Current McLaren

Arguably one of the big teams in Formula One but lately they don't seem to be able to get the basics right.
Some of their strategy and decisions in the last few years has left more than a few observers scratching their heads.

Just a few for starters:

• Leaving Kimi out on a badly flat-spotted tyre, resulting in it exploding on the last lap.
• Leaving Hamilton out on tyres so badly worn they were down to the canvas; Bridgestone themselves demanded that McLaren bring him in and McLaren refused, keeping him out for a few more laps. That decision arguably cost Hamilton the first rookie WDC and is one which will haunt him and McLaren for the rest of their days.
• Not sending Button and Hamilton out to get banker laps in during Q1.
• Sending Hamilton out on used tyres in Q3, with rain forecast, meaning it would be impossible to set a fast lap time on his second attempt on new tyres.

Their major updates seem to send them further down the grid, instead of challenging for pole positions and wins. As the season progresses they tend to get worse before getting better, by which time it is generally too late.

It's often said of them "write them off at your peril", but is this necessarily true?

The last time they won the WCC was in 1998 and their last WDC was 2008, before that 1999.
Their days of regularly winning championships seem to be well and truly behind them.

It's all well and good coming up with reasons why they haven't won championships.
The fact remains though, they have won just one WDC in the last 12 years.

So where to now for McLaren?

(I wrote this in rather a hurry so I will flesh it out when I have more time.)

 

[RasputinLives]

'I can't imagine Ron trotting out this balls'

I stopped reading then. Ron Dennis is the king of trotting out balls.

 

[Quintessentially]

It is possible to engage in a discussion without continually resorting to subtle digs and antagonism. Save yourself the time.

 

[teabagyokel]

Quintessentially - Take a look at the relative reliability rates in 2013 and, say, 1995. It was not McLaren's worst season since 1980 if you apply any kind of context.

Yes they got no podiums, but is losing out to super-reliable and fast cars really worse than joining Footwork on the list?

And, yes, Dennis lead McLaren into protracted periods of decline. Fact.

 

[RasputinLives]

It is possible to engage in a discussion without continually resorting to subtle digs and antagonism. Save yourself the time.

Quintessentially its just very obvious where your point of view comes from and its based on very little fact as TBY has shown. Add to that your comment regarding the line-up like Ron has had nothing to do with anything for the last few years and its all very tiresome.

I can only mock at the made up great return of the one and only Ron. McLaren are an organisation made up of thousands of people so to suggest its problems can be solved by one guy who was already there taking over another role is a bit funny.

But you want to justify Hamilton's none winning of championships as being someone else fault so it suits your agenda.

 

[Quintessentially]

teabagyokel - Last year's McLaren was certainly reliable but I said it's relative competitiveness is still open to debate. The one significant context is where you end up at the end of the season. If you want to broaden things then you must look beyond reliability and consider things like rule stability, politics, driver competence, in-season development, leadership, the list is endless. Forget about the protracted periods of decline, Ron is largely responsible for making the team what it is today. McLaren are certainly better resourced and a bigger force to reckon with compared to back then not to mention the fact that everyone was up against a Ferrari monopoly.

 

[Quintessentially]

RasputinLives Save it mate

 

[RasputinLives]

Quintessentially - if you're not prepared for someone to challenge your views why put them on a forum?

Do you really think Ron has had no influence on McLaren over the last few years? He was Martin Whitmarsh's boss. Do you really think he had no influence over the driver line up and that he's itching to ditch both of them when he gets the chance?

Magnuesen is part of McLaren's youth system and has been for quite a while. That would not have happened without Ron's knowledge of guidance so why would Ron want to ditch him instantly? As for Lewis leaving it was well reported that Ron fell out with Lewis over the contract negotiations so we know he was involved so he has just as much influence as your hated Whitmarsh.

Ron HAS been guiding McLaren during this so called decline just from a higher position than he had previously and when he hires a new team principal he will carry on in the same role so all this talk of him coming back to save the team is a bit silly.

 

[FB]

In door voices children.

 

[teabagyokel]

Quintessentially - I was not saying that the McLaren was reliable - although it was. Red Bull were reliable, Ferrari were reliable, Lotus were reliable and Mercedes were reliable. That makes it almost impossible to get on the podium, while in 1995 at a lesser level of performance Williams weren't reliable, Benetton weren't that reliable and generally ran one car, Ferrari were unreliable, so the podium opened up.

teabagyokel - Forget about the protracted periods of decline, Ron is largely responsible for making the team what it is today.

I can't forget protracted periods of decline when the discussion point is protracted periods of decline!

McLaren are certainly better resourced and a bigger force to reckon with compared to back then not to mention the fact that everyone was up against a Ferrari monopoly.

So? Everyone is up against a Red Bull monopoly now and McLaren weren't borasic back then either!

 

[siffert_fan]

It seems to me that last year's car was just rubbish, to the point that I don't think that at-their-prime Jim Clark and Jackie Stewart could have brought wins! Last time I looked, TPs didn't design the cars, so ascribing its terrible performance to Whitmarsh seems a bit out of touch with reality.

 

[Quintessentially]

teabagyokel Yes of course cars falling off the road makes it easier to end up on the podium. That goes without saying and I'm not really keen on a revisionist argument. Don't forget they benefited from a few reliability issues and accidents last year too but they just were not fast enough to take advantage. Historically they've have had their own issues with reliability notably when they introduced the launch control system and the car just couldn't get off the line but they still ended up with a respectable haul of points. As the saying goes you can make a fast car reliable but cannot make a reliable car fast. Considering the fact that they they scored podiums and wins in 2012 despite the reliability situation of close competitors not being markedly different from 2013's, this cannot be used as an excuse, not to mention they ended 2012 with arguably the fastest car in the field.

 

[teabagyokel]

You cannot ignore the fact that Whitmarsh presided over their worst season since 1980 (it would've been 1966 had there not been a few tangles between the cars ahead in Interlagos last year).

My case is that McLaren's worst season since 1980 is 1995 and not 2013.

In 1995, McLaren scored 2 podiums - a second place in Italy after the retirements of Schumacher, both Williams, both Ferraris, both Ligiers and both Jordans, and another second place in Suzuka after the retirements of both Williams, both Ferraris, a Ligier and one of the Jordans - although they credibly beat Johnny Herbert.

The 6 points from the Monza race gave them 4th in the Championship.

To replicate the situation for 2013, the equivalent would be for one race won by Mark Webber with the retirements of both Ferraris, both Mercedes, both Lotus and both Force Indias in addition to Vettel, and one race to be won by Vettel with Button beating Webber into third as Ferrari, Mercedes and one each of Lotus and Force India retired. In Monza in 1995, Blundell actually finished behind the Sauber too.

In the 2013 Brazilian Grand Prix, which McLaren finished 4th and 6th, there were three retirements. Pic. Bottas. Grosjean.
If you're telling me that McLaren had the same opportunity to reach the podium in 2013 as they did in 1995, then you're wrong, you are just wrong.

And the reason you obfuscate this truth is that you are trying to paint Ron Dennis era as the panacea for McLaren that it was not. Those that claim Red Bull have it easy because they have Horner need look at the failures of McLaren (and Williams) to do the four on the spin with Newey at the helm. Those that claim that a McLaren slump is unprecedented need to look at the context behind the facts of the past. And those that think that Lewis Hamilton would have magically got onto the podium in the 2013 McLaren need to ask themselves if they have anything to back that up.

Because, as anyone who saw the start of the 2009 European season will tell you, it is just not true.

 

[RasputinLives]

I'm afraid to disappoint those who want the return of Ron but it looks like Eric Boullier will be the new McLaren TP so technicaly it'll be his era.

I'm sure his first job will be too ask the design team what made them think the 2012 car couldn't be developed any further and find out what went wrong in 2013 before proceeding on for this year.

 

[downforce]

I wouldn't say the 2013 McLaren was as bad as the first half of 2009's car.

Hamilton and Kovalainen combine 6 point scoring finishes (counting Melbourne 09 as 4th) in the first half of 09 to Button and Perez's 10 in the first half of 13.


Actually it would have been interesting to see what Hamilton could have done in the 2013 McLaren seeing as he pretty much blew Button away performance wise in 2012 (you all know thats true). Races like Canada and Valencia 2012 suggest Hamilton could indeed have taken a podium or 2. Not wins though.

 

[Mephistopheles]

Strange how those that back His Ronness seem inclined to completely ignore 2007 it may not have been the teams worst year in terms of points scoring (Driver points anyway seeing as the team didn't score any.) but it was the teams worst year in terms of piss poor team and driver management and guess who the TP was,,, that's right, His Ronness or in the case of 2007 His wRONgness...

 

[Mephistopheles]

Well all this unjustified vilification of Martin Whitmarsh makes me sick...

 

[Plutus]

It ain't his fault, Ron put him in this position!

 

[Mephistopheles]

If the Macca goes out and gets on the podium or even wins the first race of the season I wonder who will get the credit Ron or Eric, because I doubt some people will throw any Martins way..

 

[teabagyokel]

KMag.

 

[Quintessentially]

teabagyokel It's a case of apple and oranges if you want to draw parallels between 1995 and 2013. McLaren paid a heavy price for poor reliability just as much as they benefited from it and the issues really went back to 1994 with the engines. Compare this to last year when they ended the season with arguably the fastest car and could not have got a better platform for the ensuing season.

The assertion that without the high attrition rates they wouldn't have finished on the podium in 1995 is erroneous. Take for example Brazil where Hakinnen was heading for a legitimate third if not for the poor pit stop and the crash toward the end of the race. Hakinnen drove the wheels off that car. Cherry picking results and retirements to formulate an argument is really not the way to. It is necessary to watch the race in its entirety and see how events unfolded before passing judgement. You mention Interlagos and retirements last year but are we forgetting that McLaren also benefited from Hamilton and Bottas coming together which dropped the former further down the field?

You could easily reverse the argument and say that if they had the same bullet proof reliability in 1995 like they did in 2013, the records would've looked more favorable because I don't think they even finished half of the races the took part in in 95. Fact of the matter is if you're not fast you are not fast and the fundamental issue last year was with car, driver line-up and in my opinion a dithering Team Principal because the current technical team have had a proven track record of in-season development and delivering a race winning car since this new set of rules emerged. 2009 marked the start of a new set of rules unlike 2013 when there was rule stability yet they managed to rediscover a top level of competitiveness and outscored everyone in the second half of the season. To argue that last year's car was poor, you must believe that both drivers extracted the maximum performance out of it. Considering the very different spectrum in car performance we saw in 2012, I'm not convinced this was the case.