Head To Head Jenson Button vs Lewis Hamilton

[Cookinflatsix]

this is only because *some* of the users who have been suggesting that it was incompetence (or other descriptions) have also used terms like *disturbingly good looking* and other such misnomers.

Do you mean MW has posted on this here site? As misnomer points to a misuse or untrue word, and as we know it to be a fact that the team principal referred to his drivers in such an exact facsimile of the term, then i am not sure what your point is here

Are you saying that, in a team that have just messed up a race for its drivers who started on the front row, where the finger seems to point at inefficiency, and where questions are being asked about the competence of its pit stop strategies for both drivers, that it is wrong to examine the attitude of the boss in reference to these drivers?

e.g. if MW had referred in an interview before the race to those 'two hopeless and useless drivers we have' would it also be wrong to revisit this reference and would you describe it as a misnomer if quoted in a discussion about what went wrong with the teams approach?

 

[ExtremeNinja]

Do you mean MW has posted on this here site? As misnomer points to a misuse or untrue word, and as we know it to be a fact that the team principal referred to his drivers in such an exact facsimile of the term, then i am not sure what your point is here

Are you saying that, in a team that have just messed up a race for its drivers who started on the front row, where the finger seems to point at inefficiency, and where questions are being asked about the competence of its pit stop strategies for both drivers, that it is wrong to examine the attitude of the boss in reference to these drivers?

e.g. if MW had referred in an interview before the race to those 'two hopeless and useless drivers we have' would it also be wrong to revisit this reference and would you describe it as a misnomer if quoted in a discussion about what went wrong with the teams approach?

Cookin. There is absolutely no relevance to the following quote whatsoever!

We are in the unusual position of having two of the best drivers in the world, who are both young, disturbingly good-looking chaps with star quality.

You really need to drop that one as every time you bring it up it makes you come across as a complete plonker. I'm not saying you are one, just giving some advice on how to avoid selling yourself as one.

 

[Cookinflatsix]

If you had paid attention then you might have noticed that I did drop it ages ago, it was brought up and required explanation, Like I said the team boss of a team making mistakes will have all his actions words and motives questioned

To avoid looking like a hypocritical prized plonker to me yourself, how about you answer the question?

e.g. if MW had referred in an interview before the race to those 'two hopeless and useless drivers we have' would it also be wrong to revisit this reference and would you describe it as a misnomer if quoted in a discussion about what went wrong with the teams approach?

 

[ExtremeNinja]

I'd rather leave it, if it's all the same? Like I said: its completely irrelevant. Good luck with it if you want to continue on this line of conversation. I shall not be joining you.

 

[Cookinflatsix]

 

[The Artist.....]

Thing is..had the rain come, Hamilton's umbrella had a hole in it, and he'd have to have gone back home anyway to get a new umbrella.

Yes, but if you insist on stretching the metaphor further than needs be, all the other drivers might have already been home to leave their umbrella at home, whilst Hamilton would have only needed one trip to get a new one!

I don't think anyone's suggesting that the old inters would've been any good on the wet track, but it's a difference of 24-25 seconds between making 1 stop and making 2 stops!

I suppose the comparison we can make is back to China 2010. By anticipating that the initial rain shower was not going to last long, JB had a pitstop (actually 2 stops) over his rivals- this was hailed as a tactical masterstroke! However, had it started raining a little harder, then it would have been parodied as an idiotic move! If you were simply getting the correct tyres on for the track conditions, the inters were right in china- however, in hindsight everyone could see that the slicks were better!

 

[RasputinLives]

I shall correct what Bill said for him. The lead driver always gets the first option of a stop. For instance

"Lewis would you like to stop?"
"No thanks I'm gonna cover off those Red Bulls like you guys suggested"
"copy..........Jenson would you like to stop?"
"yes please these tyres are buggered and I need to make up some time in my second stint"
"copy......Lewis - Jenson is pitting are you ok?"
"I'm ok"

I'm not quite sure what the issue was because Lewis's pitstops would have all worked out for him if he hadn't been held up by the Ferrari double stack.

