7 ms·

As the other reply kind of hints at, it's a lot easier to do this if you have the absolutely dominant driver on your team. If I was the technical director and w

As the other reply kind of hints at, it's a lot easier to do this if you have the absolutely dominant driver on your team. If I was the technical director and we were losing, I'd certainly be like "Lewis, pal, we lose as a team, right?" And then Lewis would be gone and we would just be losers.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
There’s so many reasons for Mercedes success, that the parent comment comes of as being a bit silly. As you mentioned, they have Lewis Hamilton, who a lot of people would argue is the greatest driver of all time. They also have a very clear pecking order, team orders for Bottas to lose to Hamilton are a meme in F1 (“Valtteri, it’s James”). After the season was underway, they really only let them race after Hamilton had secured the drivers championship. Toto’s leadership is certainly very good (which the parent poster is referencing one particular part of), but you also have to remember, that Mercedes have only been dominant for one particular generation of F1 cars (the turbo-hybrid era). The sample size is absurdly small, and if you ask most commentators who’s going to dominate next, most of the would guess Verstappen (or LeClerc), not another Mercedes driver.
- kqr 7y ago
  > team orders for Bottas to lose to Hamilton are a meme in F1 (“Valtteri, it’s James”). After the season was underway, they really only let them race after Hamilton had secured the drivers championship. Is this not an extension of "we win as a team, we lose as a team"? Would this be possible with the same consistency in teams where both drivers are in clear competition with each other for the seat next season?
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    Well I think this is a bad example in general, because unlike most businesses, success is actually a zero sum game in top flight sports. If somebody does good enough to earn a seat, it will always mean that somebody else did bad enough to lose theirs. It’s also not a very faithful characterization of Mercedes. They were seriously considering letting Bottas go last year, it was honestly a surprise that they kept him (and let Ocon go instead). If you want to see what the same management style looks like with competitive drivers, you can just look at the last time Mercedes had two competitive drivers. That would be in 2016, when Nico Rosberg won the drivers championship with Mercedes. The relationship between Hamilton and Rosberg had become so toxic, that Toto Wolf himself admitted he had no idea how he was going to solve it. It culminated with Hamilton trying his best to hold up Rosberg in traffic in the last race of 2016, because Hamilton needed to keep Rosberg of the Podium if he was going to get the title. You can watch the highlights on YouTube with the team telling him to speed up, while he more or less just refused. The only reason any of that was resolved, was because Rosberg retired after that season. This story is pretty much repeated in F1 history any time you have two people on the same team competing for the title. Last year LeClerc and Vettel fought so much, and so dangerously on track, that it actually led to both Ferrari drivers crashing into each other and retiring in one race (something which mirrors one of the most controversial crashes in F1 history, when one McLaren teammate crashed into the other at Suzuka in 1989). The entire season was also full of their drivers arguing on the radio about team orders. Then you have the other most dominant driver, Verstappen, who Redbull have been unable to find a suitable teammate for. To specifically answer your questions, at Mercedes “win as a team” clearly always means “help Hamilton win”. It’s not possible to operate a team where drivers are not fighting for their seat, and history has shown it’s not possible to have a good team culture when both drivers are actually competing with each other for the title.
    - Ididntdothis 7y ago
      Yes let Mercedes hire Verstappen and see how they can keep harmony between Hamilton and Verstappen.
    - HappyRobot 7y ago
      Adding to this, Rosberg took advantage of the "win as a team" culture to win his championship. He fought a psychological war with Hamilton where the team refused to take sides. It was the only way to beat Hamilton. Mercedes had to protect themselves from this and made the smart choice in choosing Bottas as he was well known for a calm and team focused demeanor. With Bottas, Mercedes could further build the team around Hamilton without causing issues between the drivers. It would've been really interesting to see the team structure if Rosberg returned in 2017. Mercedes dodged a bullet by getting Bottas at the right time.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  It reminds me a little of the time when Berger and Senna were teammates. Two very good drivers but there was no dispute who was the number one and two driver. It’s much easier to keep peace in a team where the hierarchy is clear. It would be interesting if Mercedes hired Verstappen next to Hamilton. I doubt they could keep the peace then.
  - raihansaputra 7y ago
    No way. They already learned that having 2 number 1 drivers doesn't work (Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg on 2016 season). They won that season, but if it weren't for the totally superior car, they were on a tight margin. Distributing the winning points to two drivers doesn't work to secure both the Driver's championship and the Manufacturer's championship. There's a reason why Red Bull picked Max Verstappen over Carlos Sainz instead of having both, or why Ferrari had troubles last season with LeClerc suddenly performed better than Vettel. Is it fair? No. Drivers like Barrichello and Massa never got a title, while arguably they are champion-level drivers. I think Bottas is someone in that position right now. The other question is would you rather be in Bottas' shoes of being on the top team but the number 2 driver, or like Ricciardo or Hulkenberg which are also top tier drivers but haven't had a clear shot to compete or even the chance to get a podium for the latter. Motorsports (and Formula 1) is a cruel world.
    - Ididntdothis 7y ago
      I think Bottas is in a comfortable spot but has to give up his dreams of a title as long as Hamilton is around. Some drivers are ok with that, some aren’t. Ricciardo probably could also have stayed with Red Bull as a very good number two driver but he didn’t want to give up the title dream. Unfortunately he seems to have bet on the wrong team...
      - raihansaputra 7y ago
        Yeah, and I'm sure he'd like the chance but either he puts everything in for a chance (as Rosberg did and decided he burned out after winning), or take the hit and do a good job for the best team. Ricciardo made the same move Lewis did, and the delay in the new regulation opens up opportunity for him. How good or what could it be is very uncertain, though. I think he's very unfortunate in timing; I think he would take the chance of the Mercedes seat if he weren't in contract at that time. And if he knows McLaren were moving to Mercedes engine, he might consider that too. Nobody knows what Renault showed him that made him sign though. Or maybe $80M can wipe that pain away..

