McLarens mistake...
Discussion
deadslow said:
I appreciate all you say, but if you miss the race, what's the first question you will ask - "Who won?" , I bet. I can't really believe anyone rushes home to say "Please don't trouble me with the result, how did the teams conduct themselves today?"
True, but there is a difference between which facts are the most urgent and which are the most important.flemke said:
deadslow said:
I appreciate all you say, but if you miss the race, what's the first question you will ask - "Who won?" , I bet. I can't really believe anyone rushes home to say "Please don't trouble me with the result, how did the teams conduct themselves today?"
True, but there is a difference between which facts are the most urgent and which are the most important.deadslow said:
flemke said:
deadslow said:
I appreciate all you say, but if you miss the race, what's the first question you will ask - "Who won?" , I bet. I can't really believe anyone rushes home to say "Please don't trouble me with the result, how did the teams conduct themselves today?"
True, but there is a difference between which facts are the most urgent and which are the most important.flemke said:
deadslow said:
flemke said:
In this case, with this team's commitment to equality
But with both drivers finishing on 'equal' points behind the Ferrari, the tactical naivety of the approach, in a commercial team contest, is underlined.Spin works both ways...
flemke said:
deadslow said:
flemke said:
deadslow said:
I appreciate all you say, but if you miss the race, what's the first question you will ask - "Who won?" , I bet. I can't really believe anyone rushes home to say "Please don't trouble me with the result, how did the teams conduct themselves today?"
True, but there is a difference between which facts are the most urgent and which are the most important.Jamesf288 said:
flemke said:
deadslow said:
flemke said:
In this case, with this team's commitment to equality
But with both drivers finishing on 'equal' points behind the Ferrari, the tactical naivety of the approach, in a commercial team contest, is underlined.Spin works both ways...
In contrast to previous years' cars, this year's Ferrari was not as reliable as the McLaren was. Don't take my word for it - Todt and Montezeehole said the same thing.
Car design and manufacturing shortcomings are part of how we judge the quality of a car.
A wheel nut gun's randomly jamming is not part of how we judge the quality of a car, nor is a random puncture - which I could have alternatively exampled to demonstrate how utterly unpredictable exogenous factors cost McLaren the Drivers' title, the point being that perhaps Dennis's equality principle was not so naive after all.
deadslow said:
flemke said:
deadslow said:
flemke said:
deadslow said:
I appreciate all you say, but if you miss the race, what's the first question you will ask - "Who won?" , I bet. I can't really believe anyone rushes home to say "Please don't trouble me with the result, how did the teams conduct themselves today?"
True, but there is a difference between which facts are the most urgent and which are the most important.Their way is the way of one man, who happens to run the team. He believes in certain principles, and one (perhaps) respects him for his commitment to those principles through thick or thin.
Surely this year it would have been tempting for him, having not won a title in nearly a decade, to rein in one driver in order to secure at least the Drivers', especially after the FIA had gifted the Mosley Trophy to Ferrari. Yet he stuck to what he believed in, which act must be creditable.
I'm quite interested in bicycle racing, in which every team, in every race, designates one or two leaders, for whose benefit the rest of the team is required to work. I don't see anything wrong with that, either.
I guess that if I were running an F1 team and, for whatever reason, I ended up with Raikkonen and, say, Sutil as my two drivers, although I would try if practicable to give Sutil equipment that was as good as Raikkonen's, unless Sutil could show that he was somewhere near Raikkonen's level, I would expect him to support Raikkonen, just as I would expect Raikkonen to help Sutil learn his craft.
I'm not saying that Ron's way is the only way. I just get annoyed when the armchair quarterbacks bad-mouth the top professionals in the world (across the grid) and talk about how they would never have been as dumb as the pro had been.
flemke said:
I'm not saying that Ron's way is the only way. I just get annoyed when the armchair quarterbacks bad-mouth the top professionals in the world (across the grid) and talk about how they would never have been as dumb as the pro had been.
Yes, I agree with what you say, up to a point, but Ron had the best car and the two best drivers and HE lost both championships. He ought to consider a more flexible approach.deadslow said:
Yes, I agree with what you say, up to a point, but Ron had the best car and the two best drivers and HE lost both championships. He ought to consider a more flexible approach.
He lost one championship, although, as I replied to 288, if not for a couple of truly random exogenous occurences, his team would have won the Drivers' by a narrow margin.The other championship was stolen, and we all know it.
deadslow said:
flemke said:
deadslow said:
flemke said:
In this case, with this team's commitment to equality
But with both drivers finishing on 'equal' points behind the Ferrari, the tactical naivety of the approach, in a commercial team contest, is underlined.[b]There are some people who would say that winning is the only thing that matters.
