Whitmarsh on Hamilton, Merc deal, Lewis' regrets & Perez-Jenson pairing!

Nando did 2 years at Renault, then should have won in 2010 and again this year probably if he hadn't moved over on Kimi in Suzuka and had been faster relative to Massa at the end. That's infinitely better than a succession of 2/3/4th

Yes of course it remains to be seen. But McLaren are probably as good as they can be, and it's not quite good enough to WIN.

You make it sound like it's entirely Alonso's fault that he didn't win in 2010, when actually the Ferrari team threw it away with their pit strategy in Abu Dhabi. So apparently when McLaren mess up, that's a reason for Lewis to not be able to win the WDC, but it doesn't apply to Ferrari and Alonso?

To win the WDC, you need speed, reliability, good pitwall and luck, or at least better than the opposition.

You make it sound like it's entirely Alonso's fault that he didn't win in 2010, when actually the Ferrari team threw it away with their pit strategy in Abu Dhabi. So apparently when McLaren mess up, that's a reason for Lewis to not be able to win the WDC, but it doesn't apply to Ferrari and Alonso?

To win the WDC, you need speed, reliability, good pitwall and luck, or at least better than the opposition.

No that is not the context. Alonso had the CAR to win in 2010, is the point. And the team barring that last mistake.

No that is not the context. Alonso had the CAR to win in 2010, is the point. And the team barring that last mistake.

And if Hamilton hadn't collided with Massa (Monza) and / or Webber (Singapore)?
How did he not have the 'CAR'?

Edited by trogggy, 08 December 2012 - 17:18.

What on earth are you talking about? To begin with, Hamilton won the WDC in one of those 5 years. Secondly, Alonso has not won the WDC in any of those years and has not had the best or equal best car. Hamilton has certainly had more competitive machinery over the past five seasons than Alonso.

The point is that having the better car over an average of 5 years is no use. They want to WIN. WIN the WDC. Being 2nd five times is no use, they'd rather have 4 crap years and one wdc.

As Nando could and should have had in 2010 and arguably in 2012 too.

SO - trying desperately to make this simple point - Lewis may as well try his luck at Mercedes rather than come 2nd or 3rd in a McLaren for a few more years.

SO - trying desperately to make this simple point - Lewis may as well try his luck at Mercedes rather than come 2nd or 3rd in a McLaren for a few more years.

Seems the usual suspects are finding this difficult to understand...
Why I'm not surprised....

You make it sound like it's entirely Alonso's fault that he didn't win in 2010, when actually the Ferrari team threw it away with their pit strategy in Abu Dhabi. So apparently when McLaren mess up, that's a reason for Lewis to not be able to win the WDC, but it doesn't apply to Ferrari and Alonso?

To win the WDC, you need speed, reliability, good pitwall and luck, or at least better than the opposition.

Ah, so Alonso gets excused his numerous errors which cost many points, but Hamilton gets hit over the head for his? Don't worry, you're not the only one to take that approach on this forum.

And if Hamilton hadn't collided with Massa (Monza) and / or Webber (Singapore)?
How did he not have the 'CAR'?

The car failed him in Spain and Hungary, which were also points lost. As you have the ability to count his own errors (interestingly attributing the racing incident in Singapore solely to him), then I'm sure you have the ability to consider these too. The season is long, points are gained and lost over the course of it. Nobody can pick out one or two incidents and choose these as having importance over others with any sort of credibility. As we see, what people choose to pick out and what to ignore is usually self-serving to their own bias.

The car failed him in Spain and Hungary, which were also points lost. As you have the ability to count his own errors (interestingly attributing the racing incident in Singapore solely to him), then I'm sure you have the ability to consider these too. The season is long, points are gained and lost over the course of it. Nobody can pick out one or two incidents and choose these as having importance over others with any sort of credibility. As we see, what people choose to pick out and what to ignore is usually self-serving to their own bias.

No, you've attributed that to me. I don't think that.
Nice straw man though.

The point is that having the better car over an average of 5 years is no use. They want to WIN. WIN the WDC. Being 2nd five times is no use, they'd rather have 4 crap years and one wdc.

He did win one WDC. I agree that being second five times is no use, but it is Alonso who is coming second most often and who has not won for over five years.

As Nando could and should have had in 2010 and arguably in 2012 too.

Asserting this undermines your argument.

SO - trying desperately to make this simple point - Lewis may as well try his luck at Mercedes rather than come 2nd or 3rd in a McLaren for a few more years.

By that logic, he may as well try his luck at, say, Force India. It implies that race wins, for example, do not matter at all. If that's the case, why does he want the trophies? GP wins might start to matter more to some of his fans if they have to go a few seasons without one.

He did win one WDC. I agree that being second five times is no use, but it is Alonso who is coming second most often and who has not won for over five years.

Asserting this undermines your argument.

By that logic, he may as well try his luck at, say, Force India. It implies that race wins, for example, do not matter at all. If that's the case, why does he want the trophies? GP wins might start to matter more to some of his fans if they have to go a few seasons without one.

If Lewis had had the Ferraris of 2008-12 he'd had stayed I think. Not to say if he had the support Alonso has.

But McLaren are pretty much as good as they can be, which is not quite good enough. Ferrari threw away 2008 to let Lewis in, and now there's Red Bull to contend with as well.

Whereas Mercedes could become great, and he'll have an Alonso/Vettel amount of respect from the team.

If Lewis had had the Ferraris of 2008-12 he'd had stayed I think. Not to say if he had the support Alonso has.

Now you are switching tack, because your original statement was about Alonso's and Vettel's machinery over the five year period. Alonso did not have the 2008 or 2009 Ferrari. Even at that, I still maintain that McLaren have been more competitive over the same five year period. I'm not arguing with you about Vettel.

But McLaren are pretty much as good as they can be, which is not quite good enough. Ferrari threw away 2008 to let Lewis in, and now there's Red Bull to contend with as well.

Mercedes, on the same historical evidence that you are using to judge McLaren, are nowhere near good enough.

Whereas Mercedes could become great, and he'll have an Alonso/Vettel amount of respect from the team.

That might happen, but there is nothing to suggest it yet. It is more likely that McLaren will have a period of greatness.

Now you are switching tack, because your original statement was about Alonso's and Vettel's machinery over the five year period. Alonso did not have the 2008 or 2009 Ferrari. Even at that, I still maintain that McLaren have been more competitive over the same five year period. I'm not arguing with you about Vettel.

Mercedes, on the same historical evidence that you are using to judge McLaren, are nowhere near good enough.

That might happen, but there is nothing to suggest it yet. It is more likely that McLaren will have a period of greatness.

I was not switching tack, because I was never trying to make a comparison as an average. As I KEEP trying to explain, the worst cars they had do not matter. Nor the average. Nor overall. What matters is the relative quality of the McLaren car/team in terms of how close it can get its drivers to a wdc. And since 2008 the Ferrari has been a lot closer to a wdc than the McLaren. To ANY ONE wdc that is. So has the Red Bull clearly.

Mercedes obviously have to improve. There is more to prediction that extrapolating simplistically from the past tho. There are reasons to think Mercedes will improve, but not so for McLaren who look set to be a bridesmaid for the forseeable future as a customer team dependent on sponsorship.

Anyway, you're just going to deliberately misconstrue again, so that you can disagree with your rewrite of what I've said .

Anyway, you're just going to deliberately misconstrue again, so that you can disagree with your rewrite of what I've said .

This is what you originally said.

It's all relative. He's had more adversity than Nando and Sebi. The fact that he's had a better car than Kovy or Hulk is no use to him.

I don't know why it's so hard for some people to grasp that a car good enough for 2nd or 3rd or 4th, year after year, is not good enough.

I asked you to clarify the time period, and you said:

Nando did 2 years at Renault, then should have won in 2010 and again this year probably if he hadn't moved over on Kimi in Suzuka and had been faster relative to Massa at the end. That's infinitely better than a succession of 2/3/4th

But now you are talking about Ferrari's competitiveness over a five year period, ignoring the two years at Renault.

Apart from that, I understand the point you are making about being consistently 2nd/3rd/4th not mattering compared to winning in at least one year. Yet, amazingly, you ignore the fact that Lewis and McLaren actually did win one year.

I wonder if you or other Lewis fans would have anything like as much optimism for the emergence of Mercedes as a power in the next few years if Lewis had not committed his future to them.

I wonder if you or other Lewis fans would have anything like as much optimism for the emergence of Mercedes as a power in the next few years if Lewis had not committed his future to them.

The fact that they're spending the money and persuaded Lewis obviously is a clue.

They've re-staffed, comitted to F1, and are owned by Daimler who made €4bn profit in 2011.

They've been a crap team but who knows. We probably do know McLaren will be 2nd, 3rd or 4th.

The fact that they're spending the money and persuaded Lewis obviously is a clue.

They've re-staffed, comitted to F1, and are owned by Daimler who made €4bn profit in 2011.

They've been a crap team but who knows. We probably do know McLaren will be 2nd, 3rd or 4th.

There is no point arguing forever on this, as time will tell. I am less optimistic for them than you are, but let's leave it at that.

I hope that Aldo Costa's influence will be felt in a beneficial way ay Mercedes. He's been involved with winning cars for some years.

Edited by Craven Morehead, 08 December 2012 - 23:07.

It is silly to gloss over the fact that speed is only one aspect to a championship winning car. An example would be 2010, where the only reason you see McLaren as quick enough is because you ignore the reliability problems of the quicker Red Bull. Without those, the championship would have been a no contest. Similarly 2012- McLaren most certainly quick enough, but operationally, and reliability wise, the team wasn't sharp enough to capitalise fully on the speed of the car.

You're seriously misrepresenting my point. I simply said mclaren built a car capable of winning the title in 07 08 10 and 12. I'm not basing that blindly on speed as you seem to have plucked from nowhere.

What on earth are you talking about? To begin with, Hamilton won the WDC in one of those 5 years. Secondly, Alonso has not won the WDC in any of those years and has not had the best or equal best car. Hamilton has certainly had more competitive machinery over the past five seasons than Alonso.

Yeah Alonso has been kicking Hamilton's butt with inferior machinery the past three years running. He evened the score for 2007 long ago.

Yeah Alonso has been kicking Hamilton's butt with inferior machinery the past three years running. He evened the score for 2007 long ago.

1) Ferrari beat McLaren in the WCC in 2012, despite only having 1 driver and a half.
2) F10 and MP4-25 were evenly matched in 2010 (F10 was much stronger in the 2nd half of the season due to better EBD implementation the 25 better in the first half, mostly thanks to the F-Duct)

10 - Maybe, but in the end Lewis didn't do anymore mistakes than Vettel/Alonso yet finished behind both. He needed to have a perfect season, with them having their avg seasons to win title.
12 - Car was best, but racing operations were by far worst if you look at top 3 teams. Lewis would win title before last race had McLaren did a decent job with him.

07 - Lets not get too deep into that, but yeah, it was probably best performance from McLaren team (drivers aside) in last 10 seasons and it is mostly drivers that screwed up here.
08 - Lewis did win the title, and won it in an inferior machinery (yeah, he was lucky in that Kimi had horrible season and Massa's best season still wasn't that good given he had a fairly bad start into season)

I'm looking forward to 2013. season, but I have to admit I'm not expecting much. Button will take the title given a really great car/support, but wheter McLaren can actually compete with RBR/Ferrari - and really make something fantastic - not convinced.

Hamilton didn't win 2008 in an inferior car! He would've won the championship before Brazil if he didn't make so many mistakes! The only reason McLaren didn't win the constructors was because Kovalienen under performed.

Come on, Senna would have won McLaren the title in 2007 and 2010. You can say the car wasn't good enough in 2009, and 11 and the team not good enough if 2012. That still leaves 2007, 2008 and 2010. I think its fair to say Hamilton shouldn't be expected to have beaten Alonso in his season 1, that leaves 2010. He should have won it. He should be a double WC by now. One has got away. "adversity" my arse.

They win, but I no longer expect Lewis fans to even see that.

Not everyone is as fickle as that so keep your condescending generalisations to yourself.