McLaren's approach to driver equality (Ron Dennis comments)

So, as of now, all the main protagonists from the 2007 McLaren fiascos (Hungary-gate and spy-gate) have moved on from the McLaren race team frontline. The last to move on was Lewis, and I suppose the topic of this thread concerns the eventual dissolution of the strong bond between Ron and Lewis (now fully severed). With Ron moved upstairs, and Lewis the last driver he had this bond with, it does not seem likely to me that he (Ron) will have much to do the McLaren driver equality policy from here on.

2007 has its own thread, and Jenson versus Lewis (retrospective) has its own thread. I suppose this is the Lewis versus Ron/MW/McLaren thread. We still don't know why the relationship between Ron Dennis and Lewis slipped away over the years, and why his once pre-eminent position in the team (2008-2009) evaporated. People will just blame Martin Whitmarsh, but I don't think it is that simple. Hiring Jenson was a clear signal that McLaren were not building the team around Lewis. Why weren't they? Did Jenson simply exceed expectations? Or was 2008-2009 an abberation, whereby they hired an unproven driver in a hurry after an unanticipated vacancy arose (somewhat like now IMO). Edit: to be clear, the unproven driver I refer to is Heikki, not Lewis.

We talk about Ron and Martin,but there are more people with high influence on Mclaren,and we simply don't know who they are.

Not everybody was happy that Alonso was going out,some people losed with this and they didn't join Lewis for sure after this.

Equality means fight between the team,so this struggle for power is a law on Mclaren.

Edited by Boxerevo, 06 January 2013 - 20:58.

I'm sure if we all took replies to questions out of context, then shorten the full sentence to only keep the bit we want and then hang on to this fallacy for the next five years we should be able to confirm our conspiracy theories based on anything Ron Dennis has said.

So what context should we take the replies to these questions?

In 2007, the context i have is as follows:

1. McLaren were leading the 2007 WDC until the last race
2. McLaren lost the 2007 in the last race by 1 point
3. Ferrari won both championships even though McLaren had the better car and probably better driver pairing
4. McLaren spend millions hiring Alonso into the team
5. McLaren ended up paying USD100Million because of not managing Alonso properly
6. Some where in that year, Ron Dennis made that irrational reply that one of his drivers was racing his team mate rather than the competition.

I watched each and every race in 2007 but that is what i remember. I can't help but ask myself, what if Ron Dennis was racing the competition that day instead of his own driver - could McLaren have won that championship?

This question somewhat prevents me from justifying Ron Dennis's irrational reply that day and i don't feel that i need to understand that justification - somehow winning the championship would have been better.

Edited by CHIUNDA, 06 January 2013 - 21:48.

McLaren is one of the few teams that puts its all efforts on driver equality. This is one of the reasons why I love McLaren team. 2007 is a different story with many different parts throughout the year. Everyone agrees that Alonso was the number 1 driver till the Canada Gp where Lewis started to beat Alonso fair and square. Alonso was not used to be beaten from a rookie and without having full support from the team he becomes a bitter man. Remember what he said about Renault in 2006 or 2005? He said Renault was not behind him! I don't even talk about his blackmail against the team.

Edited by Mc_Silver, 06 January 2013 - 22:03.

No, I don't think he was deliberately mislead. They obviously didn't have a clue about what their new wing was good for vs the old one.

They lost testing time due to the weather, so they didn't have time to get the setup right on the new wing, or to do a proper comparison.

Jenson was arguably very lucky that his RE got it spot on.

I remember Dave Robson being invited to the very centre of the celebrations after the race, clearly Jenson felt he'd performed a miracle.

No, I don't think he was deliberately mislead. They obviously didn't have a clue about what their new wing was good for vs the old one.

There is always the possibility that the wing was fine but for some reason Lewis couldn't get it to work.

I remember an analysis done by a racing driver posted to this board that showed that Hamilton had lost the expected time on the straits but had failed to make up the expected time in the corners.

He was also clearly not happy with new wing. I'm sure if he had of been given the new wing and still lost out to Button you would have been arguing that they should have listened to Lewis and given him the old wing. Stupid McLaren never listens to Lewis etc etc

This is a reminder of the opening post;

A few sallies being fired in the Press. http://www.dailymail...o=feeds-newsxml
The conditions to win is an interesting one: what is RD referring too?

I would assume that perhaps Lewis wanted a less conservative approach to development
or
to be allowed to push ahead even while the team were sorting out Jenson’s problems (as opposed to stalling Lewis while sorting out the other driver)
or
to be allowed to test during the season like other teams

Equality can only be interpreted so many ways.

but that’s just my opinion what do you think?
...
If what I suspect is the case will Perez be up to speed immediately? Will engineers be re-assigned or ‘promoted’ ? if not will Jenson be slowed down to ensure they are operating ‘equally’?
or alternatively
will McLaren push boundaries with their new car?

Any post which does not address the points raised here is off topic. This is not about 2007, which still has its 'ultimate' thread if you do a search. It is about Dennis's comments to the CBI Business magazine about contract negotiations with Hamilton.

Those words are always paraphrased, and repeated without any consideration given to the context in which they were made, or to what was happening on track.

ok let's put it into context then,i can't really remember but wasn't that response given when asked if they would throw all support to Lewis in the title race?

A few sallies being fired in the Press. http://www.dailymail...o=feeds-newsxml
The conditions to win is an interesting one: what is RD referring too?

I would assume that perhaps Lewis wanted a less conservative approach to development

Possible but unlikely IMHO. All teams push hard.

or
to be allowed to push ahead even while the team were sorting out Jenson’s problems (as opposed to stalling Lewis while sorting out the other driver)

I haven't seen any proof that sorting out Buttons problems slowed development down. In fact some comments from the team indicate that the reason that their later developments worked so well was because they gained a much better understanding of the tyres from Buttons set-up problems.

or
to be allowed to test during the season like other teams

I'd doubt that a one off test would be the only thing that persuaded him to part company with the team.

Equality can only be interpreted so many ways.

but that’s just my opinion what do you think?

I think McLaren will continue to offer both drivers equal support and backing in their quest for race wins and world titles. Perhaps that was a point of view Hamilton disagreed with?

...
If what I suspect is the case will Perez be up to speed immediately?

IMHO no. It'll take time for him to get comfortable in the team and build up a relationship with his engineers. I expect him to blow hot and cold until around the mid-point of the season.

Will engineers be re-assigned or ‘promoted’ ?

Not sure what you mean by the quotes. Phil Prew was a seriously experienced race engineer who clearly deserved a promotion.

if not will Jenson be slowed down to ensure they are operating ‘equally’?

Are you implying that McLaren slowed down Hamilton to make sure Button was happy?

or alternatively
will McLaren push boundaries with their new car?

I expect every team to push the boundaries.

It is very simple - for Hamilton to win the championship that day in China he needed to finish ahead of Alonso. Dennis clearly was going to do anything he could to make that happen. And I have no issues with Dennis's quote nor his intent that day - helping Hamilton even if it was at Alonso's expense was the right thing to do imo to get Hamilton the title. It would have been glorious for Dennis & the McLaren team, a miracle season.

Dennis's quote just told it as it was, Hamilton was the golden child and Alonso was in the way.

Unfortunately you haven't quite got a grasp of what was happening on track, or the context of Dennis's comments. McLaren, in your mind, were so busy 'racing Alonso', that they left Hamilton out on tyres worn to the canvas whilst Alonso closed the gap from 20s to 6s in the space of 5 laps and Raikkonen passed him for the lead. That's not quite helping Hamilton at the expense of his teammate, I am sure you will agree. Dennis' comment was a defence to the press for not bringing Hamilton in to pit.

To bring it back closer to the topic, the fact that McLaren continued to provide Alonso with a winning car, defended him to the stewards in Hungary, Dennis's clear glee in Nurburgring parc ferme, Dennis vsiting the podium every time Alonso won and an FIA steward finding nothing untoward in Brazil should at least go some way to calm fears of bias or sabotage for those of rational thought. All this for a driver who was almost working against the team. And people question McLaren's approach??

McLaren generally go out of their way to be equal, which can sometimes trip them up.

Edited by P123, 07 January 2013 - 19:30.

This is a reminder of the opening post;



Any post which does not address the points raised here is off topic. This is not about 2007, which still has its 'ultimate' thread if you do a search. It is about Dennis's comments to the CBI Business magazine about contract negotiations with Hamilton.

The title of the topic though has little relation to the recent Dennis interview. Should we ignore the thread title then?

It's not ideal, is it? Title, article and post, all out of sync.

There are enough questions in the opening post to cover several topics. I don't think any relate to Dennis's comments in the article, nor do the comments of Dennis relate to driver equality.

I clicked on the last page where the discussion seems to be in line with the thread title.... but not with the OP....

Edited by P123, 07 January 2013 - 21:10.

Unfortunately you haven't quite got a grasp of what was happening on track, or the context of Dennis's comments. McLaren, in your mind, were so busy 'racing Alonso', that they left Hamilton out on tyres worn to the canvas whilst Alonso closed the gap from 20s to 6s in the space of 5 laps and Raikkonen passed him for the lead. That's not quite helping Hamilton at the expense of his teammate, I am sure you will agree. Dennis' comment was a defence to the press for not bringing Hamilton in to pit.

To bring it back closer to the topic, the fact that McLaren continued to provide Alonso with a winning car, defended him to the stewards in Hungary, Dennis's clear glee in Nurburgring parc ferme, Dennis vsiting the podium every time Alonso won and an FIA steward finding nothing untoward in Brazil should at least go some way to calm fears of bias or sabotage for those of rational thought. All this for a driver who was almost working against the team. And people question McLaren's approach??

McLaren generally go out of their way to be equal, which can sometimes trip them up.

Dennis kept Hamilton out in an attempt to ensure he had the right tires to the end of the race such that he could avoid a costly additional pitstop putting him behind their rival Alonso. The time gap to Alonso was irrelevant and Raikkonen was irrelevant, only getting him out ahead of Fred was important to Dennis. Unfortunately Hamilton had taken too much out of his tires compared to Alonso and he ran out of time and tarmac as well.

It is kind of ironic that what Hamilton had then in 2007, being the preferred driver, is probably all that he wanted in 2012 to stay with Macca. But Ron in 2012 wasn't in that frame of mind any more.

Edited by halifaxf1fan, 08 January 2013 - 03:22.

Dennis kept Hamilton out in an attempt to ensure he had the right tires to the end of the race such that he could avoid a costly additional pitstop putting him behind their rival Alonso. The time gap to Alonso was irrelevant and Raikkonen was irrelevant, only getting him out ahead of Fred was important to Dennis. Unfortunately Hamilton had taken too much out of his tires compared to Alonso and he ran out of time and tarmac as well.

It is kind of ironic that what Hamilton had then in 2007, being the preferred driver, is probably all that he wanted in 2012 to stay with Macca. But Ron in 2012 wasn't in that frame of mind any more.

I would love to know why not.

The relevant quote from Ron Dennis is:



(Since the OP is only discussing driver equality at Mclaren, shouldn't the thread title reflect this?)

I agree, the OP seems to have used a quote by RD to discuss equality.

What I believe RD is clearly referring to is that the team COULD HAVE paid Hamilton what his management were negotiating for and given the commercial freedom they wanted, but CHOSE not to. Probably deciding they have a budget and they decided "on balance" it would be better to stick to that and divert more funds into the car than the driver.

So as RD says it was mutual, they chose not to go up to Hamilton's demands and Hamilton chose not to drop down to theirs. Either side could have conceded.

As far as the equality thing goes, it really does come down to if you are considerably faster than your teammate or not. Alonso and Vettel are faster than theirs, Hamilton had a much better teammate in Button, so it makes the whole issue far more difficult to manage. Look at McLaren in 2008 when Heiki was Hamiltons teammate. What Hamilton needs is a slower teammate not a different contract. I don't think the problem is solved by lining up alongside Rosberg, thus this whole thing has nothing to do with No 1 status imo.

I think every man and his dog knows Lewis called the shots on this one and this is just Ron trying to save a bit of face. Lewis has been mature throughout every interview discussing this topic and unfortunately for Ron this is sour grapes nobody is going to believe.

For a start, Lewis wasn't directly involved in any of the negotiations. That's what his management is for. And what are they there for?

Ultimately he was given a choice to take the McLaren offer or the Mercedes offer and I BET neither offer confirms him as the unequivocal NUMBER 1 driver.

I would love to know why not.

Well we know of 2 incidents that in Ron's mind would have been considered unacceptable, going to Horner in Canada 2001 and tweeting team data at Spa 2012. Add to that the questionable attitude of 2011 and maybe other incidents we haven't heard about I think it's safe to assume that Ron was less than impressed. In fact, contrary to popular opinion, it seems that Whitmarsh was more Lewis' ally than Ron, and was the one pushing to keep him.

It seems quite likely then that there was considerable friction between Ron and Lewis that could have destabilised the team somewhat and maybe accounted for the slightly dysfunctional performance of the team.

The pay cut comments and other statements from Ron indicate to me that he felt Lewis had overstepped the mark and he wanted Lewis to either eat a little humble pie or leave, it seems that Lewis was unwilling to eat the pie.

As far as the equality thing goes, it really does come down to if you are considerably faster than your teammate or not. Alonso and Vettel are faster than theirs, Hamilton had a much better teammate in Button, so it makes the whole issue far more difficult to manage. Look at McLaren in 2008 when Heiki was Hamiltons teammate. What Hamilton needs is a slower teammate not a different contract. I don't think the problem is solved by lining up alongside Rosberg, thus this whole thing has nothing to do with No 1 status imo.

It really comes down to what your definition of "considerably" is. Webber has had the measure of Vettel far more often than Jenson has had the measure of Lewis. Lewis is clearly faster both in qualifying and has proven to be the better driver overall. He didn't need or has never asked for No 1 status; what he needed was a team capable of providing him with the level of support needed to win championships and I don't think that was possible under the current McLaren environment.

As far as the contract negotiations; it comes down to the fact that McLaren were either UNWILLING or UNABLE to give into Lewis' demands. I just don't think the word UNABLE is in Ron's vocabulary.

Webber has had the measure of Vettel far more often than Jenson has had the measure of Lewis.

Since the start of 2010 Vettel has outscored Webber by 250 points.
Button has outscored Hamilton by 15 points.

Points don't tell the whole story, and I'm not claiming Button has performed better than LH - I don't believe that for a second - but to try to argue that MW is closer to SV than JB is to LH seems a bit ... odd.

Edit: just realised this is probably in the wrong thread.

Edited by trogggy, 08 January 2013 - 12:32.

Well we know of 2 incidents that in Ron's mind would have been considered unacceptable, going to Horner in Canada 2001 and tweeting team data at Spa 2012. Add to that the questionable attitude of 2011 and maybe other incidents we haven't heard about I think it's safe to assume that Ron was less than impressed. In fact, contrary to popular opinion, it seems that Whitmarsh was more Lewis' ally than Ron, and was the one pushing to keep him.

It seems quite likely then that there was considerable friction between Ron and Lewis that could have destabilised the team somewhat and maybe accounted for the slightly dysfunctional performance of the team.

The pay cut comments and other statements from Ron indicate to me that he felt Lewis had overstepped the mark and he wanted Lewis to either eat a little humble pie or leave, it seems that Lewis was unwilling to eat the pie.

So McLaren offering to make Hamilton the highest paid driver on the grid was just a double bluff then? Or do you suffer from selective amnesia?

I agree with almost all of this, but I would like to comment is about the bolded section. In the end McLaren had to manage the PR implications of Lewis leaving the team. It would be very bad PR for them to be seen to have disrespected Lewis, and so it was important to them to be seen to make a last ditch, positive effort to keep him. This is true even if they knew he wouldn't take it. Being seen to call the shots would have done nothing at all for the team, except maybe the short term gratification of individuals. The first, more professional approach, seems to me to have been taken by McLaren, and it makes sense to me.

I don't think I agree with this. How would McLaren know for certain that he wouldn't take it? He might have surprised them by accepting an offer they weren't expecting him to accept. I don't think McLaren would ever offer a deal they didn't want to be accepted.

So McLaren offering to make Hamilton the highest paid driver on the grid was just a double bluff then? Or do you suffer from selective amnesia?

Interesting you should talk of selective amnesia when you chose to believe only the one quote, qualified at that, that said that.

It seems quite likely then that there was considerable friction between Ron and Lewis that could have destabilised the team somewhat and maybe accounted for the slightly dysfunctional performance of the team.

The pay cut comments and other statements from Ron indicate to me that he felt Lewis had overstepped the mark and he wanted Lewis to either eat a little humble pie or leave, it seems that Lewis was unwilling to eat the pie.

So it is assumed Ron says he should take a paycut - okay fine lets say that's what happened.

but you then have Ross Brawn coming out to say
(Quote) - Brawn says that Hamilton's motivation to move teams had nothing to do with money – and was instead about finding a new challenge in his career. "There is a competitive market for drivers and Lewis is as competitive as anyone else in that respect. But Lewis didn't come here because we offered more money - because we didn't," Brawn told Sky.

And then you have Whitmarsh also coming out to say - (Quote) “We have made a financial offer which is better than anyone in Formula One, other than himself, receives today, and that is something that I am comfortable with.“I know we made a very, very big financial offer, bigger than I believe any Formula One driver is enjoying today,” he added.

Ron might have wanted to lowball Hanilton but at the time I don't think Ron was aware of Merceds lurking in the background. please this is just speculation if they offered him something lower because as you said (To serve him humble pie" then why come back with a better offer , in fact better offer than anyone on the grid.

it was just negotiation and I believe McLaren felt they were in a better position as they assumed LH could not get a reasonable offer elsewhere. The minute they were made aware of Mercedes lurking in the background , their tumne changed. Am sure they always believed he was going to sign and had no inclination till Eddie broke the story about Merc courting him. Thats when McLaren realised oh oh, its about to go pear shaped.

I believe it was just a negotiating tactic to lowball him with a paycut but it backfired as they made an assumption there would be no other firm offer for him. I don't think it had to do with humble pie or anything else. if not they would have not have made a revised improved offer.

Merc didn't offer more money. Unless they are all lying to the press. This is the best I can tell you based on the facts on ground

So it is assumed Ron says he should take a paycut - okay fine lets say that's what happened.

but you then have Ross Brawn coming out to say
(Quote) - Brawn says that Hamilton's motivation to move teams had nothing to do with money – and was instead about finding a new challenge in his career. "There is a competitive market for drivers and Lewis is as competitive as anyone else in that respect. But Lewis didn't come here because we offered more money - because we didn't," Brawn told Sky.

And then you have Whitmarsh also coming out to say - (Quote) “We have made a financial offer which is better than anyone in Formula One, other than himself, receives today, and that is something that I am comfortable with.“I know we made a very, very big financial offer, bigger than I believe any Formula One driver is enjoying today,” he added.

Ron might have wanted to lowball Hanilton but at the time I don't think Ron was aware of Merceds lurking in the background. please this is just speculation if they offered him something lower because as you said (To serve him humble pie" then why come back with a better offer , in fact better offer than anyone on the grid.

it was just negotiation and I believe McLaren felt they were in a better position as they assumed LH could not get a reasonable offer elsewhere. The minute they were made aware of Mercedes lurking in the background , their tumne changed. Am sure they always believed he was going to sign and had no inclination till Eddie broke the story about Merc courting him. Thats when McLaren realised oh oh, its about to go pear shaped.

I believe it was just a negotiating tactic to lowball him with a paycut but it backfired as they made an assumption there would be no other firm offer for him. I don't think it had to do with humble pie or anything else. if not they would have not have made a revised improved offer.

Merc didn't offer more money. Unless they are all lying to the press. This is the best I can tell you based on the facts on ground

Well I suppose it comes down to which quotes you want to believe, reading between the lines in a holistic manner leads me to believe what I wrote.

Edit: After Lewis asked Horner for a drive last year I find it hard to believe that McLaren are so dumb as to not expect a rival offer for Lewis.

Edited by Lazy, 08 January 2013 - 14:17.

Well I suppose it comes down to which quotes you want to believe, reading between the lines in a holistic manner leads me to believe what I wrote.

Edit: After Lewis asked Horner for a drive last year I find it hard to believe that McLaren are so dumb as to not expect a rival offer for Lewis.

The tweets and the ducking into Redbull motor home are definitely things he will like to forget and I agree. The thing though is why McLaren came back with a revised offer if this was their stance. That's what am really focussing on and what leads me to suggest that it was more a negotiating tactic rather than "a tactic to get him the **** outta dodge"

if they had stood by the recession paycut line then I could agree as those circumstances are yet to change. but since they came back with the "so called best offer on the grid" which to me suggests they just lost the high ground in negotiations when they realised Merc was knocking on his door. Couple this with statements from Whitmarsh about Lewis made the wrong choice and it makes me come to a logical conclusion they did really want him to stay.

Edited by BernieEc, 08 January 2013 - 14:36.

The tweets and the ducking into Redbull motor home are definitely things he will like to forget and I agree. The thing though is why McLaren came back with a revised offer if this was their stance. That's what am really focussing on and what leads me to suggest that it was more a negotiating tactic rather than "a tactic to get him the **** outta dodge"

if they had stood by the recession paycut line then I could agree as those circumstances are yet to change. but since they came back with the "so called best offer on the grid" which to me suggests they just lost the high ground in negotiations when they realised Merc was knocking on his door. Couple this with statements from Whitmarsh about Lewis made the wrong choice and it makes me come to a logical conclusion they did really want him to stay.

Or they are not completely united and the negotiations were done by committee so one position was adopted at one point then discarded and another adopted with seemingly no rhyme or reason??

Well I suppose it comes down to which quotes you want to believe, reading between the lines in a holistic manner leads me to believe what I wrote.

Edit: After Lewis asked Horner for a drive last year I find it hard to believe that McLaren are so dumb as to not expect a rival offer for Lewis.

Especially from Merc...

Especially from Merc...

Indeed, we were all expecting a move from Merc, it would be strange if McLaren didn't.

Indeed, we were all expecting a move from Merc, it would be strange if McLaren didn't.

Very few were expecting Lewis to bite. I certainly wasn't.

Very few were expecting Lewis to bite. I certainly wasn't.

It was so obvious ... some of us predicted the move more than 3 years ago

Merc payed most of his wages ... add that to what they payed MS and you get the best paid driver on the grid .... I dont often agree with Lazy but its almost certain that Macca must have seen this coming.

It was so obvious ... some of us predicted the move more than 3 years ago

Merc payed most of his wages ... add that to what they payed MS and you get the best paid driver on the grid .... I dont often agree with Lazy but its almost certain that Macca must have seen this coming.

Those who predicted that most certainly saw Merc as equal force to McLaren and not 5th team fighting with Sauber for it, didn't they?

Those who predicted that most certainly saw Merc as equal force to McLaren and not 5th team fighting with Sauber for it, didn't they?

That's true .... It looked like a longer shot each passing year of Merc failure .... but it was still on and I never withdrew it ... money talks and the main reason I expected him to go to Merc was that assets tend to go the highest bidders and Merc would always outbid Macca.

My point now is that Macca would have seen this coming... and that really cant be in dispute.

My point now is that Macca would have seen this coming... and that really cant be in dispute.

I expected talks to up his offer at McLaren but was shocked when he actually sign.

I BET neither offer confirms him as the unequivocal NUMBER 1 driver.

No need to bet- Ross Brawn stated that No.1 status was never asked for or discussed during negotiations.

The approach is Borne out of stubbornness, and a refusal to admit you're wrong. It's like, 'this is how we do things, it doesn't work, but we're not changing.'

The approach is Borne out of stubbornness, and a refusal to admit you're wrong. It's like, 'this is how we do things, it doesn't work, but we're not changing.'

Exactly, the team has for years believed that they don't care about winning titles but they would rather win races. In the past that would work but now I think it's time for a change!