There are some others who would say that how one conducts oneself is more important than winning. [/b]
Giuseppe Farina was the first Formula One World Champion. He was also one of the all-time dirtiest and most unsportsman-like drivers. (I'm not implying that he would have been a favourite of yours, but rather that it would have been more honourable to finish second that year than to have been Pinin Farina's uncle.)
Ron Dennis has said that he believes that, over time, a team that practises equal treatment for its two drivers will win more often, because the competition between the two drivers and, by extension, their two race teams will lift them both up to a level than neither would have achieved on its own.
Yes, if Hamilton had been forced to play the Eddie Irvine, Rubens Barrichello, Felipe Massa lackey role this year, Alonso would have won the title. Then again, if McLaren had not had the extraordinary bad luck of having a defective wheel nut gun, Hamilton would have won the title. In either case, surely Hamilton matured and learned far more this year by being in the thick of it than he would have done by carrying Alonso's jockstrap, which was what the latter seemed to have expected.
The friction between Alonso and Hamilton was inevitable so long as they were both at McLaren. If Hamilton had let Alonso win this year, what would Alonso's position have been next year, as the three-times world champion? Judging from his recent comportment, it is hard to envisage his happily saying, "Okay, Lewis, you served your apprenticeship in '07, now let's be equals."
If you're familiar with bicycle racing, you will know about Bernard Hinault and Greg Lemond. If the team boss does not step in early and establish fairness, things can get well out of hand.
So, no, I would not call it "naivety". Some would have done it differently - fair enough, but if there is one thing that Ron Dennis is not, it is naive.
Ron ought to have won both championships easily this year He lost both due to dogmatic thinking.
Edited by deadslow on Tuesday 23 October 20:41
flemke said:
Jamesf288 said:
flemke said:
deadslow said:
flemke said:
In this case, with this team's commitment to equality
But with both drivers finishing on 'equal' points behind the Ferrari, the tactical naivety of the approach, in a commercial team contest, is underlined.Spin works both ways...
In contrast to previous years' cars, this year's Ferrari was not as reliable as the McLaren was. Don't take my word for it - Todt and Montezeehole said the same thing.
Car design and manufacturing shortcomings are part of how we judge the quality of a car.
A wheel nut gun's randomly jamming is not part of how we judge the quality of a car, nor is a random puncture - which I could have alternatively exampled to demonstrate how utterly unpredictable exogenous factors cost McLaren the Drivers' title, the point being that perhaps Dennis's equality principle was not so naive after all.
My point is this. You effectively said that Hamilton lost the title due to 'extraordinary bad luck', which is true to a certain extent.
Though if Hamilton had of won, Raikkonen could also rightly claim that the title was lost due to bad luck (the retirements in Spain & at the Nurburgring), where he lost approximately 14 points. Had he of finished these races, it would have been he leading Hamilton going into Brazil.
The technical reasons for each of their respective retirements is pretty much inconsequential to Hamilton or Raikkonen relative to the end result i.e. winner or runner-up.
Jamesf288 said:
flemke said:
Jamesf288 said:
flemke said:
deadslow said:
flemke said:
In this case, with this team's commitment to equality
But with both drivers finishing on 'equal' points behind the Ferrari, the tactical naivety of the approach, in a commercial team contest, is underlined.Spin works both ways...
In contrast to previous years' cars, this year's Ferrari was not as reliable as the McLaren was. Don't take my word for it - Todt and Montezeehole said the same thing.
Car design and manufacturing shortcomings are part of how we judge the quality of a car.
A wheel nut gun's randomly jamming is not part of how we judge the quality of a car, nor is a random puncture - which I could have alternatively exampled to demonstrate how utterly unpredictable exogenous factors cost McLaren the Drivers' title, the point being that perhaps Dennis's equality principle was not so naive after all.
My point is this. You effectively said that Hamilton lost the title due to 'extraordinary bad luck', which is true to a certain extent.
Though if Hamilton had of won, Raikkonen could also rightly claim that the title was lost due to bad luck (the retirements in Spain & at the Nurburgring), where he lost approximately 14 points. Had he of finished these races, it would have been he leading Hamilton going into Brazil.
The technical reasons for each of their respective retirements is pretty much inconsequential to Hamilton or Raikkonen relative to the end result i.e. winner or runner-up.
We're not judging a driver by himself; if we were doing that, whichever driver had the most cumulative finishing positions ahead of his teammate would be Champion, even if his average finishing position were 14th and he scored no points.
Instead, we're judging the driver/car combination. I tried to differentiate between (a), a weakness of the car itself (poor reliability, hard on tyres, lack of balance, etc) and (b), a factor that had nothing inherently to do with the driver, car or team, but which influenced the result nonetheless, by using the word "exogenous".
