Mclaren's Objectives
Discussion
http://www.planetf1.com/story/0,18954,3213_4397177...
I was wondering if there was a conflict in the teams priorities and the way they run the team. In the above article, Ron says that they run the team to win the Drivers Championship first, yet they're known to maintain a level field between their drivers. It would seem that equal driver treatment is a strategy that would be more likely to result in a constructor's championship while losing the Driver's. All the effort to get the drivers to compete and move the team forward seems to reverse the priorities.
Another team motto is that they exist to win. Now, according to their philosophy, dueling drivers are more likely lead to more race wins, so as a team they win more races, and possibly more than any other team, but even that still leaves them open to losing the driver's title (ie 2005). The ethos is consistent with winning races, not drivers' championships. Which would be a fine and consistent ethos, except for what Ron says now. It seems like a weird reversal.
It could be that he's faced with the possbility of losing the Constructors title and trying to rationalise the situation.
I was wondering if there was a conflict in the teams priorities and the way they run the team. In the above article, Ron says that they run the team to win the Drivers Championship first, yet they're known to maintain a level field between their drivers. It would seem that equal driver treatment is a strategy that would be more likely to result in a constructor's championship while losing the Driver's. All the effort to get the drivers to compete and move the team forward seems to reverse the priorities.
Another team motto is that they exist to win. Now, according to their philosophy, dueling drivers are more likely lead to more race wins, so as a team they win more races, and possibly more than any other team, but even that still leaves them open to losing the driver's title (ie 2005). The ethos is consistent with winning races, not drivers' championships. Which would be a fine and consistent ethos, except for what Ron says now. It seems like a weird reversal.
It could be that he's faced with the possbility of losing the Constructors title and trying to rationalise the situation.
Edited by 35secToNuvolari on Tuesday 28th October 05:44
If I was running a team I would prefer to give the drivers equal opportunities and equipment, and let them get on with it.
That means each driver must be at the top of his game to beat the other.
Say the fastest driver from the previous race gets first pick of pitstop strategy - that'd keep a driver on his toes and reward the faster while giving both of them the chance. The slower driver then has to work on his speed.
If nothing else it would ordinarily mean that both drivers are on the pace and at the front of the grid such that one can help the other when a title challenger has been identified. Unlike at present in McLaren where HK is not on the pace and unlikely to be able to contribute to LH's challenge, nor really to the Constructor's.
I would think the opposite strategy, to identify a lead driver and expect the No2 to support at all times, may mean that there is less incentive for both of them to maintain their level.
That's not to say that for some people (MS was a prime example) there is sufficient speed and motivation already there, but it's not the case for all drivers and some healthy competition should benefit everyone.
Last year was an exception - FA didn't deal with driver equality positively and the fallout from that cost him and McLaren the WDC.
That means each driver must be at the top of his game to beat the other.
Say the fastest driver from the previous race gets first pick of pitstop strategy - that'd keep a driver on his toes and reward the faster while giving both of them the chance. The slower driver then has to work on his speed.
If nothing else it would ordinarily mean that both drivers are on the pace and at the front of the grid such that one can help the other when a title challenger has been identified. Unlike at present in McLaren where HK is not on the pace and unlikely to be able to contribute to LH's challenge, nor really to the Constructor's.
I would think the opposite strategy, to identify a lead driver and expect the No2 to support at all times, may mean that there is less incentive for both of them to maintain their level.
That's not to say that for some people (MS was a prime example) there is sufficient speed and motivation already there, but it's not the case for all drivers and some healthy competition should benefit everyone.
Last year was an exception - FA didn't deal with driver equality positively and the fallout from that cost him and McLaren the WDC.
If you put both of what you two said together, then we would be on the same page 
. I understand the benefits Mclaren is trying to achieve with their methods, and I understand why a WDC could be more attractive than a WCC, but the methods they use seem to use make it more likely that they'd achieve the WCC without the WDC.....unless they dominate the other teams. If you have one driver take most of the wins, you'd be better placed for the WDC.
Look at Ferrari and Mclaren this year. It's almost as if they've switched values. Now, HK might not be held back contractually, but he's been functioning like a No 2. And Mclaren are poised for the WDC. Ferrari has had much more parity between their drivers and they are poised for the WCC. If either valued the WDC more than the WCC, and ran their team according to those priorities, it would be logical that they had a No1 and No2 driver in the team.
