Head To Head Jenson Button vs Lewis Hamilton
- Thread starter Brogan
- Start date
- Status
The Artist.....
Champion Elect
You cheated.
Back to square one.
Go on- give a little ground - accept that there were valid strategic reasons for trying to stop later!!!
I understand the logic. I just don't understand how a team full of intelligent people would apply that logic.
So I do understand the sense in what you are saying, just to be clear. However, I can't say that without the caveat that there was a lot more sense in the alternatives that we're staring the in the face.
The most likely outcome would be that Vettel, Perez and Alonso would have all followed suit on the next lap. However, at least McLaren would have stolen the march. Having said that, who knows?
Wombcat
Podium Finisher
Well, I agree. For trackposition it wouldn't have mattered.
Now look at the way the pitstops actually went. What would have happened had it started to pour with rain the moment Alonso drove out of the pits on his new slicks?
Presumably Lewis would come in for wets as Alonso was coming out on slicks and would end up about half a lap ahead of him after Alonso did a whole lap in pouring rain on slicks, assuming he would have made it round the circuit.
These are the times people pitted:
Who is it that made that decision within a sector of Ricciardo coming out? Massa was pretty desperate at that point.
Something else is interesting. How many of the teams pulled in their second driver on the road first in this stint. I think Force India, Williams, Mercedes and Marussia were the only ones not to. That is 4 of 11 teams with two cars still on the road. So its not just McLaren who pitted their second - and thus less important driver - in first.
It was not a clear no-brainer when Ricciardo set his first sector time, or else the first drivers of Ferrari, Red Bull and Lotus (all double Championship winning teams in the last 10 years) would have been in on lap 38-9 rather than lap 40.
Regardless of what everyone else did or didn't do, it seemed very obvious to me what McLaren should have done. We are discussing it on this particular thread because of the disparagy between McLaren's touted philosophy and thier actions although we have reached into wider debate.
I maintain that it seemed absolutely black and white to me what they should have done, both at the time and in retrospect.
Were we on the Perez thread having the same discussion I would question Sauber's actions with a similar stance.
I maintain that it seemed absolutely black and white to me what they should have done, both at the time and in retrospect.
Were we on the Perez thread having the same discussion I would question Sauber's actions with a similar stance.
Anyone saying that Button was favoured over Hamilton in this situation logically implies that they believe that Massa, Webber and Kobayashi got preferential treatment to Alonso, Vettel and Pérez respectively.
I'm not saying that. Even if we ignore Button, the decision they made with Hamilton was odd.
It has to be said, however, that in all radio communication Jensen was given information prior to Hamilton and was presented with options prior to Hamilton. Resultantly he was pitted prior to Hamilton and, hence, benefited whilst Hamilton lost out. Make of that what you will.
Only one team - Force India - pitted their lead driver on the road on a different lap and before their second driver. So what McLaren did was in line with everyone else. Make of that what you will.
Sheep in wolves clothing?
Can we not agree that in the cold light of hindsight McLaren could have made a better decision, but in the fasst changing situation of the race their decision was not only backed up by the actions to fother teams, as TBY clearly shows, but also supported by the radio comms way back on about page 13-15 of this thread where Hamilton said he was coping with the tyres?
Therefore, no particularly bad deicision, just one that could have been improved had they had the benefit of hindsight.
Therefore, no particularly bad deicision, just one that could have been improved had they had the benefit of hindsight.
I am agreed that they could have made a better decision. I don't think that the decisions of other teams justifies thier own decision, though.
Hindsight, again. Where does that keep popping up from? Surely decisions of strategy are supposed to be made with foresight.
I do concede at this point, though, that I appear to be flogging a dead horse.
Hindsight, again. Where does that keep popping up from? Surely decisions of strategy are supposed to be made with foresight.
I do concede at this point, though, that I appear to be flogging a dead horse.
I agree with you that decisions should be made with foresight, but it is essential that teams react to conditions.
Although wet, or changeable races tend to be more exciting I think I'm with you in that they take the team strategy and pop it in the corner ready for next time round. I don't think they do much better for the driver's outright ability either.
So, basically, I'm not a fan of wet races as it does undermine the teams' efforts and throw chance into the equation which gives a quick buzz, but little sense of satisfaction.
Wombcat
Podium Finisher
The thing with foresight is that you're never certain what's gonna happen. With hindsight at least you're sure about what actually happened.
Very true. They should have waited until after the race to decide when to pit.
- Status
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