A puncture that cost points would be exogenous. Another driver's losing control and running into the back of you unsighted would be the same. Likewise a wheel nut gun that failed.
In contrast, if you had an electrical failure, or a hydraulic failure, such as the sort of failures that might have cost Raikkonen the title in '05, that should be within your team's control.
The car's weakness or failure is the team's failure; it is not a matter of luck.
Something unforeseeable and out of your control is a matter of luck, be it good or bad.
The Brazilian press says that the following video explains how LH selected neutral.
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=MqHZ_xaB4Es
The Globo article is here;
http://globoesporte.globo.com/ESP/Noticia/Motor/0,...
Does anybody with more indepth knowledge have an idea if this is factual?
Checking the video, it appears he's already coasting when he pressed the N button. Typical journo's getting in a muddle again!
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=MqHZ_xaB4Es
The Globo article is here;
http://globoesporte.globo.com/ESP/Noticia/Motor/0,...
Does anybody with more indepth knowledge have an idea if this is factual?
Checking the video, it appears he's already coasting when he pressed the N button. Typical journo's getting in a muddle again!
Edited by sjn2004 on Thursday 25th October 00:06
flemke said:
Jamesf288 said:
flemke said:
Jamesf288 said:
flemke said:
deadslow said:
flemke said:
In this case, with this team's commitment to equality
But with both drivers finishing on 'equal' points behind the Ferrari, the tactical naivety of the approach, in a commercial team contest, is underlined.Spin works both ways...
In contrast to previous years' cars, this year's Ferrari was not as reliable as the McLaren was. Don't take my word for it - Todt and Montezeehole said the same thing.
Car design and manufacturing shortcomings are part of how we judge the quality of a car.
A wheel nut gun's randomly jamming is not part of how we judge the quality of a car, nor is a random puncture - which I could have alternatively exampled to demonstrate how utterly unpredictable exogenous factors cost McLaren the Drivers' title, the point being that perhaps Dennis's equality principle was not so naive after all.
My point is this. You effectively said that Hamilton lost the title due to 'extraordinary bad luck', which is true to a certain extent.
Though if Hamilton had of won, Raikkonen could also rightly claim that the title was lost due to bad luck (the retirements in Spain & at the Nurburgring), where he lost approximately 14 points. Had he of finished these races, it would have been he leading Hamilton going into Brazil.
The technical reasons for each of their respective retirements is pretty much inconsequential to Hamilton or Raikkonen relative to the end result i.e. winner or runner-up.
We're not judging a driver by himself; if we were doing that, whichever driver had the most cumulative finishing positions ahead of his teammate would be Champion, even if his average finishing position were 14th and he scored no points.
Instead, we're judging the driver/car combination. I tried to differentiate between (a), a weakness of the car itself (poor reliability, hard on tyres, lack of balance, etc) and (b), a factor that had nothing inherently to do with the driver, car or team, but which influenced the result nonetheless, by using the word "exogenous".
A puncture that cost points would be exogenous. Another driver's losing control and running into the back of you unsighted would be the same. Likewise a wheel nut gun that failed.
In contrast, if you had an electrical failure, or a hydraulic failure, such as the sort of failures that might have cost Raikkonen the title in '05, that should be within your team's control.
The car's weakness or failure is the team's failure; it is not a matter of luck.
Something unforeseeable and out of your control is a matter of luck, be it good or bad.
It is fair to say that the points Hamilton lost in China had a significant, if not decisive, impact on his title bid. This was caused by the driver's/team's failure, which as you state above "is not a matter of luck"; it was forseeable and in their control. Which brings into question whether the title was ultimately lost due to bad luck.
Granted the wheel nut had a significant impact, though i would say the China result was pretty much of equal importance.
Jamesf288 said:
It is fair to say that the points Hamilton lost in China had a significant, if not decisive, impact on his title bid. This was caused by the driver's/team's failure, which as you state above "is not a matter of luck"; it was forseeable and in their control. Which brings into question whether the title was ultimately lost due to bad luck.
Granted the wheel nut had a significant impact, though i would say the China result was pretty much of equal importance.
You're saying, if I understand you, that because he lost 10 pts because of an avoidable error in China, and lost some number of points because of bad luck in the 'ring, then both points losses are equally responsible for his losing the title, and why should one single out the bad luck? Is that it?Granted the wheel nut had a significant impact, though i would say the China result was pretty much of equal importance.
If so, the reason is straightforward.
One should (I was suggesting, for the sake of this what-if exercise) take out the exogenous things that affected the points totals. That would leave us with the points that each team/driver combination "earned". Points lost owing to driver error, driver lassitude, poor car reliability or poor car design would thus reduce the total, but those things that were owing to chance would have no influence.
We're not trying to determine the team/driver with the most luck. We're trying to determine the one that did the best job with everything that could resaonably have been expected to be in its control.
Cheers.
flemke said:
Jamesf288 said:
It is fair to say that the points Hamilton lost in China had a significant, if not decisive, impact on his title bid. This was caused by the driver's/team's failure, which as you state above "is not a matter of luck"; it was forseeable and in their control. Which brings into question whether the title was ultimately lost due to bad luck.
Granted the wheel nut had a significant impact, though i would say the China result was pretty much of equal importance.
You're saying, if I understand you, that because he lost 10 pts because of an avoidable error in China, and lost some number of points because of bad luck in the 'ring, then both points losses are equally responsible for his losing the title, and why should one single out the bad luck? Is that it?Granted the wheel nut had a significant impact, though i would say the China result was pretty much of equal importance.
If so, the reason is straightforward.
One should (I was suggesting, for the sake of this what-if exercise) take out the exogenous things that affected the points totals. That would leave us with the points that each team/driver combination "earned". Points lost owing to driver error, driver lassitude, poor car reliability or poor car design would thus reduce the total, but those things that were owing to chance would have no influence.
We're not trying to determine the team/driver with the most luck. We're trying to determine the one that did the best job with everything that could resaonably have been expected to be in its control.
Cheers.
Edited by 35secToNuvolari on Thursday 25th October 06:43
If If if if if if .... FFS ... IF the wheel gun hadn't jammed he would have come back onto the track in a different position and could have been taken out by someone else. There are an infinite number of possibilities as to what could have happened if...
Just deal with the fact that McLaren cheated and lost the constructors' championship as a result. They lost the drivers' championship because another team was consistently better over the full season. That's it, end of story.
Just deal with the fact that McLaren cheated and lost the constructors' championship as a result. They lost the drivers' championship because another team was consistently better over the full season. That's it, end of story.
Edited by Strangely Brown on Thursday 25th October 07:30
Strangely Brown said:
If If if if if if .... FFS ... IF the wheel gun hadn't jammed he would have come back onto the track in a different position and could have been taken out by someone else. There are an infinite number of possibilities as to what could have happened if...
Just deal with the fact that McLaren cheated and lost the constructors' championship as a result. They lost the drivers' championship because another team was consistently better over the full season. That's it, end of story.
Thanks for once again contributing to a thread.Just deal with the fact that McLaren cheated and lost the constructors' championship as a result. They lost the drivers' championship because another team was consistently better over the full season. That's it, end of story.
I think this is a very interesting post and I don’t think anyone should condemn the original poster’s point though favouring Alonso at the beginning of the year wouldn’t have cut it.
Point is that when everything in competition is about winning, Ron’s principles made McLaren a loser. You don’t get points for style because that’s not the competition. The competition is to be the fastest and to thereby win a WC. If you can’t manage to achieve that aim, then you stand more chance of being defeated.
Isn’t this a lame British problem time and again? It maybe ‘nice’ and principled to present a better standard of competition. The whole objective is to win the competition, not ‘be fair’. Ron’s principle of engendering competition within the team lays to much responsibility upon racers who’s make up is ruthlessly self centred. They would rather smash than come second.
I suggest backing the fastest would be sounder bet. Just think of the year we could have enjoyed had McLaren won; it’s benefits are almost incalculable. But no, we supported Ron’s principles. I think it’s maddening. It’s a cock up.
One further point to consider even at this stage, if Alonso goes to one of the top teams, it does mean that McLaren will have to beat him. So is it a good idea to ditch him? In Ron’s world it will still appeal (to drive Lewis on) but you come close to pressing a self destruct button. Not clever and a better competition – Ferrari v McLaren v Renault (say).
Point is that when everything in competition is about winning, Ron’s principles made McLaren a loser. You don’t get points for style because that’s not the competition. The competition is to be the fastest and to thereby win a WC. If you can’t manage to achieve that aim, then you stand more chance of being defeated.
Isn’t this a lame British problem time and again? It maybe ‘nice’ and principled to present a better standard of competition. The whole objective is to win the competition, not ‘be fair’. Ron’s principle of engendering competition within the team lays to much responsibility upon racers who’s make up is ruthlessly self centred. They would rather smash than come second.
I suggest backing the fastest would be sounder bet. Just think of the year we could have enjoyed had McLaren won; it’s benefits are almost incalculable. But no, we supported Ron’s principles. I think it’s maddening. It’s a cock up.
One further point to consider even at this stage, if Alonso goes to one of the top teams, it does mean that McLaren will have to beat him. So is it a good idea to ditch him? In Ron’s world it will still appeal (to drive Lewis on) but you come close to pressing a self destruct button. Not clever and a better competition – Ferrari v McLaren v Renault (say).
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff