Are McLaren Diluting Their WDC Efforts By Not Backing A Number 1?

[Hamberg]

Ray please tell me - what is in it for a team to have a driver win the WDC but not the WCC? If that's the case why spend money having two drivers?

The theory only bears fruit if one driver thinks he can be WDC somewhere else.

Can you also explain the above as I don't understand what that is supposed to mean?

If I were Lewis looking at this thread (i'm sure he has other things to do than come on here to CTA (possibly) ) then i'd be wondering if I were better off at a team that won't dilute their efforts between me and the slower driver.

And you think Lewis is the type of driver that wants his team mate to be disadvantaged for his own gain?

 

[RayInTorontoCanada]

Ray please tell me - what is in it for a team to have a driver win the WDC but not the WCC? If that's the case why spend money having two drivers?

Can you also explain the above as I don't understand what that is supposed to mean?

And you think Lewis is the type of driver that wants his team mate to be disadvantaged for his own gain?

If you're marketing Super Cars, then it helps when you can say you won X number of championships. My OP said McLaren had only ONE Championship out of 22 since 1999. That ONE championship wasn't a WCC. I'm well aware that FOM prize money is based upon WCC position tables. But did you know than in 2010, RBR only got 5 Million more than McLaren as the incremental prize money is based on position, not points?

No I don't think Lewis is that type of driver. Neither is he the type who likes being disadvantaged in relation to his teammate like the first Chinese pitstop this year (as just one instance). My OP NEVER said to give Button inferior equipment. Never.

And what I meant by my "theory only bares fruit" comment is the following: That if a driver of Lewis' capability thinks his own race is being compromised by a slower teammate too often, then he won't stay...and McLaren will be worse off as a result.

Do you honestly think Button has a greater chance of beating Vettel THIS YEAR than Hamilton?

 

[Slyboogy]

But did you know than in 2010, RBR only got 5 Million more than McLaren as the incremental prize money is based on position

And I where I come from I thought a miillion was a lot, never mind "5 million"

 

[Cookinflatsix]

And the next race he flat spots his tyres rather than saving them and going back to the same old...

To be objective here would be to point out that the first instance of flat spotting his tyres led to trouble because his team made the decision that a set of primes were a better choice. Lewis did not choose this

The next time he flatspotted them he suffered practically no disadvantage at all

If anyone is used to racing on flatspotted tyres I suspect we can safely assume that Lewis is that man.

 

[sportsman]

If you're marketing Super Cars, then it helps when you can say you won X number of championships. My OP said McLaren had only ONE Championship out of 22 since 1999. That ONE championship wasn't a WCC. I'm well aware that FOM prize money is based upon WCC position tables. But did you know than in 2010, RBR only got 5 Million more than McLaren as the incremental prize money is based on position, not points?

I was not aware of that fact?
Please could you provide a link containing that information

 

[Hamberg]

Why are you shouting? No I think Hamilton has a better chance of beating Vettel, I've never said to give Button inferior equipment.

But I don't think for one second that McLaren, other than give Button instruction to help Hamilton out in a race, (which accounts to disrepute does it not?) can or should favour one driver.

What are you suggesting they do exactly? Give up on a whole driver in favour of one that doesn't actually need the support? What exactly do you think Button is go to do if this happens? How on earth is a team supposed to win a WCC only backing one driver?

All of your arguments so far seem to insinuate that McLaren are costing Hamilton the WDC title because they aren't focusing all of their resources/strategy/pit stop practices on Hamilton.

Button has a lot to offer that team and you are dismissing this for a couple of lap times and ill founded theories. McLaren can and will continue to dedicate 100% to each of their drivers. They will also continue make mistakes with both drivers.

 

[Speshal]

If we could keep it civil chaps that would be appreciated, they'll always be a difference of opinion with a subject such as this but please try to bear in mind the OP - Thanks

Spesh

 

[Cookinflatsix]

What are you suggesting they do exactly? Give up on a whole driver in favour of one that doesn't actually need the support? What exactly do you think Button is go to do if this happens? How on earth is a team supposed to win a WCC only backing one driver?

All of your arguments so far seem to insinuate that McLaren are costing Hamilton the WDC title because they aren't focusing all of their resources/strategy/pit stop practices on Hamilton.

My understanding of the OP is that Mclaren are guilty of compromising Lewis by going out of the way to accommodate a driver who has less chance of challenging the run away Vettel

It's not about ordering Button to pull over Massa style, it's about leaving Lewis to stay out an extra lap getting jumped by two other cars to accommodate Button forgetting to pit at the predetermined time

It's about the obvious mollycoddling of Button at the detriment of Lewis ( not on purpose) that was touching and appropriate in his first year but incomprehensible this year with Seb almost over them there hills

 

[Hamberg]

It's not about ordering Button to pull over Massa style, it's about leaving Lewis to stay out an extra lap getting jumped by two other cars to accommodate Button forgetting to pit at the predetermined time

It's about the obvious mollycoddling of Button at the detriment of Lewis ( not on purpose) that was touching and appropriate in his first year but incomprehensible this year with Seb almost over them there hills

Ok but these are assumptions of a situation and one sided given it could be argued that Hamilton has compromised Button on occasion and that McLaren strategy has cost Button dear. I've been a little frustrated by Whitmarsh's reaction to the drivers in some circumstances but I also have seen him defend Hamilton when he really needs it.

I'm sorry I just don't buy that this is actually happening in the team hence why I think they are ill founded theories. That's not to dismiss any person but the points seem to be argued as though they are proven when they just aren't.

If McLaren start to back one driver then I will be very disappointed.

 

[Slyboogy]

This thread is getting a bit

 

[RayInTorontoCanada]

Why are you shouting? But I don't think for one second that McLaren, other than give Button instruction to help Hamilton out in a race, (which accounts to disrepute does it not?) can or should favour one driver. What are you suggesting they do exactly?

This as an example: When Jenson didn't come in on his in lap for his 1st stop in China, they should have left him out and brought in Hamilton on Hamilton's scheduled lap. Instead, they left Lewis out for an extra lap on rapidly degrading tyres which cost him crucial time and position. McLaren ought to have brought in Lewis as scheduled instead of making him wait because Button - for what ever reason - decided to stay out one lap longer. Because of this, Hamilton's GP was compromised and he had to repass Massa and also had to pass Jenson and Vettel (when he could have leap-frogged the two had he come in on his correct lap.

But you don't see that, do you? Do you think over-taking a Ferrari, an RBR and the sister McLaren are risk free events?

Lewis had to take on extra risk because Button stayed out longer than what McLaren were expecting and this put Hamilton in a position to take on greater and significant undue risk.

Another example: Why didn't McLaren send out Hamilton for an early Q3 banker lap at Monaco like they did Button?

And...i'm not shouting.

 

[RayInTorontoCanada]

I was not aware of that fact?
Please could you provide a link containing that information

World Constructors Championship Prize Money
September 15th, 2007
Formula 1 - The Prize Money

To qualify for the prize money, the team has to finish in top 10 in two years running. The money estimates are as follows:

1st – USD80,000,000 (2006 – USD35,000,000)
2nd – USD74,000,000 (2006 – USD33,000,000)
3rd – USD67,000,000 (2006 – USD30,000,000)
4th – USD60,000,000 (2006 – USD26,000,000)

5th – USD48,000,000 (2006 – USD22,000,000)
6th – USD46,000,000 (2006 – USD20,000,000)
7th – USD44,000,000 (2006 – USD18,000,000)
8th – USD42,000,000 (2006 – USD17,000,000)
9th – USD39,000,000 (2006 – USD16,000,000)
10th – USD37,000,000 (2006 – USD15,000,000)

These are only estimated numbers, for more accuracy you may have to get the Formula Money book, for GPB150.00 … They claim to have accurate figures on everything F1 related.

[www.f1wolf.com]

 

[Cookinflatsix]

This thread is getting a bit

What's wrong with a lively debate as long as participants remain civil and obey the laws of the land?

If everyone had the same views forums would not work

As long as the debate remains more articulate, civil and illustrative than the average question time performance then so be it

As long as there are no scoundrels who fall back on the old escape route of abuse or ridicule to effect a tactical withdrawal then happy days

 

[ramilas1]

Don't want to interrupt this thread too much ..... just to say, I love reading all this almost-conspiracy theory bull**** stuff

Ray, can you start one on who shot JR next ? ? or maybe JFK ? ? . . . . or even Roger Rabbit ? ?

 

[Slyboogy]

It's confusing as the creator of the article seems to be contradicting himself at times as Hamberg pointed out, and it's going round and round.

Nothing against lively debates...just a confused fella that's all

 

[Hamberg]

No I see that Ray and I was very frustrated by it but it was one incident and I'm not going to base an entire team's strategy on one occasion. Putting Button on a 3 stop severely compromised his race, the same way Red Bull did with Vettel in China and had it not been for the red flag their pit stop very nearly cost Vettel a win at Monaco. I don't think we can doubt who golden boy is in that team.

As for Monaco, traditionally which order has the faster lap been set, the driver that goes first or second? Lewis was second, he was doing one run and actually he was out with what 5/6 minutes remaining? Lewis had as much to do with that decision and he was unbelievably unlucky that two things prevented him getting a time.

These things happen, they aren't favouring one over the other. But you don't see that do you??

 

[Slyboogy]

Don't want to interrupt this thread too much ..... just to say, I love reading all this almost-conspiracy theory bull**** stuff

Ray, can you start one on who shot JR next ? ? or maybe JFK ? ? . . . . or even Roger Rabbit ? ?

Oh the Roger Rabbit one please!!!!

 

[RasputinLives]

Firstly I just want to make it clear that I never have a problem with people expressing opinions on here that are different to my own and Ray myself and you have battered back and forth over so many things from time to time that you know its all in good humour even if we do bite at each other sometimes - also I never call you a Hamilton fan boy with and i or a y!

Secondly I stand by my point about Jenson spurring Lewis on - I'm in no way arguing that Jenson is the faster driver but to refer to him merely as a 'slower' driver is a bit understating the point. Jenson my not be able to stay on the pace of Vettel, Alonso and Lewis but he's certainly proven he can at least match anyone else currently in the field. I know it could very easily be argued that Rosberg etc etc given the right car could be faster but thats all coulda woulda shoulda right now - Jenson has actually shown that given the right equiptment he can bring home the bacon. I also think he's fully aware he can't match the 3 guys for speed I've mentioned and therefore has to take gambles in order to secure his victorys - what you saw as luck for his 2 wins I saw as him thinking on his feet and taking a risk in order to get a result - sometimes it works as in those 2 wins and sometimes it doesn't such as Korea and Monaco. On this point wouldn't F1 be boring if the fastest driver always won and there wasn't an element of tactics and chance that meant a driver who wasn't as quick with raw speed could bring home a victory? Isn't that what racing is? otherwise we might as well just have time trials.

I think Lewis responds well to have a team-mate breathing down his neck - you have to concide that Jenson is a lot closer to him than Kovi ever got and I think Mclaren develop better having 2 drivers working for them. I think some drivers respond well to have a quick team-mate and some don't. Fernando doesn't like it but I think its shown that both Lewis and Vettel produce there best drives when they are under pressure from a team-mate(eventually).

I honestly think that having Jenson breathing down his neck will inspire Lewis to better drives this season. Thats my point and now its out there

 

[RayInTorontoCanada]

It's confusing as the creator of the article seems to be contradicting himself

Could you kindly illustrate the contradiction, please? Thank you.

 

[Slyboogy]

Could you kindly illustrate the contradiction, please? Thank you.

Rather not go round and circles, but look at Hamberg's post #46

I usually agree with you Ray, and I look forward to spotting you in Canada with a Clip the Apex board as Rasputin' mentioned earlier on