As I remember it he was only ahead of Lewis AFTER he'd done his soft tyre run. Lewis was safe on the hards.
I do not believe that Jenson completed a hot lap on the Softs.
As I remember it he was only ahead of Lewis AFTER he'd done his soft tyre run. Lewis was safe on the hards.
After three weeks of attempting to browbeat everyone into accepting that Hamilton's pitting second and slow pitstop in Malaysia meant he was the unfavoured son, you're now saying that Button pitting second and having an even slower pitstop in China also means that Hamilton is the unfavoured son.
So at least its not only McLaren that have an inconsistent policy...
Then again Im not sure what your saying. Jens had to go again in Q2 to ensure he got through, Lewis' firsdt run was good enough. Unless Iv remembered it completely wrongI do not believe that Jenson completed a hot lap on the Softs.
Then again Im not sure what your saying. Jens had to go again in Q2 to ensure he got through, Lewis' firsdt run was good enough. Unless Iv remembered it completely wrong
I dont remember it like that. But as I say I might be wrong.As I recall, after the runs on Hard tyres, Jenson was above Lewis in times, then as other teams sent their drivers out on Soft tyres, there was some nervousness in the commentary about which drivers would need to go out again. Jenson was sent out on Soft tyres, and did an out lap, started a flying lap, the aborted and came in, not setting a time. There was a comment on the McLaren web site about Lewis not going out. If Lewis was safe on Hard tyres, the fact that Jenson had set a faster time on the hard tyres would have meant that he was also safe, therefore, a set of soft tyres were used unnecessarily (one for the spelling thread I think!!)
when JB pitted first last race he gained an advantage, when LH pitted first this race he gained a disadvantage, JB would have gained an advantage both times if it wasn't for the wheelnut issue that was just bad luck
Agreed, although I am not sure this was ever the strategy. Leading driver gets first call
As have several others. I though that after another poor display by McLaren that it highlighted further evidence, so I came here expecting the thread to be awash with debate, as it wasn't I started it myself.
I dont remember it like that. But as I say I might be wrong.
Ok. My mistake then.I just wanted to make sure that I was not going mad (a distinct possibility) and Jenson set a 1.36.7 on Hard tyres, marginally faster than Lewis, and this was set with 9 minutes to go. The red P next to Lewis remains on for the rest of the session, but Jenson goes out again, does not improve his time, but uses a set of tyres.
So what you say is, as usual, partly true but entirely disingenuous.
My most recent reply to The pits above gives my opinion on what's happening at McLaren, again supported by facts or observations that I have personally chosen over others
I think leading driver gets first call is the same as one driver gets the better call, as McLaren appear to share all data and the same people make decisions for both drivers.
Expanding on my point above, I think the way he pit wall is arranged is that both drivers are under the control of a strategists who has all the data from both drivers, instead of two independent teams competing intra team on strategy
The problem IMO with this is that it becomes easy to hand out strategies that are not optimal. Why? Because its in human nature to have preferences bias and feelings. If Button is easy to get on with for the strategist he will tend to put JB first on average, he will also acquire a subjective opinion about the strengths of each driver, which could lead to giving JB the better choice each time in the assumption that LH is more able to handle the second choice
Before we get the usual screams of conspiracy and disdain about the topic of discussion and thread, what do you think is at fault with the pit wall strategy arrangement?
Also known as "Cherry-picking evidence".
Say you believe in God and were asked to justify this opinion that he exists, would you say it was because there is absolutely no proof, or would you 'cherry pick'
I believe that the strategy side for most teams is a central function. The main thing at McLaren I believe is simply that the computer console is in the middle of the garage. Both sides of the garage want to win, and initial race strategy is set in advance of the race, how this is adapted based on how the race pans out I believe is the problem at McLaren, not the fact that the computers are in a different place.
Snip/
That McLaren seem to make errors is not in question, I believe that because many are really close to the team, their errors are more scrutinized than others. They also seem a little "Starchy" from time to time.
That is a ludicrous comment, and quite frankly Cook, I'm out. Your hypocrisy continues to shine through.