Can anyone else reconcile the two?
. I understand the benefits Mclaren is trying to achieve with their methods, and I understand why a WDC could be more attractive than a WCC, but the methods they use seem to use make it more likely that they'd achieve the WCC without the WDC.....unless they dominate the other teams. If you have one driver take most of the wins, you'd be better placed for the WDC. Look at Ferrari and Mclaren this year. It's almost as if they've switched values. Now, HK might not be held back contractually, but he's been functioning like a No 2. And Mclaren are poised for the WDC. Ferrari has had much more parity between their drivers and they are poised for the WCC. If either valued the WDC more than the WCC, and ran their team according to those priorities, it would be logical that they had a No1 and No2 driver in the team.
Can anyone else reconcile the two?
I'm not so sure that this season is a good comparator.
With Heikki and Kimi both struggling to make the most of their cars, and Filipe and Lewis making too many errors to be creating space at the top of the championship like you'd think they ought, it's not a foregone conclusion that the teams' strategies will pan out the same next year or the year after.
I agree that having one dominant driver is more likely to lead to the WDC but think it's more likely to fail to win the WCC. It's rare that a second string driver will continually finish 2nd when his team leader in typically winning. Unless the lead driver or his car is utterly dominant over the entire field, and that is even rarer.
I think if you set aside the fact that LH was a rookie last year (and therefore Alonso's negative reaction to being matched by a rookie) you'd find that McLaren would have walked both championships. And I think it's only HK's failure to get to terms with his car that's stopped them doing that this year as well. Both seasons with a car that's had its time as the fastest and as the second fastest on the grid in equal measure, just like its main competitor.
With Heikki and Kimi both struggling to make the most of their cars, and Filipe and Lewis making too many errors to be creating space at the top of the championship like you'd think they ought, it's not a foregone conclusion that the teams' strategies will pan out the same next year or the year after.
I agree that having one dominant driver is more likely to lead to the WDC but think it's more likely to fail to win the WCC. It's rare that a second string driver will continually finish 2nd when his team leader in typically winning. Unless the lead driver or his car is utterly dominant over the entire field, and that is even rarer.
I think if you set aside the fact that LH was a rookie last year (and therefore Alonso's negative reaction to being matched by a rookie) you'd find that McLaren would have walked both championships. And I think it's only HK's failure to get to terms with his car that's stopped them doing that this year as well. Both seasons with a car that's had its time as the fastest and as the second fastest on the grid in equal measure, just like its main competitor.
FNG said:
I'm not so sure that this season is a good comparator.
With Heikki and Kimi both struggling to make the most of their cars, and Filipe and Lewis making too many errors to be creating space at the top of the championship like you'd think they ought, it's not a foregone conclusion that the teams' strategies will pan out the same next year or the year after.
I agree that having one dominant driver is more likely to lead to the WDC but think it's more likely to fail to win the WCC. It's rare that a second string driver will continually finish 2nd when his team leader in typically winning. Unless the lead driver or his car is utterly dominant over the entire field, and that is even rarer.
I think if you set aside the fact that LH was a rookie last year (and therefore Alonso's negative reaction to being matched by a rookie) you'd find that McLaren would have walked both championships. And I think it's only HK's failure to get to terms with his car that's stopped them doing that this year as well. Both seasons with a car that's had its time as the fastest and as the second fastest on the grid in equal measure, just like its main competitor.
I'll just copy the text from the link in my first post to put things in better context.With Heikki and Kimi both struggling to make the most of their cars, and Filipe and Lewis making too many errors to be creating space at the top of the championship like you'd think they ought, it's not a foregone conclusion that the teams' strategies will pan out the same next year or the year after.
I agree that having one dominant driver is more likely to lead to the WDC but think it's more likely to fail to win the WCC. It's rare that a second string driver will continually finish 2nd when his team leader in typically winning. Unless the lead driver or his car is utterly dominant over the entire field, and that is even rarer.
I think if you set aside the fact that LH was a rookie last year (and therefore Alonso's negative reaction to being matched by a rookie) you'd find that McLaren would have walked both championships. And I think it's only HK's failure to get to terms with his car that's stopped them doing that this year as well. Both seasons with a car that's had its time as the fastest and as the second fastest on the grid in equal measure, just like its main competitor.
