and then pit Hamilton two laps later when they had gained enough information in Button's first sector? Sorry, that doesn't add up.
Head To Head Jenson Button vs Lewis Hamilton
- Thread starter Brogan
- Start date
- Status
and then pit Hamilton two laps later when they had gained enough information in Button's first sector? Sorry, that doesn't add up.
Thats what Ferrari did too. In my book, if it correlates with the strategies of the other F1 teams (rather than the armchair strategists), then it at least proves that McLaren weren't uniquely stupid.
I didn't say they were uniquely stupid, just stupid.
The fact that the "armchair strategists" that you talk of were correct and McLaren's highly paid strategists and systems got it wrong is surely a compliment to the former and a taint on the latter.
The fact that the "armchair strategists" that you talk of were correct and McLaren's highly paid strategists and systems got it wrong is surely a compliment to the former and a taint on the latter.
So you're saying they ought to have risked their first driver on slicks whilst not knowing if their car was comfortable on slicks, when they had a car in the dead positions. Because had Hamilton binned it, they'd have come out with 0 points, which is because your strategy is a risk.
In wet races? They've won 5 of the last 8 of them...!
There were other issues going on at China in 2007.
Such as?
In this thread you have alluded to my comments surrounding that race, I think you mentioned the word "conspiracy", and stated that you disagree with me.
So if it wasn't a stitch up and it wasn't a strategy fuck up, what else is there?
I don't think I disagreed with you, I said I didn't want to get into it.
Considering the mess that he made of his inters in the early part of the race, compared with Lewis, I wouldn't have used Jensen as a yardstick for anything tyre related.
I would suggest that McLaren are also subject to the most scrutiny.
In Brazil 2008 they made the correct choice of tyres which enabled Lewis to get the fifth place he needed. In 2009 they made the call to change tyres early, allowing Lewis to jump several cars and get to third. Spa 2010 they allowed Lewis to stay out on slicks ons wet track, as it would save more time.
A significant difference between us and the team is the amount that is riding on a decision. If I get it wrong, I may look daft for a while, but I lose nothing, the team are under a lot more pressure, and have real things to lose.
They are also privy to more information than we are, such as weather forecast confidence, and accuracy, along with conversations with the drivers behind closed doors, where I am sure strategies are thoroughly discussed.
I am also fairly sure that teams up and down the pit lane make cock ups, which are not picked up on for one reason or another.
In short, I agree that the strategy was wrong, as it has been stated and proven many times. What I am not so sure about is the opinion of McLaren for making the decision that they have, which seems to be a statement that they have been crap for the last 6 years at least.
This may be true, but I would assume that after each incident, the decision making processes, and the information which was used to make those decisions is reviewed to prevent reocurrence. I mean, the team have a responsibility to get results, and need to be able to justify every decision, there must be an audit trail.
So, I would love to know why the decisions were made, and also what was said in the debriefings, I suspect I never will, but I bet it would answer a lot of the questions which are being asked.
Other than that, the logical conclusions are that either McLaren make fewer mistakes than we think, or they make lots of mistakes, which they never learn from.
In Brazil 2008 they made the correct choice of tyres which enabled Lewis to get the fifth place he needed. In 2009 they made the call to change tyres early, allowing Lewis to jump several cars and get to third. Spa 2010 they allowed Lewis to stay out on slicks ons wet track, as it would save more time.
A significant difference between us and the team is the amount that is riding on a decision. If I get it wrong, I may look daft for a while, but I lose nothing, the team are under a lot more pressure, and have real things to lose.
They are also privy to more information than we are, such as weather forecast confidence, and accuracy, along with conversations with the drivers behind closed doors, where I am sure strategies are thoroughly discussed.
I am also fairly sure that teams up and down the pit lane make cock ups, which are not picked up on for one reason or another.
In short, I agree that the strategy was wrong, as it has been stated and proven many times. What I am not so sure about is the opinion of McLaren for making the decision that they have, which seems to be a statement that they have been crap for the last 6 years at least.
This may be true, but I would assume that after each incident, the decision making processes, and the information which was used to make those decisions is reviewed to prevent reocurrence. I mean, the team have a responsibility to get results, and need to be able to justify every decision, there must be an audit trail.
So, I would love to know why the decisions were made, and also what was said in the debriefings, I suspect I never will, but I bet it would answer a lot of the questions which are being asked.
Other than that, the logical conclusions are that either McLaren make fewer mistakes than we think, or they make lots of mistakes, which they never learn from.
Be careful what you wish for Brogan. If the 2 Mclarens run into each other on the first corner and Bahrain is canceled you'll have 5 weeks of pulling your hair out!
We can always discuss 2007.
Button def lost to Hamilton in 2007. I can say that with ultimate certainty
S0 - is it all Jenson's dad's fault?
Yep. I hear he pissed on the McLaren Strategenerator thinking it was a plant pot.
Cookinflatsix
Banned
The strategy worked better and twice in a row Mclarens reason for leaving LH to dangle in the wind (first driver gets priority) seemed to be contradicted. So it appeared as though the team were favouring JB for some unknown reason.
Speculation as to this reason flirted with conspiracy, but as you need at least 2 to conspire against a third to have a conspiracy this didnt seem to fit the confusion and inefficiency apparent on the pitwall recently
So if not a conspiracy, could the answer to this consistent inability to service both drivers properly and stick fairly to a stated approach lie with the management approach and the design of processes in the garage in general?
Could it be that the team bosses approach to his drivers is at fault, could it be a misguided and naive attempt to create a uber cool and aesthetic unit where the drivers are as opposite as can be but gel into one harmonious trophy winning operation that would make Ron weep with envy?
Maybe this ideal has caused confusion in a sport where competition between drivers always involved two rival sides of the garage getting the best out of each other by ruthless competition.
Maybe the new sharing data, sharing engineers, steak dinners etc has lead to the confusion and situation where instead of equal opportunities for both, one driver has found it all too easy to gorge on the resources available to the detriment of the other less needy driver.
In the absence of any logical explanation as to why LH was left out as long as he was, and the implications of the radio transcript and in light of other inconsistencies for a while now, speculation will continue and to dismiss it as conspiracy theory or to be selective about which particular speculations are reasonable or unreasonable is a matter of how long a piece of string can be
When a certain Nelsinho crashed at Singapore it would have been only a very few speculating about a deliberate crash, but it would have been unfair to castigate those few or ridicule them like some (not you) particularly seem to enjoy doing. From there its easy for lines to be drawn with everyone having to choose sides
Cookinflatsix
Banned
Please remember that what in your opinion constitutes reasonability might in anothers opinion constitute fence sitting and pandering to public opinion.
For me a ruthlessly efficient team would put more score on the potential abilities of 2 drivers than to get influenced by factors outside driving ability. No matter how grumpy or moody etc a driver is, this should not affect the quality of service he receives if he is capable of winning Wcs
n.b. This does not suggest conspiracy, it just questions whether a pro team might be able to be swayed away from efficiency by off track activities or attributes of one driver
My industry is awash with salesmen taking clients out to establishments, some unsuitable for the family, in an attempt to sway their decisions towards the salesmans firm during the business day. These 'soft commission' type curry favouring is rightly frowned upon by the authorities as it might lead to the public losing out due to someone they have entrusted, not making the right decision with them in mind but instead being swayed to an alternative action guided by thoughts of the steak dinner and lap dancing the night before
So if JB and LH both had to rely on the same people for data analysis and decisions and tactics instead of having their own seperate staff for these things, it might explain why things seem to naturally flow towards JB getting the best choices etc as suggested by the transcripts we all heard
Anyway, what do I know, I am just trying to make sense of Mclarens reasons for leaving LH out for an extra 2 laps, and I think conspiracy is way too slick and efficient to be a candidate here, they wouldnt make such obviously stupid decisions seemingly more and more regularly
- Status
