Head To Head Jenson Button vs Lewis Hamilton

[Wombcat]

but perez actually didnt win the race simply because HE went off the track at the vital time.it wasnt because he was delayed in the pits.
what was he 1 or 2 seconds quicker than alonso,he was right behind alonso,he then went off the track,and then for some reason lost his pace.
if lewis had of lost out because he went off the track in the same way then he'd only have himself to blame,because if youre that much quicker ,with that many laps left,unless you make a mistake you should win the race.
further more some ppl do actually believe perez wasnt allowed to win the race anyway.

If Perez losing 6 seconds due to pitting later didn't lose him the race, then Hamilton losing 6 seconds due to pitting later didn't lose him anything at all. Because those 6 seconds wouldn't have made any difference to his position on the track. So if you take that point of view there's no reason at all to discuss McLarens' strategy.

In fact what was most deciding in the race were the pitstops where Alonso jumped Hamilton and Button. He jumped them because McLaren screwed the pitstops up. If they hadn't done that and Button and Hamilton would have been in front of Alonso, you'd have a different race. So in my opinion the McLaren pitstops were much more important than their pitstopstrategy. (But I agree that in general pitstopstrategy aren't McLarens' strongest point. But in this case I think their strategy is defendable).

BTW. Wouldn't you say that maybe Perez lost pace because he went off track (and decided to play it safe and make sure he got his second place? Due to playing it safe he'd be making slower laptimes. Anyway when he went off there were 4 or 5 laps to go, and he was then 5 seconds behind. So there'd be no realistic chance of passing Alonso anyway). IMO it'd be a different ballgam if he was on the tail of Alonso from lap 40 instead of from lap 50. Catching someone is something else than passing him. Even with DRS. 10 laps more of being on Alonsos' tail means 10 laps more with pressure on Alonso and 10 laps more to find a place to overtake. Now he was on his tail with just 7 laps to go and just two or three laps later he made his mistake. Then the chance was gone.
And indeed the message from the pits was that they needed their position. But apparantly after that Perez was still pushing, because he made his mistake after that. If he was just cruising behind Alonso he wouldn't have made the mistake. Unless you are suggesting the mistake was made on purpose. But I wouldn't expect a rookie driver to make such a mistake on purpose though. Don't think he would have thought: "I better make a mistake, so it won't look like I'm giving the race to Alonso".

 

[Cookinflatsix]

What I find particularly amusing is how F1 with its history of intrigue and conspiracies and political wranglings. An arena where drivers have conspired to deliberately crash into each other, team principals have conspired to have one driver crash for the benefit of another, where spying and sabotage allegations are part of the historical fabric

But when it comes to the first black driver, the most popular and most followed debutant probably in the history of the 'sport' any questioning, or request for clarification for a pattern that is most obvious, then it's fashionable to scream tin foil hat, Whitmarsh is a lizard, JFK is still alive, Elvis lives on a grassy knoll, how dare you suggest anything is not normal

There doesn't have to be a conspiracy of the type that films are made out of starring Kevin Costner for things to be outside the norm

As far as I'm concerned McLaren have naively tried to harmonise 2 top drivers, share data and create a happy camper section in the paddock. Thry might have expected both drivers to go along and trust the team. The inevitable result has been that the door has been opened to allow one driver to distort and hijack this naivety.

I think to call it a conspiracy would be to credit the McLaren leadership with too much gumption. It's more like a situation where someone who screams to be allowed to drive is finally handed the keys and they head straight off a cliff because they couldn't drive in the first place

To the strains of Sinatra singing ' I did it my way' we will see all the great engineering and history of McLaren fall off the cliff of mediocrity as the simple mistakes continue to cost

Two races where McLaren locked out the front row, two races of underachievement, if the 'drinks company' had locked out the front row I bet they would have more points by now

IMHO

 

[teabagyokel]

I think McLaren are at little risk of falling off that cliff. Have some perspective; the car is fast.

 

[GeoffP]

I think McLaren are at little risk of falling off that cliff. Have some perspective; the car is fast.

I agree!

Under Whitmarsh they have always played catch up at this point in the season and then the strategies and styles have developed as the season progresses, but they are evolved rather than planned.

Lewis and Jenson are both great drivers. Jenson was nearly overlooked, I think that that was partly because the greates strength of his talent has been brought to the fore by the new tyres. Jensen's smooth style aids tyres, and the tyres are designed to be a variable these days. Lewis is an outright racer, I think the new tyres have reigned in his natural skills and forced him to learn, or develop, others. As a result his driving style has changed in front of us, and it's not always worked for him.

So McLaren have two drivers, one who has excelled, much to everyone's surprise and one who has struggled, not quite so much to everyone's surprise. They both have different pit communication styles and needs - if you want proof that these tend to be different try to picture Alonso being boosted by being told he's slower than anyone.

So McLaren need to have a strategy to win, at the beginning of the season. Their strategy plan has appeared to be weak over recent seasons as they seem to have gone into races unclear of who they are racing on the track. The reality so far of this season has been, in the dry at least, themselves. So yes they need better strategy and control and maybe they need a number 1 driver. I just don't think they have picked one.

What is most surprising me is the quality of the pitstops. The crew are all over the place, but then there have been driver errors (mostly, if not all, Lewis), my only conclusion I can draw from this is a barely controlled excitement. They need to get a grip.

Having said that, I still believe that Lewis' pitstops strategy was a weather gamble that they felt was the only real way to change his position on the track, because he finished in third they weren't proven wrong, we shall never know if they could have been right as it didn't rain!

 

[Brogan]

If Perez losing 6 seconds due to pitting later didn't lose him the race, then Hamilton losing 6 seconds due to pitting later didn't lose him anything at all. Because those 6 seconds wouldn't have made any difference to his position on the track.

Except it's impossible to know what would have happened if Hamilton had pitted earlier and been that much closer to Pérez for the final 18 laps.
He may even have been able to capitalise on Pérez's off track excursion, or even induce one of his own due to pressure.

He was also gaining on Alonso for the final stint every lap, so a win wasn't out of the question.

 

[ExtremeNinja]

Yep. You can only lose a fight if you are in the fight, and likewise win it. McLaren failed to put Hamilton in the fight when they had an obvious opportunity to do so.

 

[The Artist.....]

Yep. You can only lose a fight if you are in the fight, and likewise win it. McLaren failed to put Hamilton in the fight when they had an obvious opportunity to do so.

Yes, in hindsight they got it wrong in Malaysia, but had it rained again, we could have been hailing mclaren with getting it just right!!! Sometimes it is right to roll the dice- and sometimes it will work, sometimes it won't!!! I suppose one thing that may be true is that mclaren haven't yet factored in that track position is no longer the be-all and end-all of the race!!!

 

[ExtremeNinja]

Hindsight, hindsight, hindsight. In hindsight I should have taken my boots off before I went to bed last night. Oh, hang on, I did take my boots off before I went to bed last night. Why did I do that? Because I had the foresight to realise that I would dirty my sheets and that the chances of me waking up in my bed to find that I was no longer in my bedroom but in a field were very slim and did not warrant the risk.

 

[The Artist.....]

Hindsight, hindsight, hindsight. In hindsight I should have taken my boots off before I went to bed last night. Oh, hang on, I did take my boots off before I went to bed last night. Why did I do that? Because I had the foresight to realise that I would dirty my sheets and that the chances of me waking up in my bed to find that I was no longer in my bedroom but in a field were very slim and did not warrant the risk.

But that's not a comparable situation.... If, for instance, you saw that it was forecast to rain, and took an umbrella out with you- but then the rain never came, then you could easily argue that you would have been much better off not taking an umbrella out with you!!! This is the same as the Hamilton incident! Rain was forecast.... As such, they rolled the dice and took their metaphorical umbrella out with them whilst everyone else (except Perez) left their umbrella at home! This time, no umbrella was needed, but it could have been so much different!

 

[ExtremeNinja]

The point is that thier decision was not ill-informed, it was I'll ill-advised. At such a competitive level of competition and at the pinnacle of Motorsport strategising, we do not expect highly paid strategists to make ill-advised decisions based on good information.

What you are saying is that they got themselves into that situation by being clever, or trying to be clever. However, as I would have told them if I were standing next to them at the time, they were not being clever. They were being quite stupid. The measure of this is the outcome.

The decision was a no-brainer with foresight and the available information and looks to be even more of a no-brainer in hindsight.

We have spent days debating this but the decision should have been made in the split seconds following the time it took Ricciardo to complete the first sector of his outlap.

You can defend thier decision if you like, but it makes you as daft as they were. There was only one obvious thing to do and they chose to do the opposite. In most cases, if it looks right, it is right. They have outsmarted themselves by trying to be smart when all they needed was a bit of common sense and nouse.

 

[The Artist.....]

The point is that thier decision was not ill-informed, it was I'll ill-advised. At such a competitive level of competition and at the pinnacle of Motorsport strategising, we do not expect highly paid strategists to make ill-advised decisions based on good information.

What you are saying is that they got themselves into that situation by being clever, or trying to be clever. However, as I would have told them if I were standing next to them at the time, they were not being clever. They were being quite stupid. The measure of this is the outcome.

The decision was a no-brainer with foresight and the available I formation and looks to be even more of a no-brainer in hindsight.

We have spent days debating this but the decision should have been made in the split seconds following the time it took Ricciardo to complete the first sector of his outlap.

You can defend thier decision if you like, but it makes you as daft as they were. There was only one obvious thing to do and they chose to do the opposite. In most cases, if it looks right, it is right. They have outsmarted themselves by trying to be smart when all they needed was a bit of common sense and nouse.

Sorry, I'm not going to let that lie! When button was told to pit, the first question he asked was "when's the rain coming?". Clearly it wasn't the most straight forward a decision, as otherwise all of the teams would have pitted on lap 38.

What matters when making decisions are your beliefs! If you BELIEVE that it is going to rain before, say, lap 41, then the best response is not necessarily to stop immediately, but to wait- especially if you have a buffer behind you! Say it takes 30 seconds to make a pitstop, but you believe that with probability 0.95 it will rain before lap 41, then stopping on lap 38 may not make sense, as you may only gain 15 seconds, and suffer a net loss of 15 seconds! The only credible reason why both mclaren and sauber kept their lead men out until lap 41 was because they expected more rain (and since more than 1 team did it, it gives more credence to this idea) - all this is is application of Occam's razor!

 

[The Artist.....]

PS, even if their belief was only that there was a 50% chance of rain, it still might make sense to try and do something different - as if everyone does the same thing, then the status quo is maintained. If you do something different, then there is a chance of shaking things up! (in the event, alonso, perez and Hamilton all
practically did the sAme thing!)

 

[ExtremeNinja]

What matters when making decisions are your beliefs!

And with belief comes conviction. Exactly what McLaren showed a lack of on race day. If they neither believed it would rain or otherwise then the only facts they had were the ones before thier very eyes which were that it is not raining, the track is drying and there is a guy at the back of the field going 5 seconds a lap faster on dry tyres. Those are facts and if they can't believe and execute on such clear facts then what? Put thier race in the hands of the gods?

Belief, faith, fact, knowledge, common sense and nous. In the absence of belief, as there was, any of these others would have sufficed as a basis for making the decision.

 

[The Artist.....]

And with belief comes conviction. Exactly what McLaren showed a lack of on race day. if they neither believed it would rain or otherwise then the only facts they had were the ones before thier very eyes which were that it is not raining, the track is drying and there is a guy at the back of the field going 5 seconds a lap faster on dry tyres. Those are facts and if they can't believe and execute on such clear facts then what? Put thier race in the hands of the gods?

Belief, faith, fact, knowledge, common sense and nous. In the absence of belief, as there was, any of these others would have sufficed as a basis for making the decision.

In which case, what is the point of weather forecasting? - and also it is possible to update one's beliefs- in fact Bayes' rule gives a good explanation of how individuals might update their beliefs in the face of new evidence! What would you have expected them to do with hamilton if they were showing conviction? Wait until all of the other cars overtook him?

They had 1 set of beliefs, as informed by the weather forecast. These were updated as time went by, and we're left with no option but to pit sooner rather than later!

 

[ExtremeNinja]

In which case, what is the point of weather forecasting?

None at all when it tells you that there is an equal chance of two opposing outcomes. This is why in a game of pool, the coin toss decides who breaks and not who wins.

 

[GeoffP]

OK I get it! The rain on it's own was a long shot for strategy, not unreasonable, but a long shot.

So he could have passed Perez, oh hang on, Perez hadn't pitted either, but then, the Sauber team are stupid so if Lewis' strategy was on the mark they wouldn't have covered him...

Oh wait, they're another F1 team, and one has to believe they're trying to cover the odds too...

So maybe the McLaren team's strategy was a roll of the dice and not a slam dunk guaranteed result.

 

[The Artist.....]

OK I get it! The rain on it's own was a long shot for strategy, not unreasonable, but a long shot.

So he could have passed Perez, oh hang on, Perez hadn't pitted either, but then, the Sauber team are stupid so if Lewis' strategy was on the mark they wouldn't have covered him...

Oh wait, they're another F1 team, and one has to believe they're trying to cover the odds too...

So maybe the McLaren team's strategy was a roll of the dice and not a slam dunk guaranteed result.

And herein lies an irony! In trying to do something different, mclaren did the same thing as sauber!

 

[ExtremeNinja]

OK I get it! The rain on it's own was a long shot for strategy, not unreasonable, but a long shot.

So he could have passed Perez, oh hang on, Perez hadn't pitted either, but then, the Sauber team are stupid so if Lewis' strategy was on the mark they wouldn't have covered him...

Oh wait, they're another F1 team, and one has to believe they're trying to cover the odds too...

So maybe the McLaren team's strategy was a roll of the dice and not a slam dunk guaranteed result.

Sauber's strategy is thier own business and as Sauber's pit was neither in reaction to McLaren or caused reaction from McLaren, it is an irrelevance. All McLaren had to think about was having thier driver on the right tyres at the right time.

 

[GeoffP]

Sauber's strategy is thier own business and as Sauber's pit was neither in reaction to McLaren or caused reaction from McLaren, it is an irrelevance. All McLaren had to think about was having thier driver on the right tyres at the right time.

Wasn't Lewis' next target position Perez's? If so I would say, at the final pit stop, that was exactly who they were basing their strategy on.

 

[Brogan]

And yet they even got that wrong, pitting Hamilton one lap later than Pérez, losing even more time to him.

So in conclusion, McLaren's strategy for Hamilton was the worst of the lot no matter what their aim was.