Martin Whitmarsh
Discussion
It's in the Daily Mail for a start. It appears to be conjecture based loosely on a vague interpretation of events that may or may not be correct. I'd say it's more likely to be nonsense than not.
I'd guess that Hamilton wasn't expected to be 6th after lap one and able to push for the podium from 10th, so he was fueled based on his anticipated race pace. It's not really a surprise with the lack of running and the lack of adequate setup data that someone like Hamilton qualifying 10th wasn't able to have his race pace accurately predicted. The Button thing was just one of those things, if Team Principles have to be fired for pit-lane mistakes, why isn't there the same article about Horner? Vettel had a pitstop that went wrong too. it's a complete non-story as far as I can see.
I'd guess that Hamilton wasn't expected to be 6th after lap one and able to push for the podium from 10th, so he was fueled based on his anticipated race pace. It's not really a surprise with the lack of running and the lack of adequate setup data that someone like Hamilton qualifying 10th wasn't able to have his race pace accurately predicted. The Button thing was just one of those things, if Team Principles have to be fired for pit-lane mistakes, why isn't there the same article about Horner? Vettel had a pitstop that went wrong too. it's a complete non-story as far as I can see.
Was anyone else underfuelled for the race? Nope. It's always the way with McLaren, there is ALWAYS something that goes wrong in a race, and they are not small things (usually strategy related). They admitted that Hamilton only won in China because they actually made a mistake with his strategy that happened to play out into their hands. What they actually wanted to do would have put him 3rd or something. I like Whitmarsh but their strategy leaves something to be desired.
ETA: Plus 3 years of uncompetitive cars that need extensive redesign in order to be competitive... total balls up.
ETA: Plus 3 years of uncompetitive cars that need extensive redesign in order to be competitive... total balls up.
Edited by MSTRBKR on Tuesday 12th July 10:32
It was quite clear Lewis was going to drive the wheels off his car, even with the wet track saving a bit of fuel at the start to give him less fuel than Jenson seems crazy. (Daily Mail reported this fact, not sure if true).
On the other hand, in order to keep up with the Ferraris and Red Bulls, perhaps Lewis left his car in the most aggressive engine power mode for much longer than he should have done?
On the other hand, in order to keep up with the Ferraris and Red Bulls, perhaps Lewis left his car in the most aggressive engine power mode for much longer than he should have done?
LH underfuelled by 1 litre. Doubt that mad any difference TBH. They told him to go into fuel saving mode about 2/3 of the way through IIRC.
So 1 litre divided by say 15 laps. Call it 2 pints over 14 laps. I regularly get short fuelled at the pub by 1/7 of a pint every time I buy one. Its about 1/2 an inch at the top of a pint glass, I've just tried it. Saddo!
So 1 litre divided by say 15 laps. Call it 2 pints over 14 laps. I regularly get short fuelled at the pub by 1/7 of a pint every time I buy one. Its about 1/2 an inch at the top of a pint glass, I've just tried it. Saddo!
1 litre? These cars use about a gallon a lap, so you're saying he was underfuelled by roughly 1/4 of a lap? Sorry but that can't be right as he was told to fuel save (as you say) 2/3 through the race and his pace dropped off by around 1.5 seconds a lap. That's a huge amount of fuel saving.
MSTRBKR said:
1 litre? These cars use about a gallon a lap, so you're saying he was underfuelled by roughly 1/4 of a lap? Sorry but that can't be right as he was told to fuel save (as you say) 2/3 through the race and his pace dropped off by around 1.5 seconds a lap. That's a huge amount of fuel saving.
He had 1l less then Jenson, who knows what fuel-saving measures JB would ahve been told to take.Also, the fuel-saving over the last 1/3 of the GP would have been in the order of fractions of a litre per lap so hard to know how far short he was actually - his pace wasn't massively slow, just slower then MB and FM.
It may be that he was just a few litres short - remember they are all short-fuelled anticipating being able to run a lower pace later in the GP and they need a certain amount of fuel left for scrutineering at the end.
The team definately made a mistake on the fuel but not by massive margins, just by enough.
IainT said:
stuff
Wasn't Massa catching him at 1.5 seconds a lap? That may have been just because the Ferrari was faster than the McLaren last weekend though I guess.IainT said:
vonuber said:
Mclaren's biggest error has been losing Newey.
Very little doubt on that point!MSTRBKR said:
Bit of a shame that the only way to be really successful in F1 is to have this one bloke in your team.
He hasn't always been successful, but seems to tip the odds mre in favour of being so. usually his cars are fast but fragile it seems; with RBR he seems to have cracked that nut this year.But think on - it's not just one man, but I bet his support team etc went with him.
And less we forget why Whitmarsh is there at the moment.. liargate, spygate etc. So this is largely Mclaren's own doing, and Whitmarsh has been doing a fairly credible job really. They are only under the spotlight because every error is magnified as it increases the gap to RBR and Ferrari - for eample no-one is crucifying FI over di Restas tyre mix up, and RBR have the pace and luck to get away with the mistakes they have been making - for example Vettels tyre mixup in Monaco.
There is an article on Pitpass about this, and it does a pretty decent job of rubbishing the tabloid article.
http://www.pitpass.com/44204-Time-to-nail-the-Whit...
http://www.pitpass.com/44204-Time-to-nail-the-Whit...
The many mistakes of McLaren listed at the bottom of the artcile are pathetic. They really are clutching at straws to make a story out of nothing.
I especially love the "mistake" for Canada - setting up the car for wet weather - in a race that was then run in the wet and they went on to win. That is a strategic bombshell and the whole of McLaren should be fired for that one!!!!!!!!
I especially love the "mistake" for Canada - setting up the car for wet weather - in a race that was then run in the wet and they went on to win. That is a strategic bombshell and the whole of McLaren should be fired for that one!!!!!!!!
Gaz. said:
It amazes me that a team with so many staff dedicated to strategy (LH's side of the garage, JB's side of the garage, a team that covers both drivers AND 'Mission Control') mess up so often, so spectacularly and often outwitted by their competitors almost every weekend and it doesn't end there - both sets of commentary teams often question Mclaren's strategy and people contributing to the 'Official GP' threads often question a tactic, sometimes before the comms teams do too.
Maybe Mclaren try to be too clever for their own good.
I agree, but if you mean team to driver radio transmissions these are usually broadcast to us (TV viewers) with a delay. So can make teams appear even further off the ball than they really are!Maybe Mclaren try to be too clever for their own good.
The fact they are often trying to make up a performance disadvantage most of the time probably doesn't help matters.
Gaz. said:
IainT said:
Gaz. said:
Maybe Mclaren try to be too clever for their own good.
Except for the time we're lauding them for outrageous strategy and race wins backed up by stunning drives from the likes of Jenson in Montreal...
This weekend was terrible by their standards and we've seen Lewis' qualifying compromised a few times as well but they're not measuring up against a fixed opposition - the oppo are sometimes brilliant, sometimes awful.
For example Ferarri should have had Massa come in much earlier and I'm fairly sure he would have had LH easily. With Alonso they got it bang on so noone really commented.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff