Lewis Hamilton robbed? Don’t believe the hype

By Michael Lamonato / Expert

Oh, the injustice of sport. This sentiment has dominated headlines and discussion for almost a week: Lewis Hamilton and the Great Monaco Robbery.

It’s hard not to sympathise with the Briton. In his ninth attempt at the world’s most famous race – and after feeling cheated out of his best opportunity last year after that qualifying incident – he was well on his way to closing a near flawless weekend to take home just his second Monaco winner’s trophy.

It all went wrong quickly.

Max Verstappen vaulted himself over the back of Romain Grosjean, prompting a safety car.

The pit lane became its usual hive of activity as drivers attempted to cash in on inexpensive pit stops.

At some point in the flurry of action, Mercedes’ strategists incorrectly assessed that Hamilton could make a precautionary tyre change and still emerge ahead of second-placed teammate Nico Rosberg.

He didn’t.

Hamilton not only lost time to Rosberg, but also to Ferrari’s Sebastian Vettel, who was then in third. Around the twisty Monaco streets with just eight laps to race, his fate was sealed.

The victory Hamilton covets above all others was to elude him for another 12 months.

The pain of losing what should have been is felt ever more keenly by the man who has modelled his career – like so many others – on Ayrton Senna, who dominated the streets of Monaco like no other driver before or since.

It has not escaped Hamilton that, though he is likely to win a third championship to equal the Brazilian legend’s own title tally sooner rather than later, he has no justifiable claim to that central part of the Senna myth.

His trophy cabinet remains agonisingly bare of a Monaco memento.

But rooted in his psyche there must be – or ought to be, at very least – some feeling of culpability for bringing on the catastrophe, for while it is noble to forgive the team for its mistakes, it is arrogant to believe yourself above it.

It is an inescapable fact of the matter than Hamilton had as much a hand as his pit wall in his own undoing. He was undeniably the trigger of the calamity.

Somewhere along the way between the initialising of the virtual safety car and that final defining pit stop, Hamilton cruised past one of the giant spectator televisions alongside the circuit.

The giant pixels showed the Mercedes mechanics had leapt from their seats and into position at the pit box, ready for, or having just seen off, one of their cars.

He smelt mutiny.

He thought his team was rolling the dice for a Rosberg win. The pit stop would been more advantageous still if Rosberg had pitted before the real safety car was deployed to bunch up the field.

His teammate would be sat right behind him on newer, softer, warmer tyres ahead of an eight-lap sprint for victory. Hamilton panicked. He bypassed the clarification stage and went straight on the offensive.

“These tyres are going to drop in temperature,” Hamilton recalled telling his team after it rebuffed his request to change tyres like his imaginary teammate had done.

The Briton applied pressure until his team cracked and gave in. It calculated, based on the rapidly changing data available to it, that there was a just-workable margin for Hamilton to change tyres and re-emerge in the lead. They granted his wish.

“What’s happened, guys?” he radioed back to the pit wall. The rest of the story has been well recounted. By the time the plan was executed the mathematics were out of date. Hamilton finished third.

“I’ve lost the race, haven’t I?” he summed moodily as the race resumed.

Perhaps somewhere in the back of his head Hamilton was processing his guilt.

“You rely on the team,” said Hamilton half-heartedly after the race.

“Without thinking I came in with full confidence the others had done the same.”

Was it a decision borne of the rashness of old Lewis? Was this desperation springing from the need to correct the perceived injustice of 2014?

Or was it a combination of the two, manifesting itself in a cold paranoia in which even his own team, the same team on which he claims to rely and for which he claims to race, is against him?

Now the chequered flag. Emotions were running with confirmation that he had allowed victory to slip from his fingers. Then somewhere on the warm-down lap he slowed.

It is poetic – or probably overly dramatic – that Hamilton should have chosen Portier to temporarily stop his car.

It was at that corner that Senna famously crashed from the lead with just 12 laps to go, apparently spooked by teammate Alain Prost setting fastest laps behind him.

Ron Dennis had told Senna to slow, that his margin over Prost was unassailable. Senna refused to let it go. Certain victory was lost.

Perhaps Hamilton, just as Senna did 27 years earlier, realised that he had been integral to his own downfall.

The Crowd Says:

2015-05-29T07:51:11+00:00

Michael

Guest


The thing is that he told the pitwall why options might be better (even through he would have won the race in every case if he stayed out) and the reason was completly right based on his assumption he was also telling which were obviously false. Why did his race engineer did not told him `No Lewis, Nico will stay out on Primes'. I'm sure that than he would have stay out as well. But with not responding to this his race engineer somehow confirmed him that everybody will be on options. And than Hamilton could have easily afford this safety stop because he would have had an enormous gap (remember that every driver with a big gap behind pitted under the safety car). The only thing he could have done different was to ask again and make his point clearer. Asking how big is his gap. That was propably his very tiny mistake. But what is interesting is that he is trusting his race engineer much but not the strategys (because he though they will benefit Rosberg), thats quite interesting. Of course if you always say that you lose and win together with the team than you automaticly take the blame for every defeat and I was surprised that Hamilton actually did this. But its like saying that for every Maldonado crash his mechanics are to blame because they make the mistake to rebuild the car. I don't really see Hamilton to blame seriously for anything. But everyone has his opinion. Thank you for responding.

AUTHOR

2015-05-29T03:58:17+00:00

Michael Lamonato

Expert


You can't say Hamilton is blameless exactly for the reasons both you and I outlined. Hamilton complained his tyres had lost temperature, but all tyres lose temperature behind the safety car or under VSC conditions. He made a decision — and I say "made a decision" deliberately, because he both instigated and insisted his pit wall did as he asked — that only new tyres would do, and he did so based on false information he never bothered to qualify. I'm not suggesting he is solely to blame — the team could obviously had been more forceful and it subsequently made a calculation error after it decided to entertain the idea of stopping. It is tricky to us the phrase "the team" concisely in Formula One because it can refer to different assemblies of the same staff. The team is Mercedes, but there is also Hamilton's "team" and Rosberg's "team" — but either way the driver is part of the team, it isn't the team plus the driver. Hamilton/the team/Hamilton's team lost the race. In any of those iterations Hamilton plays a part, therefore he must share in the blame.

2015-05-29T00:00:18+00:00

Michael

Guest


You should watch the race edit of the Monaco GP before posting just a part of the team radio..... "You sure it's the best thing to stay out? These tyres have lost all their temperature. Everyone is going to be on options now." That was Hamiltons radio message after he was told to stay out. Nothing special in my opinion. He is just asking If they are sure and was telling his concern which were obviously incorrect anyway (Mercedes knew that at least Rosberg will not be on the options). It would be weird if they got panicked and cracked up by this message. Interesting that Hamilton was saying that everybody is or will be on options and his race engineer didn't object and clarify this obvious misinformation which is weird because it surely confirms Hamilton to his assumption that the guys behind him have pitted or at least that Rosberg will or have pitted (his team should know this, shouldn't they?), which would have make a stop logical, because then he would have had an enormous gap, but this wasn't the case. So, in my opinion Hamilton is completly blameless. You can only argue that he could have asked his race engineer again if someone where in the pits, but with Bonnigton not responding to his assumption and seeing the television screens with the Mercedes pit crew and not seeing Rosberg anywhere behind him he had enough evidence to think that everyone is now on options. Communication is the problem (if Bonnigton was telling him that Rosberg will not stop and Vettel can't probably stop because of the small gap to Kvyat than he would have been fine) and of course the fact that they were just concetrating on the data. To blame Hamilton for this is ludicrous in my opinion, but It's also ludicrous to create conspiracy theorys or demanding that the strategys should be fired. It was just an mistake, a big one of course, but it happen. But in my opinion the headline "Lewis Hamilton robbed" is correct. I believe that he stop at the portier because he lost a race he desperatly wanted to win and he did everything to achieve this and then this team handed it to his teammate (at least it surely felt like this). And for sure he though that his question played a role in the decision but it couldn't be. I explained why.

2015-05-28T23:57:45+00:00

Optimus Prime

Guest


Great article. I couldn't believe Hamilton pitted and wondered who made this rash decision. At the time it was interesting seeing Niki Lauda's calm reaction, almost a wry grin. Was he thinking Lewis made the call to pit and now has to live with the result?

2015-05-28T22:16:57+00:00

Simoc

Guest


Thanks for that. I wondered why Hamilton hadn't done his normal dummy spit and that explains it. From memory Senna ran off the track because he wasn't trying hard enough (according to him). He felt his concentration was best when pushing to the max.

Read more at The Roar