AmericanChopper 7y ago

There’s so many reasons for Mercedes success, that the parent comment comes of as being a bit silly. As you mentioned, they have Lewis Hamilton, who a lot of people would argue is the greatest driver of all time. They also have a very clear pecking order, team orders for Bottas to lose to Hamilton are a meme in F1 (“Valtteri, it’s James”). After the season was underway, they really only let them race after Hamilton had secured the drivers championship. Toto’s leadership is certainly very good (which the parent poster is referencing one particular part of), but you also have to remember, that Mercedes have only been dominant for one particular generation of F1 cars (the turbo-hybrid era). The sample size is absurdly small, and if you ask most commentators who’s going to dominate next, most of the would guess Verstappen (or LeClerc), not another Mercedes driver.

kqr 7y ago
> team orders for Bottas to lose to Hamilton are a meme in F1 (“Valtteri, it’s James”). After the season was underway, they really only let them race after Hamilton had secured the drivers championship. Is this not an extension of "we win as a team, we lose as a team"? Would this be possible with the same consistency in teams where both drivers are in clear competition with each other for the seat next season?
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  Well I think this is a bad example in general, because unlike most businesses, success is actually a zero sum game in top flight sports. If somebody does good enough to earn a seat, it will always mean that somebody else did bad enough to lose theirs. It’s also not a very faithful characterization of Mercedes. They were seriously considering letting Bottas go last year, it was honestly a surprise that they kept him (and let Ocon go instead). If you want to see what the same management style looks like with competitive drivers, you can just look at the last time Mercedes had two competitive drivers. That would be in 2016, when Nico Rosberg won the drivers championship with Mercedes. The relationship between Hamilton and Rosberg had become so toxic, that Toto Wolf himself admitted he had no idea how he was going to solve it. It culminated with Hamilton trying his best to hold up Rosberg in traffic in the last race of 2016, because Hamilton needed to keep Rosberg of the Podium if he was going to get the title. You can watch the highlights on YouTube with the team telling him to speed up, while he more or less just refused. The only reason any of that was resolved, was because Rosberg retired after that season. This story is pretty much repeated in F1 history any time you have two people on the same team competing for the title. Last year LeClerc and Vettel fought so much, and so dangerously on track, that it actually led to both Ferrari drivers crashing into each other and retiring in one race (something which mirrors one of the most controversial crashes in F1 history, when one McLaren teammate crashed into the other at Suzuka in 1989). The entire season was also full of their drivers arguing on the radio about team orders. Then you have the other most dominant driver, Verstappen, who Redbull have been unable to find a suitable teammate for. To specifically answer your questions, at Mercedes “win as a team” clearly always means “help Hamilton win”. It’s not possible to operate a team where drivers are not fighting for their seat, and history has shown it’s not possible to have a good team culture when both drivers are actually competing with each other for the title.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    Yes let Mercedes hire Verstappen and see how they can keep harmony between Hamilton and Verstappen.
  - HappyRobot 7y ago
    Adding to this, Rosberg took advantage of the "win as a team" culture to win his championship. He fought a psychological war with Hamilton where the team refused to take sides. It was the only way to beat Hamilton. Mercedes had to protect themselves from this and made the smart choice in choosing Bottas as he was well known for a calm and team focused demeanor. With Bottas, Mercedes could further build the team around Hamilton without causing issues between the drivers. It would've been really interesting to see the team structure if Rosberg returned in 2017. Mercedes dodged a bullet by getting Bottas at the right time.
Ididntdothis 7y ago
It reminds me a little of the time when Berger and Senna were teammates. Two very good drivers but there was no dispute who was the number one and two driver. It’s much easier to keep peace in a team where the hierarchy is clear. It would be interesting if Mercedes hired Verstappen next to Hamilton. I doubt they could keep the peace then.
- raihansaputra 7y ago
  No way. They already learned that having 2 number 1 drivers doesn't work (Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg on 2016 season). They won that season, but if it weren't for the totally superior car, they were on a tight margin. Distributing the winning points to two drivers doesn't work to secure both the Driver's championship and the Manufacturer's championship. There's a reason why Red Bull picked Max Verstappen over Carlos Sainz instead of having both, or why Ferrari had troubles last season with LeClerc suddenly performed better than Vettel. Is it fair? No. Drivers like Barrichello and Massa never got a title, while arguably they are champion-level drivers. I think Bottas is someone in that position right now. The other question is would you rather be in Bottas' shoes of being on the top team but the number 2 driver, or like Ricciardo or Hulkenberg which are also top tier drivers but haven't had a clear shot to compete or even the chance to get a podium for the latter. Motorsports (and Formula 1) is a cruel world.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    I think Bottas is in a comfortable spot but has to give up his dreams of a title as long as Hamilton is around. Some drivers are ok with that, some aren’t. Ricciardo probably could also have stayed with Red Bull as a very good number two driver but he didn’t want to give up the title dream. Unfortunately he seems to have bet on the wrong team...
    - raihansaputra 7y ago
      Yeah, and I'm sure he'd like the chance but either he puts everything in for a chance (as Rosberg did and decided he burned out after winning), or take the hit and do a good job for the best team. Ricciardo made the same move Lewis did, and the delay in the new regulation opens up opportunity for him. How good or what could it be is very uncertain, though. I think he's very unfortunate in timing; I think he would take the chance of the Mercedes seat if he weren't in contract at that time. And if he knows McLaren were moving to Mercedes engine, he might consider that too. Nobody knows what Renault showed him that made him sign though. Or maybe $80M can wipe that pain away..