who has stated that T1 Monza is the most difficult of all corners in F1 to judge braking…
You seem to have a slight reading comprehension problem.
My “one of the most difficult” somehow becomes “the most difficult of all”… so not so much need to ‘illuminate’ you.
And you apparently can’t even read the article you are commenting on. As in:
Red Bull’s Daniel Ricciardo, an outside shot to take on the warring Rosberg and Hamilton for the title, agrees. “It is definitely one of the hardest braking zones throughout the season,” said the Australian. “We have very little downforce as well so it’s really difficult. Then you add the pressure from Lewis Hamilton in the heat of battle, a mistake can happen. One mistake, for sure it’s actually pretty normal. The fact that it happened twice, I found interesting,” Ricciardo smiled.
I suppose you’ll argue that “hard” means heavy rather than difficult.
Here’s Jules Bianchi:
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2014/09/new-jules-bianchi-column-the-joy-of-spa-and-monza-two-classic-circuits/
“From the driving point of view, perhaps one of the most difficult things at Monza is trying to find the exact point at which to brake, given the speed at which you arrive at the chicane, particularly the one at the end of the main straight is very high (350km/h). We are travelling at around 100 metres every second so if you brake a fraction of a second too early you lose a lot of time, but if you brake too late you lock up the tyres or you can easily go off the track. There is no margin for error.
“And this year, with a lot less downforce on the cars, so less grip than last year, it was really not easy to do.
I’m not entirely sure that Maylander, JYS or your good self have attempted the corner in a current F1 car under race conditions.
I suspect not.
Make a effort, and I’ll argue further.
Until then, I’m done.
@Nigel
Pretty pathetic and disingenuous attempts. Indeed as you say yourself, “hard” clearly means heavy in relation to Ricciardo. Again you undermined your own argument.
As for Bianchi. He says it’s the most difficult thing at Monza. Relative to Monza. Not relative to all of F1. Lol – nice try.
Really, your grasping and it’s embarrassing. And I note you didn’t action all the other erroneous claims you made that I pointed out.
Maybe practice with some Hamilfosi and come back when your ready… Oh wait, you already bailed as per final comment. We do agree on one thing… you are indeed done.
@SiS, I believe the word you were going for there is ‘archetypal’. Your comment gave me a good chuckle, so thanks for that. 😉
@KRB
Nope, had the right word the first time. Both variants are valid…
Thanks though… Maybe search harder before hand?
At least now we are both chuckling. 😀
@ SIS,
Maybe there should be investigations resulting in “Not Proven”, like the Scottish system, which allows for a better than speculative case to reflect there was no proof of the act, but record there was reasonable suspicion?
But, when it comes to jury trials, oh, boy, so much less than “evidence” is required … how easy is it to find someone who will say they were oh so sure they saw so and so, near the scene… and nothing else but that, and a few indiscreet but innocent words, and unfortunate character adducement sways the Twelve Good Men… so so easy..
Anyhow, all sport governance bets seem off, for the near foreseeable. Whatever is going on is much bigger and about to change things radically, unless nothing at all happens, and JT is happy pressing sweaty palms and swinging his Legion D’honneur medallion like the true pimp. Honestly, he does look like a man who needs very badly to get blown… I’m sure there are many candidates to procure him the service..
Wind them up, let them go! Do they ever stop? Hmmm… clearly, “No!”
Yes. To me it’s simple: Nico fu*ked up in Monaco and he fu*ked up in Monza. Forget the stupid conspiracy theories from both sides. Mistakes happen.
My comment was intended to ne a bit more meta.
For a large proportion of the population, it’s offensive that everyone doesn’t hold the same opinion as them and so they set about trying to convince the world that they are wrong – a proxy for trying to get people to admit they are “stupid”. It’s a losing proposition straight off the bat, but it’s a characteristic of such characters to never let it be.
A few here get that and happily wander around with a moderately sharp stick, jabbing a few key personalities. On and on it goes…
I knew that, appreciated it, and hence the yes. Latter part was my take on the BS floating around here and the anti Occam’s razor brigades.
No worries.
I’ll take your word for it that BS floats 🙂
William of Occam would be lol’ing & smh’ing all day long in these here parts 😀
Greg Norman, 1996 Masters. 6 Strokes ahead of Faldo going in to last round where all he to do was shoot par. With Faldo pressuring him, meltdown.
My beloved Toronto Maple Leafs vs Boston Bruins, 4-1 with 11 minutes of play to go in the deciding game of the 1st round in 2013 Playoffs. Probability of victory 99.4%. 4-3 with 2 minutes to go, probability of victory 94%. End result, loss to Boston in overtime and worst Game 7 meltdown in Leafs history and probably in the NHL (I just don’t want to research that).
I could go on and on but the fact of the matter is that when all is on the line, the pressure is as intense as it can possibility get. This is where mental mistakes happen, even of the simplest variety and you all very well know this. We as sports fans have seen it a million times and so why this is so hard to accept…I wonder.
Nico has never been in a world championship fight.
Lewis was catching him.
Lewis had more downforce and was still going faster around Monza.
Nico had to move his brake bias back and therefore less braking power in the fronts than Lewis.
Why is it so implausible that Nico simply pushed that slight bit too hard trying to match Lewis’ pace/improve his own with an ability and car that was not the match on that day.
I will say this, however, research has shown that highly intelligent people are very much more prone to believing conspiracy theories and so I do feel privileged to amongst so many intelligent people.
For the record, I do believe in the New World Order theories and when I finally make it to England, I very much look forward to meeting many of you over a Pint and Chicken Tikka Masala to discuss this and F1. Cheers guys!
Great comment. Honestly.
Incidentally I believe, and have seen, the effects of extreme pressure melt down the most ardent athletes and sports people. It’s a genuine phenomena that I am not denying.
I just don’t think that happened here, all things considered, which includes BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO: the context of the Mercedes management punishments post Spa, Nico doing it twice and so blatantly missing it, Nico not even looking like attempting to make the corner either time, the mistake then not occurring again after Hamilton passed, managements reactions, Mercedes being hammered to justify Lewis’s salary – which is apparently being cut in any future offers – and F1’s form in such matters,
Just a sml technical point too:
“Nico had to move his brake bias back and therefore less braking power in the fronts than Lewis.”
Yet he “locked” his fronts. Didn’t he?
Interesting…
Rosberg outbraking himself twice usually tells you he has some trouble with that particular corner. How can you twist around as if its evidence to support matchfixing? Because people dont make the same mistake twice? Who is kidding who here?
Rosberg blatantly missed the corner? You might want to rewatch the FP’s as there were more people doing it the exact same way. Only noobies like Guttierez still tried to make the corner ( and Alonso but he cut though the grass just in time).
Actually Lewis was the one with brake bias rearward. Rosberg had his brake bias more forwards and therefore meant a front lock up was possible
My mistake, the BBC article stated that the brake bias was moved forward at the start which would have accounted for the first lock up. JohnM below is correct. This was the point I was trying to make was that the change in the brakes makes the lock up understandable.
The argument of many of the posters and Stewart, Ricciardo, etc is that it is interesting that Rosberg made the mistake “twice”. Well if the first was due to the forward brake bias then theoretically, Nico really only duffed it badly the 2nd time, which again, can be explained by the pressure. It could also be that Nico knowing that he missed the braking point and instantaneously pulled out of the turn to save as much of his tire as possible knowing the consequences of a flat spot which would look like that he didn’t even try for the turn to rest of us.
You see, in all of sports history there are literally boundless examples of athletes making mental mistakes under extreme pressure and overwhelmingly more so than examples of athletes throwing the results. When you combine this with the viability of the evidence presented here as being at best 50% plausible compared to the opposing arguments I don’t see motivation to entertain the conspiracy theories. Management making it up to Lewis? Management doesn’t care who wins as long as somebody wins. I believe this to be true. If true, why wouldn’t they want somebody to lock up the WDC sooner than later? If I am MB, do I really care about the race television ratings being good until the end of the season and the profits to Mr. E? If they wanted to pay Lewis less why make it easier to for him to compete? If they did to keep him happy, why would they offer him less money than what he is making now when the market at the time for the top drivers was exactly that? And why hasn’t he been offered an extension?
Toto’s reactions? If I was the manager and I saw Nico making the mistake and then seeing myself on the world feed when the camera cuts to me knowing the context of the situation, I might have cracked a smile out of bemusement of the irony as well. Again, using Toto’s expression as an argument for race fixing is 50/50 at best and in my opinion a stretch.
” when I finally make it to England, I very much look forward to meeting many of you over a Pint and Chicken Tikka Masala to discuss this and F1.”
Are you sure you haven’t been here before? : )
Haha, I’m quite sure. Every time I am able to travel, I look at my travel budget and then the prices of hotels in London and I say, “perhaps next time, when I win the lottery”. 12 quid for fish & chips, my word!
…and at least another 6 for that pint!
Mika, in the trees, oh so sad..,
Yup, many so many like that.
@Ki Nam, I still have recurring nightmares of that collapse against the Bruins. The unbridled joy after Kadri’s 4-1 goal, then Horton scored and it just all seemed to change. I remember getting irritated with my kids (nascent Leafs fans … some would call that child abuse 😉 ), b/c after about 5 mins of it staying 4-2, they went to their iPods, as though the result was in the bag. Of course, as a long suffering Leafs fan, I knew very different, and told them it was far from over. They lost their innocence as Leafs fans that day.
My belief was that he had to move his brake bias forward. The first time he locked his brakes, his enginneer came on the radio to say he locked his fron and rear.
Speaking about the negotiations, wouldn’t it make sense for Rosberg to win hence devalue Hamilton’s earning potential.
So if Rosberg was asked to let Hamilton win then it will come with the assurance of knowing he will win the championship which takes us back to the sparkplug rubber seal at the first race.
When JYS sees this week cover off Autosport magazine, oh he’s gonna be mad!!….haha
He was more than a little ungracious about Lewis passing him on the wins chart, wasn’t he? I read somewhere else that he was the same way when Nigel passed him. It’s too bad he felt that way.