"The primary goal in grand prix racing is the Drivers' Championship, the secondary is the Constructors', and we run the team according to those objectives," the McLaren team principal is quoted by The Times.
(source
lanetf1)I would have to disagree with Mclaren that they actually run their team according to those objectives. I'm trying to figure out scenarios where their methods and priorities would be consistent.
Or, their most recent explanation isn't the result of thorough examination and in the rush to save face, used an explanation that sounds more insecure than logical.
35secToNuvolari said:
http://www.planetf1.com/story/0,18954,3213_4397177...
It could be that he's faced with the possbility of losing the Constructors title and trying to rationalise the situation.
I think so yesIt could be that he's faced with the possbility of losing the Constructors title and trying to rationalise the situation.
Edited by 35secToNuvolari on Tuesday 28th October 05:44
MonkeyHanger said:
bordseye said:
Maclaren doesnt sell cars to the public in any quantity, so the manufacturers championship doesnt really do anything much for them.
I think Mercedes might just have a slight interest in the Constructor's title...Mind you, maybe they do because the roads are full of Subarus on no better basis than the rally successes. You can never make a mistake by underestimating the public.
bordseye said:
MonkeyHanger said:
bordseye said:
Maclaren doesnt sell cars to the public in any quantity, so the manufacturers championship doesnt really do anything much for them.
I think Mercedes might just have a slight interest in the Constructor's title...Mind you, maybe they do because the roads are full of Subarus on no better basis than the rally successes. You can never make a mistake by underestimating the public.
For Ferrari or BMW, a WCC to go along with a WDC would mean more to the public, as their contending drivers don't have much of a public profile, and thus the victories would be more about the companies themselves.
bordseye said:
Maclaren doesnt sell cars to the public in any quantity, so the manufacturers championship doesnt really do anything much for them.
But I thought an F1 constructor would be interested in the constructors' championship, n'est-ce pas? It seems inconsistent for a team to be more interested in exclusively crowning an individual in the team over the title that recognises the entire team.964RS. said:
964RS. said:
PREDICTION: Lewis will win Driver's Championship but Ron Denis will quit at the top before the 2009 season.
I was right - sad to see Ron quit.Edited by 964RS. on Thursday 19th February 23:12
.964RS. said:
964RS. said:
PREDICTION: Lewis will win Driver's Championship but Ron Denis will quit at the top before the 2009 season.
I was right - sad to see Ron quit.There were suggestions that as part of the agreement to let McLaren compete in 2008, Max Rufus had demanded that RD leave the team. I hope, rather than believe, this to be true.
With regards to both drivers in a team being allowed to compete for the title, this is what cost Williams the title in 87. I thought at the time that it was a mistake on behalf of Williams/Head to have two such aggressive drivers. However, I met an ex Brabham mechanic who reckoned that when Piquet had number 1 on his car he just swanned around doing just enough to convince everyone he was trying. The team would work hours into the night trying to source a problem which, he then realised, did not exist. He reckoned that Piquest's tactics of being ever so nice and generous to the mechanics in the team was to get them on his side during his coasting years. He was quite bitter about it because, he said, Piquet was something of a hero to him and he felt let down. He said something like: I fell for it.
Piquet's walkabout tendencies became suspected in the pitlane and Mansell was considered a suitable encouragement to Piquet to stay honest. There seemed little doubt that Williams/Head favoured Piquet, being forced at one time to have to admit that Mansell was getting less powerful engine management. Or, as Honda put it, more suited to his driving style. Mansell's abilities seemed to surpirse a lot of people so I don't feel I was unique.
When Piquet went to Benneton he put in some wonderful drives, the best of his career I think. At that time he was being paid per point. Now that was canny.
Ron has always wanted the Constructors Title wrapped up before letting the drivers challenge each other for their championship...but if the constructors title is not an option then pick the strongest driver and win the drivers championship.
Very simple and it keeps the 'backers' happy...they fund the drivers / pay the salary of the team....700 or more employees so don't shoot the goose that lays the golden egg.
Drivers championship attracts the public's eye....manufacturers championship attracts the money and the sponsorship!
Very simple and it keeps the 'backers' happy...they fund the drivers / pay the salary of the team....700 or more employees so don't shoot the goose that lays the golden egg.
Drivers championship attracts the public's eye....manufacturers championship attracts the money and the sponsorship!
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff