I think people misunderstand me. Team orders have always been around, and although I don't agree with them, I accept they are part of the sport. I just thing 5 races into a 20 race series, is way to early to introduce them.
Should they just make the Monaco GP the non championship round sitting between Indy and le mans and make it open to anyone with one condition that F1 drivers cant drive for their contracted team. Would make it much more interesting
I saw that earlier. I'm not sure why Wolff felt the need to come out with that, true or not it doesn't help his team and potentially takes the flak of their main opposition. Unless he hopes by saying it that they won't ever blatant swap in future, but then I don't think Ferrari care about Wolffs thoughts.
I doubt he called a press conference for it, it was probably much like Horner's comment, he was asked and gave his opinion,
That's 2 races now where there has been a significant difference between Botttas and Lewis and 1 race the other way. I think it's more likely to be tiny details or driving styles but if there is something wrong with the #44 car it needs to be found ASAP.
From what I've read, speculation is that the Merc set-up is on a knife-edge, and it has a very narrow window within which they have the pace to challenge Ferrari. In contrast, the Ferrari is thought to be much easier to set up. Bottas and Hamilton will naturally want different set-ups, so it's no surprise therefore that if one gets it wrong, they can be off the pace. Having said that, Hamilton has always had a reputation for driving around car problems, so it's odd that he's struggled more in this area. Then again, Rosberg did hint that Mercedes might miss his ability to set the car up....
It's only one car that ever appears to struggle which makes it strange. If both cars were off the pace then I could understand Rosberg's comment a bit more.
Maybe that indicates its driver preference, one copes or excelles the other struggles. However at this level it is strange to say the least.
It may seem counter-intuitive but an ability to "drive around problems" can actually be a problem! This is because gut instinct, intuition, seat of the pants raw talent – whatever you want to call it – can sometimes fly in the face of methodology; and it is the latter which is so important with set-up. The methodical driver is less likely to go too far the wrong way on set up and is more able to get it back when it happens, whereas the instinctive type can more easily become lost, confused and not know what to do. Your earlier point about Merc "on a knife edge" is also interesting. Please see below. I agree. It is. I hope I may be forgiven for referring to something I wrote before practice got underway for this race. I'll repeat part of it because it leads directly to the point DHC made (above) about "knife edge": The following is a gross simplification but I hope it may serve to illustrate the "knife-edge". Variations in set up can overcome inherent chassis deficiencies/tendencies to some extent, but it's far more troublesome and the result is always more of a compromise than having more to play with in the first place. I am going to ignore aerodynamics completely, except to say that this complicated topic involves an evolution based upon the original choice of wheelbase. Set up is easier when a chassis has 'in-built' flexibility. By flexibility, I mean a tolerance of a wide range of set ups capable of very similar lap-times. Naturally, this also renders a chassis more suitable for a wider range of conditions and driving styles. To produce the greatest flexibility at any given circuit there is, in principal, an optimum wheelbase. However, the logistics of design, production, testing (to name but a few) make it necessary for a team to decide upon one and only one length of wheelbase for a whole season, rather than the ideal of a bespoke chassis for each circuit. A shorter wheelbase is more suited to twisty tracks because: 1/ It turns more easily. I referred to 'flickability' because a driver can more easily 'play' with the car, deliberately inducing oversteer or understeer or neither at very short notice, for instance. 2/ It shares out the stresses upon chassis and tyres more readily than a longer wheelbase, which will tend to push (understeer) into corners and be found scrabbling for traction out of them, generally scrubbing tyres and lacking grip relative to shorter competition. Conversely, a longer wheelbase is naturally suited to less twisty circuits because it is inherently more stable at higher speeds and fast sweeping bends, where a shorter wheelbase tends to be more twitchy and may suffer greater challenges with tyres. Mercedes' very long wheelbase was always going to be problematic for Monaco. The gamble is that there will be enough compensation elsewhere in the faster, more flowing circuits. It's also worth noting that a shorter wheelbase is better suited to changes in gradient whereas the longer tends to fare better with smoother, flatter tracks. However, I say here and now that I believe the Ferrari is currently the pick of the bunch; the most flexible; the most likely to be best suited to the season as a whole. Time will tell but the Mercedes is a tricky car, especially in the tight bits; and it no longer has a clear advantage with power either. I believe Mercedes has been out-manoeuvred through its own recent dominance which may have stilted creativity, whereas Ferrari have done a simply fantastic (and extremely creative) job!
If somebody could make the Monaco race thread. Make a new poll and tally up the Monaco votes that'd be great. Just very busy. Thanks.