WOAH! have to watch what you say on here don't you. Please not the word "For Instance" I was giving an example to clear up the incorrect statement that the lead Mclaren driver always gets the first pitstop. He doesn't he gets the first option of when to pit as played out in my little play above. I should have said Driver A and Driver B I guess.

At least it gave you all something to talk about at the weekend I guess!

 

[The Artist.....]

WOAH! have to watch what you say on here don't you. Please not the word "For Instance" I was giving an example to clear up the incorrect statement that the lead Mclaren driver always gets the first pitstop. He doesn't he gets the first option of when to pit as played out in my little play above. I should have said Driver A and Driver B I guess.

At least it gave you all something to talk about at the weekend I guess!

(and something I forgot about was that in this instance, LH was actually given the better strategy than JB for the first stop- the only reason he ended up behind JB was because of a botched stop and ferrari's double shuffle! (hence why JB came out behind alonso)

 

[gethinceri]

I had a double shuffle once.
I'm not going to that masseur again.

 

[ExtremeNinja]

I had a double shuffle once.
I'm not going to that masseur again.

Me too but I got two for the price of one so probably paid half what you did.

 

[gethinceri]

Me too but I got two for the price of one so probably paid half what you did.

Can't do those maths.

 

[teabagyokel]

Are you saying that, in a team that have just messed up a race for its drivers who started on the front row, where the finger seems to point at inefficiency, and where questions are being asked about the competence of its pit stop strategies for both drivers, that it is wrong to examine the attitude of the boss in reference to these drivers?

Cook, it was a wet race. The last 8 wet races have not been won from pole by my count...

I'm not sure why you (and others who agree with your position) keep mentioning the word conspiracy?

Because when this debate started, the question was whether Button's strategy was preferential.

Or neither of these things. Just a crap call. Why use Button as a guinea pig when Torro Rosso sent one out for you free of charge?

Because McLaren had every reason to suppose that Toro Rosso was unusually well bolted down to the road in the wet when Vergne was on inters at the red flag.

 

[Brogan]

Because when this debate started, the question was whether Button's strategy was preferential.

Quite clearly it was.

Stating and debating that doesn't make it a conspiracy though

 

[teabagyokel]

Quite clearly it was

Clearly the strategy worked better. However, various people took that to mean that Button was McLaren's favourite etc., which is clearly disproven by the fact that Button was to Hamilton what Massa was to Alonso.

 

[ExtremeNinja]

Clearly the strategy worked better. However, various people took that to mean that Button was McLaren's favourite etc., which is clearly disproven by the fact that Button was to Hamilton what Massa was to Alonso.

Ferrari's decisions have no bearing on the decisions made by McLaren which, quite separately, are in contradiction to the driver policy that they tout.

 

[teabagyokel]

Ferrari's decisions have no bearing on the decisions made by McLaren which, quite separately, are in contradiction to the driver policy that they tout.

What is this policy?

 

[ExtremeNinja]

What is this policy?

Have you not been paying attention? 500 lines and see me after school.

 

[teabagyokel]

Have you not been paying attention?

Well, I really don't see how McLaren's actions in Malaysia contravene the policy as I understand it.

 

[ExtremeNinja]

Now we really are going in circles. McLaren's policy is to give the leading driver preference of strategy. Hamilton, as has been said and proved numerous times with undeniable factual evidence, was informed and consulted on conditions, tyre performance and relative speed of competitors much later than Button was - who subsequently benefitted by being given the choice to pit earlier.

 

[teabagyokel]

Now we really are going in circles. McLaren's policy is to give the leading driver preference of strategy. Hamilton, as has been said and proved numerous times with undeniable factual evidence was informed and consulted on conditions, tyre performance and relative speed of competitors much later than Button was.

Yes, because he got the preferential strategy. As I keep saying, if Alonso and Vettel both get a strategy then you can be damn sure it is the preferential one. They were willing to sacrifice Button to gather information for Hamilton.