Nico Rosberg, Mercedes, Monte-Carlo, 2014

New radio reveals Hamilton’s suspicions in Monaco

2014 Monaco Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

Nico Rosberg, Mercedes, Monte-Carlo, 2014Lewis Hamilton was immediately suspicious of Nico Rosberg’s reasons for going off the track during qualifying for the Monaco Grand Prix.

New team radio of the incident released by Formula One Management on the official 2014 F1 season review shows Hamilton immediately suspected his team mate had gone off the track deliberately.

Rosberg was already on provisional pole position at the time and began his final lap with Hamilton following him. When he went off at Mirabeau it brought out yellow flags which meant Hamilton was had to back off and was therefore unable to beat him.

On Mercedes’ team radio at the time Hamilton was told “yellow, yellow turn five”. He replied “ah, that was very good of him” after seeing Rosberg’s car parked in the slip-road at Mirabeau. “Very good,” Hamilton added again.

Rosberg’s move was investigated by the stewards at the time. But they took no action, ruling they “could find no evidence of any offence related to the turn five incident.” He started the race from pole position and won.

Hamilton recently described the incident as part of an rivalry between the two drivers which escalated “to another level” in Monaco. He has also alluded to revealing information in the data from Rosberg’s car about the incident.

2014 Monaco Grand Prix

Browse all 2014 Monaco Grand Prix articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

121 comments on “New radio reveals Hamilton’s suspicions in Monaco”

  1. We heard at the time Lewis radioing “I might have known” on the way back to the pits, didn’t we.

    For a driver it was pretty obvious, since that’s the only reason Rosberg would have chosen to run first.

    1. @lockup I don’t recall hearing that at the time. I just did a search for “‘I might have known’ Hamilton” and the first result I came across was this comment from you so I think you may have that wrong.

      1. @keithcollantine Mmmm I don’t have it on disc any more, and I can’t immediately find a reference either, so maybe my mind was playing tricks. Anyway Lewis identified it as a cheat straight away.

        1. He didn’t say that, I must have watched replays of that happening at least a hundred times, and at no point did Lewis say anything like that.

          1. Did you know about the radio Keith just posted? What difference does it make anyway? Lewis knew immediately, is the point, which we knew from his demeanour when he got out of the car.

            Nico would only have run first in order to do what he did.

          2. I think you will find Nico and Lewis took turns to go 1st in qually even by event and Monaco happened to fall on Nico’s turn naturally, so Nico didn’t choose it, he already knew it was his turn to go 1st and that have him time to think about his approach beforehand, also it allowed time for Lewis’s guys to think of the tactic too, hence why Lewis realised straight away, he already knew there was a chance Nico would pull this trick before possibly even before Lewis got to to the event. Maybe they should toss a coin from now on to see who does his last flyer 1st.

          3. @thebullwhipper They generally took turns to choose their position, not to go first – and in most cases the choice would be to run second in order to benefit from track evolution. I understand that it was Nico’s turn to choose in Monaco and he took the somewhat unusual decision to run first, for some unknown reason.

    2. In the race he also said to the team “he knew” the team would mess up his pit stop and not call him in when he thought there was a window, meaning he saw a conspiracy there too.

      He is simply an accusing and paranoid conspiracy theorist more than anything.

    3. The point is, regardless whether it was a mistake or not, if you make a mistake which prevents someone else completing their lap, some form of penalty should be issued regardless. Fastest time removed for the offending driver for example. That could mean you end up tenth in the top ten shoot out but there could be no argument about whether it was a genuine mistake or not.

      1. No, the point is that Hamilton suspecting a conspiracy by Rosberg is meaningless when we all know he did the same to the team in the race about the pit stop and that was obviously ridiculous.

        F1 Fanatic and everyone know this, but pretends it doesn’t matter and instead put store into Hamilton’s suspicions about the first instance only. The real question here is why but it is anyway obvious. Sad really.

  2. I still don’t understand how Rosberg didn’t get a penalty for that. And for the incident in Belgium.

    1. AntiHamiltonFanbandwagon
      20th December 2014, 17:44

      maybe because both were infact racing incidents?

      1. Yes, it was a racing incident. That’s why Toto Wolff was furious after the race, and Nico was punished.

      2. In modern F1, it is possible to be guilty in the name of the sport and innocent in the name of the show. If they had penalised him, Hamilton would’ve won uncontested, so it’s better for the show to have the two Mercedes next to each other.

        Ditto Canada, if they gave him a 5-second penalty for straight lining the chicane, Hamilton would have likely streaked away (no one knew about the imminent brake failures), so Nico was innocent there too, for the sake of the show.

        There are rules saying you can’t change brake type in Parc Fermé, but despite this, Mercedes were allowed to change Hamilton’s brakes for a different brand that weighed and looked the same, for the show.

        In Hungary, Jenson Button was released from his box almost hitting another car but there was no unsafe release because fans don’t like penalties so they were being a lot more lenient (let’s not worry about the safety of the pit crew).

        I guess Spa falls under this new leniency stance. After the stewards kept trotting out the words “racing incident”, I went to read the rule book to find out what exactly its definition is. Guess what? It’s not even mentioned in the rulebook. They are making it up as they go along.

        1. Hamilton’s brake change for a “..brand that weighed and looked the same..” after his brake failure in Hungary during Qualifying is in the sporting regs and not for show. The inconsistencies of the Stewards from race to race shows just how ridiculous and ambiguous those types of rulings are. You get a different set of eyes at each race and some rule like a boarding school and others just let them race… It pretty much becomes a coin toss.

        2. @kodongo

          We knew the stewards are trying t be more lenient. They were talking about it all year. The rules are still the same, just the action taken lighter.

      3. Spa absolutely was not a racing incident. Grosjean was penalised in Russia for an incident very similar and yet Rosberg wasn’t.

        1. +1
          Had Rosberg been driving for another team, it may well have been punished – presumably Mercedes didn’t protest against their own driver. That said, I’m still not sure the FIA gods favour Hamilton enough to award that kind of penalty. Even when other drivers get them.

    2. Because Warwick.

      1. The very impartial Derek Warwick on Lewis Hamilton
        ‘I don’t want to give him advice really — he has won umpteen races and a world championship — but if I were to say anything it would be to man up and concentrate on the next race in Canada.’

        And the same very impartial Derek Warwick on his pet love Nico Rosberg
        “You will not find a more honest driver than Nico”

    3. they can’t penalize people based on suspicions…

      1. Of course they can @fer-no65. The FIA are judge and jury. Stewards just decide, end of, barring an appeal to the carefully selected, somnolent ICA.

        Anyway they had tyre load data, according to Mark Hughes.

      2. I would buy that for Monaco, but Spa? Drivers have been penalised for lesser crimes than what Rosberg did.

      3. They, the stewards, could have asked the team for the data from Nico’s car and looked to see if his braking point was significantly later that previous laps.

        It is, unconfirmed, reports about this late braking (up to 10 meters late) that have lead some people, to change their opinion from “Nico, with his Father’s view’s on cheating, would never do that” to “I’m not sure Nico is innocent”

        1. Mark Noble said he spoke to members of the Mercedes team and they too agreed it was deliberately done and had the stewards looked on the data showing tyre load, it would’ve shown that he was able to make the corner easily.

          I guess that was what Lewis saw, when he said, “if you had seen what I saw”

        2. Surely he would have braked early to ‘lock up’ safely if he intended to go off. Later braking is part of trying to improve one’s time.

    4. the incident in Spa, it was a racing incident, yet he did get penalised heavily – by his own team, reportedly a 6 figure money penalty, and a psychological penalty – the momentum in the team swung after that race.

    5. Although it seemed obvious it was intentional, it was more or less impossible to prove without Nico admitting it.

      1. Well they could’ve proved it by looking at the tyre load data, something which they didn’t.

        1. How does that prove anything?

          No one disputes that he drove into him. The dispute is whether it was on purpose.

  3. I wonder ,if Rosberg is under investigation for any incidents in 2015, if the stewards will still give him the benefit of the doubt. I’m sure one of the stewards said after Monaco that because of Nico’s reputation as a good guy this was taken into account.

    1. Also in the programme on Sky Lewis said he could have believed it was a mistake if he’d braked 2 metres later, but 10 metres.

  4. lets give Rosberg benefit of the doubt … seemed like pure driver error while braking and Mercedes have struggled with brakes this season.. don’t think there was anything deliberate there
    things were a bit too much on the edge at that point in the season and Hamilton simply reacted and still seems to believe that it was intentional :)

    1. @u2f1 Since apparently the other drivers thought it was deliberate I don’t think there is any doubt tbh.

      “That incident, which if you believe – as almost every other single driver in the paddock did – was deliberate,…”

      1. @keithcollantine You have it spot on buddy!

      2. It doesn’t name the drivers nor show quotations.

        1. File under: diplomacy.

          1. Or: Someone who disguises his opinion as a universally accepted fact without even bothering to ask anyone.

        2. @nase Mark Hughes has contacts everywhere in F1, he is highly credible.

    2. Why don’t you give the same benefit of doubt to Lewis? Why cant lewis be right? A majority of the F1 pundits and drivers now feel that Nico might have done it on purpose. Even after Spa, I don’t see how you can give the benefit of doubt to Nico.

      1. Martin Brundle was telling viewers during the Abu Dhabi broadcast that the more he looked at it as time passes, it was very clear that Nico’s actions were more fishy than his admirer Derek Warwick, who doubled up as a “independent” & “impartial” race steward, had deemed to be.

    3. @u2f1 read this, then come back and tell me it wasn’t deliberate..

      1. … I don’t think that provides any actual evidence does it?

        1. Well that would only come from a Rosberg confession.. What is clear is that when Warwick said you’re not going to find a more honest driver than Nico Rosberg he hadn’t read this article, the key phrase of which is “all drivers had done something similar in their careers”. Whilst he must have been acting on supposition as far as everybody else was concerned, when he says “all drivers” this means about himself cheating, he was absolutely certain.

      2. tgu (@thegrapeunwashed)
        21st December 2014, 8:37

        I liked Coulthard’s instinctive reaction (from which he rapidly rowed back), something like: “Wow, that looked wrong.” It was such a weird accident, he seemed to be sawing at the steering wheel, the side by side comparison is pretty damning, as Coulthard says, he began sawing even before applying the brakes! –

  5. I dont believe the conspiracy, i believed it with schumacher in 2006 or whatever it was, because of schumachers past character history, but i dont believe it with Rosberg – he has always been fair, and because of the fact that Rosberg then reversed back on the track, which was more likely to get him a penalty. Hamilton should have got a better lap in first go if he truly wanted the pole position. Rosbergs error did not happen when hamilton was faster. i guess we need this kind of rubbish drama in such a season where only 1 car could win in normal circustances.

    1. Funny you should say that about 2006, read the NY times article I referenced above about that very same incident

    2. Keke Rosberg on MSC 2006 Monaco
      “He should resign from the Grand Prix Drivers Association and never mention the word safety again. It he was a real man he would have parked the car in the middle of the road and walked away. We would have thought much better of him. It was the worst thing I have seen in Formula One. I thought he had grown up. He is a cheap cheat. He should leave F 1 to honest people.”

      Keke Rosberg on Nico 2014 Monaco

  6. Rosberg should’ve been punished for this. What nonsense is it that the stewards have to be CERTAIN that it was deliberate in order to punish him? Grosjean’s crash in Spa in 2012 wasn’t deliberate, he was punished because he made a mistake that cost another driver.

    Rosberg should’ve been punished for the same reason. Even if not intentional, if your driving is poor enough to cause such a disadvantage for another driver through no fault of their own, you should be penalized. Not penalizing Rosberg for this sets a very obvious and dangerous precedent that NO ONE will be surprised to see going forward.

    1. I have a feeling that if Rosberg had done that to any one else other that his teammate, he would have been penalised.

    2. What nonsense is it that the stewards have to be CERTAIN that it was deliberate in order to punish him?

      And whats wrong with that?

      Would it have been fair if they had punished Nico when there was the possibility that it was a pure mistake?

      In a situation like this if there is any doubt at all then the only thing you can do is nothing because handing out a penalty based purely off the suspicion that it could have been deliberate is ridiculous.

      Where would that end, Handing Lewis a penalty for his spin during qualifying at Austria because its possible that he could have intentionally braked in a way to lock the rear brakes?

      1. Given that the stewards once imposed a 25 second penalty on a drive for “not convincingly giving back a position”, the stewards pretty much do whatever they feel like doing at the time.

        1. Ah would that be the same driver who was on the receiving end of Nico’s dirty tricks in Monaco 2014?

          And to think Massa had the cheek to whine to this day that he deserved the 2008 title because he won more races conveniently forgetting FIA handed the Belgian 08 win to him on a plate after stripping it from the winning driver for “not convincingly giving back a position”.

    3. Grosjean’s mistake was far more serious as it endangered all around him and was one that any driver should have the awareness to avoid. Running somebody off the road in a straight line is incredibly serious.

  7. It was seven months ago. Get over it already people.

    1. Exactly. Lewis won, so why keep on with this?

      1. Trenthamfolk (@)
        20th December 2014, 20:59

        Because there’s an important lesson in there… Rosberg cheated and still couldn’t win. Even when he’s playing dirty he’s sub-standard…

      2. Because incidents like Spa, and Monaco, contribute to the idea that Hamilton only “barely” out-performed his teammate, when in reality, Rosberg never had a chance of winning without his teammate racking up DNF’s.