Head To Head Jenson Button vs Lewis Hamilton

[Brogan]

Why is everyone concentrating on why Hamilton stopped late?

Because McLaren knew the slicks were 5 seconds a lap quicker.
They changed Button so why not Hamilton to get the undercut?

As for the argument about McLaren not doing it because Ferrari or Sauber might have done it, well that's just ludicrous,
So McLaren have to react to teams in front of them but they can't be proactive?
Besides which, Hamilton was behind on the lap so would have had one extra lap on new rubber.

Still no valid explanation.

 

[Cookinflatsix]

Why is everyone concentrating on why Hamilton stopped late? Why not ask about alonso and Perez? Snip/

Button (and ricciardo) were no danger to alonso. Hamilton could have been a danger, and as such, we cannot say that stopping him on lap 39 would have made up 10seconds on alonso!!!!!

The clue might be in the title of this particular thread

Second part doesn't make sense to me

 

[Senna's_right_foot]

Why is everyone concentrating on why Hamilton stopped late? Why not ask about alonso and Perez?

Firstly, because it's a Hamilton/Button thread. Secondly, and as is being/has been discussed in the McLaren thread, McLaren are certainly not adverse to making these seemingly strange calls when it comes to pit stops. A front running team should be able to make calls off their own bat rather than waiting to see what others are doing. It's pretty black and white to me to be honest, if a mid-field car was 5 secs faster then it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to keep the driver who is leading out for a further two laps. Even if it rained again the inters would have been shot anyway so a pitstop was inevitable. No amount of indignation otherwise will convince me that what McLaren did, by keeping Hamilton out for 2 laps, made sense. And, as per the McLaren thread, it's another in a long line of mistakes/wrong calls by Mclaren.

 

[The Artist.....]

Ok, say that Hamilton had been stopped on lap 38. Ferrari and sauber would've enacted by stopping on lap 39. That would'e given a net gain of 5 seconds. (max)

Mclaren didn't want to risk it raining again, so they kept Hamilton out.... Whilst there was no possibility of being overtaken by cars behind, they went as long as possible on the inters. Just imagine that Hamilton had stopped on lap 38, and then there was a rain shower... Then he'd have had to stop again, and could find himself 40-50 seconds behind alonso..... The question of why perez didn't stop is absolutely critical- as ALL tHe teams had the same information here- if it was logical for Perez to stop on lap 41, then it was also logical for Hamilton to - even if, with the benefit of hindsight, it would've been better to stop on lap 37!!!

 

[Senna's_right_foot]

You still haven't explained why they chose to pit Button yet leave Hamilton out for two further laps. If they didn't want to risk it raining again then they would have left both cars out.

 

[The Pits]

I seem to recall that there was still a threat of rain at the time people were coming in for Slicks, such is the nature of the track, I remember Button being told that his inters would need to last the rest of the race at one point.

Could it be that McLaren were trying to save a pit stop by eking out the inters? if it had started to rain when it was expected to, then he would have needed an extra pit stop. Inters>Slicks>Inters/Wets, and following on from Hungary last year, maybe there was an aversion to that, hence the more cautious approach, and the follow the leader. If it had rained again, all the drivers who had come in for Slicks would need to pit again, meaning 2 stops as opposed to 1.

The fact that it did not work leads to the debate, and to be honest, without the threat of further rain it does seem like a no-brainer, however, they could afford to take the risk with Button, for all the difference it was likely to make. Hell, they could have sent Jenson out on square tyres.

This is not a cock up of the proportions of Ferrari sending Kimi out on wets in case it rained, and if the expected rain had come (I know, a big if) it may have been very different.

quick question, did Lewis close up by 12 seconds between the pit stop and the end of the race?

Edit: similar point to the Artist, apologies

 

[Brogan]

Could it be that McLaren were trying to save a pit stop by eking out the inters?

The inters were no better than slicks at that point so if it had rained then new inters would have been required.

About the only thing you could argue is McLaren were trying to avoid two pit stops - coming in for slicks and then inters again a few laps later, if it did rain.
However, as Brundle always says, make sure you're on the right tyres at the right time.
Second guessing the weather in the future is a pointless exercise.

quick question, did Lewis close up by 12 seconds between the pit stop and the end of the race?

He finished around 14 seconds behind, but undoubtedly he stopped pushing in the last few laps.
Arguably he could have benefited from Pérez's mistake.

 

[The Artist.....]

The fact that it did not work leads to the debate, and to be honest, without the threat of further rain it does seem like a no-brainer, however, they could afford to take the risk with Button, for all the difference it was likely to make. Hell, they could have sent Jenson out on square tyres.

This is not a cock up of the proportions of Ferrari sending Kimi out on wets in case it rained, and if the expected rain had come (I know, a big if) it may have been very

Exactly

 

[Porceliamone]

I'm not sure if anyone's posted this crazy theory out there yet as I'm not willing to trawl through the garbage of most of this thread to find out; but is it not just possible that McLaren simply had a shocker of a race? Why does there have to be a conspiracy? Why would a Top 3 F1 team deliberately sabotage it's own chances (temporarily forget Piquet Jr and Singapore please)?

Poor pit stops and an almighty blunder on the pit wall? Worse things have happened during a race...

The team that was once the king of calling the strategy and getting the pit work done has declined in quality on that front in recent years, we've all been witness to it, it's not THAT surpirsing. Perhaps they just need to work harder at that part of their game right now.

Just a (simple, I know) thought.

 

[The Pits]

However, as Brundle always says, make sure you're on the right tyres at the right time.
Second guessing the weather in the future is a pointless exercise.

I agree, although, despite guessing the weather being pointless, it does not stop it from happening, it also does not stop it from being the reason, as we have seen exactly this kind of thing before, ironically at Malaysia! The main thing that worries me is the ability of McLaren to learn the lessons of history.

I was trying to make the point about 2 stops not 1, as we have seen many times, sticking it out on slicks in the rain can be costly, especially as the lap is quite a long one, and it was a possibility to jump the leader, had they not done the same thing, although there was a risk from Vettel, certainly if they had carried on even further.

 

[Cookinflatsix]

This is not a cock up of the proportions of Ferrari sending Kimi out on wets in case it rained, and if the expected rain had come (I know, a big if) it may have been very different.
snip/
quick question, did Lewis close up by 12 seconds between the pit stop and the end of the race?

No maybe not, however a pattern seems to be emerging, last race and this one JB came in first and gained an advantage, this time he was not the lead driver. Added to lots of issues over the last year and talk of McLaren setting up on Friday with no regard for LH in the assumption that he can drive around problems,

Questions have been raised and we are discussing possible explanations for this pattern

 

[Brogan]

Why does there have to be a conspiracy?

To be fair, only a few are claiming it's a conspiracy.

For the most part it seems to be a discussion as to why McLaren are absolutely shit at strategy and pit stops, this time to the detriment of their driver who was in a position to challenge for the win.

 

[Porceliamone]

McLaren are absolutely shit at strategy and pit stops, this time to the detriment of their driver who was in a position to challenge for the win.

Totally agree. I have no idea why a team that was once the very best could actually now be considered as one of the very worst. So far this season, at least. It drives me bonkers as much as the next McLaren fan!

 

[The Pits]

No maybe not, however a pattern seems to be emerging, last race and this one JB came in first and gained an advantage, this time he was not the lead driver. Added to lots of issues over the last year and talk of McLaren setting up on Friday with no regard for LH in the assumption that he can drive around problems,

Questions have been raised and we are discussing possible explanations for this pattern

I accept the first point, and at the moment I have nothing to add to that particular nugget, altough, I can fully understand why Lewis would have been peeved. Traffic in the pits, no ones fault really, but the order of preference thing, not sure, I have briefly read the transcripts, and I am still unsure.

The point of setting up on Friday with no regard for Lewis, I think is a smidge of an exaggeration? I think the quote came from an autosport article, which was making a statement with no quotation or reference, and even if it was true, it was not a general statement, more exceptional.

My point was made in relation to the specific discussion around Malaysia, and the change to slicks, as this seems ot be where the topic has gravitated at the moment.

 

[RickD]

Thanks for the table Brogan

As we suspected LH was the biggest net loser at that stage and lost the chance to challenge Alonso for the lead.

One side simply look for explanations as a pattern seems to be emerging, the other side Im afraid have not engaged in this discussion, instead callIng for censure and demanding the suppression of free speech

Hopefully they will allow the thread to continue in their absence as they have promised to avoid it

Lewis wasn't the biggest net loser as he didn't lose any positions, Jenson lost the position to Riccardo by not pitting until 2 laps after him and with the kind of time Riccardo gained, Jenson may well have been able to get in the points if he had pitted ont he same lap. The leaders are always more risk adverse and more about covering each other off than about what tyhey could possibly gain at that point in the race.

But, I waste my time expecting you to take any of that on board Cook, yet I may as well try..

 

[RasputinLives]

Just to completely change the subject here(well not completely) Someone was asking a few pages back for a link to Whitmarsh kicking Lewis off the McLaren young drivers proramme. Well I found a reference to it

'I don't think McLaren should manage Lewis,' said Whitmarsh, who confessed that he tore up Hamilton's contract at the end of 2004 when his dad Anthony was pushing for Lewis to be moved up to GP2 rather than complete another year in Formula Three.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ncerns-fragile-distracted-Lewis-Hamilton.html

Ok, as you were.........

Once again nice half truths on that one. The artice in question is about the aftermath of the Australian GP in 2010 and Lewis being in trouble there and Martin Whitmarsh was answering a questions as to whether Lewis should be managed by Mclaren after he'd sacked his dad Anthony. To quote what he said in full:

'I don't think McLaren should manage Lewis,' said Whitmarsh, who confessed that he tore up Hamilton's contract at the end of 2004 when his dad Anthony was pushing for Lewis to be moved up to GP2 rather than complete another year in Formula Three.

'He should have a dispassionate independent manager. Having someone with wise counsel who you feel comfortable with is good.

'I personally think it would be better to have someone who knows Formula One rather than a large international company who are going to send the account manager out with you.

'I don't think he needs that. But the important thing is that it is Lewis' decision.

'I was asked if Lewis was distressed by what happened and the answer is that he was. He is fragile and distracted.

'Lewis takes his responsibility of being a world champion, an ambassador for F1 and for this team very seriously. I have known Lewis for many years and know how he will feel about letting people down.'

So as you can see Whitmarsh was in no way saying Lewis should not be a Mclaren driver - as for falling out with Anthony Hamilton at the end of 2004 over Lewis being moved up to GP2 can we point out that he was in no way saying he didn't want Lewis on the Mclaren youth programme he just didn't want him in GP2 that early and as history shows Whitmarsh got his way and Lewis stayed in the Formula 3 Euro series and actually won in it 2005 (compared to being 5th in 2004), then went to GP2 and won that and then went to Mclaren - so how anyone is using that as evidence that Whitmarsh doesn't want Lewis at Mclaren I don't know. He just wasn't letting AH push him into pushing Lewis up the ladder too soon - and hey he was right wasn't he?

half truths!

Can I also say about this thread that we seem to have glossed over a serious accusation made at Martin Whitmarsh with no justification at all. Like I said before it offends me that someone would say that about someone on the internet with no justification.

 

[Brogan]

Can I also say about this thread that we seem to have glossed over a serious accusation made at Martin Whitmarsh with no justification at all. Like I said before it offends me that someone would say that about someone on the internet with no justification.

Unless someone has clearly stated something or committed libel, there's not much we can do.

The poster in question has been very careful to make very ambiguous statements which could be explained away if challenged.
Several of us attempted to get them to clarify their point but they declined to do so. Unsurprisingly.

If you believe the statements to be clear and unequivocal then by all means report them.
Innuendo and inference isn't enough however.

Now...back to the thread.

 

[racecub]

I know what the article was about, but it referenced the incident you wanted evidence of..... The reference to Martin tearing up Lewis' contact. Martin himself actually referred to the incident but I cnt remember where he said it, possibly in autosport, the above artcile used his reference. There's no half truths, Martin ripped up the contract. Ok he re- signed him, but id already said that previously.

 

[The Artist.....]

The way it's always been explained by mclaren and the hamiltons was that in 2004, Anthony Hamilton felt that Lewis should move straight up to gp2. Mclaren said that it was too early, and from what I understand they basically said "if you want to move up to gp2 this year, then you'll have to do it yourself"! The hamiltons famously went to Williams, and tried to get a similar backing to what they had from mclaren, but they wen't in any position to do so, so the Hamiltons went back under the mclaren wing! He spent an extra year in f3, and the rest, as they say, is history!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/mar/01/motorsports.lewishamilton

Plus, in LH's own words, he was prepared to give up his contract with mclaren than stay in f3 for another year!

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2008/02/29/uk-motor-racing-williams-hamilton-idUKL295309920080229

Hopefully that should end any discussion of MW sacking hamilton!!!

 

[FB]

IMartin ripped up the contract. Ok he re- signed him, but id already said that previously.

I think that is what is referred to as "contract negotiations". How anyone can put any other spin on that is beyond me, especially when you read the full interview.