That was me continuing what macca/mclaren said (right decision at the time, wrong decision with hindsight), sorry, I realise that was a bit unclear.




Of course and that's why I said 'second driver on track' because I'm not one of the massively paranoid hamilton fans who are convinced macca have turned against their favorite son.
But it's not an issue I've considered before for macca or anyone else. There must be times where the best interests of the team conflict with the best interests of the driver. If a strategy is a 50:50 call then that's not the case but what if it's 70:30? In that case the second driver is better off ignoring the team but who makes the decision? Is the engineer part of the team or on the driver's side? Is he ordered to take a certain strategy by the team? Or can engineer and driver decide independently? If it's up to the driver, who obviously can decide to take control, does the team/engineer feed them information in a way to ensure they do what they want?

It's a whole can of worms I hadn't considered before.

It does get interesting. The other thing to consider is the risk:reward ratio.
Take Australia as an example...
Let's say (and this is just made up) JB thinks to himself 'it's just possible that slicks are going to work now...' Then it makes sense to pit even if he thinks there's only that 30% chance they'll be better - but only as long as he's the only one pitting, or only a few drivers are. If he's wrong he's lost 7th place (6 points) but his potential gain is 25 points.
Whatever, there will always be complaints that drivers are disadvantaged.

MW said at the discussion over Lewis 2nd (unneccessary in hindsight) pitstop in Melbourne:
He can veto every call or decission which is made during the race ( so it's him to be responsible for it.)
I think, if the team thinks a decisson which the driver or / and his engineer made ,would not be most optimal for the team, they can and will Veto it.
(perhaps Phrews job)
Lewis engineer is the youngest and the most unexperienced of the race engineers, maybe has not (now) the standing in the team the others have.

I think it's the risk v reward ratio that gets up the noses of some lewis's fans with respect to oz.

Fair play to button but the risk v reward ratio was very high, it could have easily blown up in his face, and in my view isn't really proof of some sort of strategy genius that button is now supposed to possess...and was also down to the fact his tyres were shot and he was going backwards.

China was different, more of a 50:50 call that he got right thanks to his expereince of inters degrading so quickly at oz and his confidence on slicks on a damp track.

It's funny, but to me the best thing about the refueling ban is that it puts every pit decision in the drivers hands. With refueling pitstops were predetermined by the fuel, and it was necessary to drive each stint to the full length or else it would be suboptimal (barring heavy traffic, that is).

Now, the driver has the decision making power. The team is just an informational resource. Depending on his situation he can pit early, or save tyres and pit later or whatever.

It reminds me of the old days in the NFL, when the quarterback actually called the plays (instead of some guy in a skybooth calling down the plays via helmet radio). I like it when the players (or drivers) are more than just remote controlled automatons.


Edit: Added last paragraph.

Firstly it's impossible for any of us to know how sure or otherwise Button really was about the tyres.
Secondly Lewis could have pitted - the calculation was virtually identical for him and he had track position.
The whole point about risk:reward is that if it had blown up in his face then so what? Not much lost, and no reason to act differently the next time. How does that make it less of a strategic call?
I think a lot of people looked at what Button did in Australia and tried to be equally 'clever' in China by pitting under the safety car. Lewis being just one of many.

Good point .

Okay, so far, there are those on here who have been accused of concocting a conspiracy theory and of being paranoid by questioning the suboptimal (as jjcale calls them) strategies that Lewis has been given.

Say, hypothetically, Lewis continues to get bizarre, inferior strategies that give him more and unnecessary pitstops than Button, will those who have dismissed the paranoia up to now, start to be convinced?

Thing is, if Button wins this way, there will still be questions about his superiority in a car as it will be because of unfair advantage just like many said about his WDC last year. They should just give them both a fair crack of the whip so that no-one mentions conspiracy theories, etc. Even I would concede Button was better if they get equal treatment and Button still beats Hamilton. So far that hasn't happened.

Yes.

If it happens all season long.. I will maybe think twice about it.

But right now.. All I see is Macca covering both options with the driver who suits it best.... Chances have fallen in Jensons' favour so far.

Grenada.. I am a MASSIVE Lewis fan... I supported Macca before Lewis, but if he left Macca now, I would still be a fan. Unlike with other drivers who have left the team.

But right now, I do think you are seeing something that isn't there.

Really.

J

Did anyone question Hamo's superiority over Kova when the latter was heavier 99% of the time in qualy; had to move over a few times for his teammate and had 2nd take on any new parts? No, they said "It's okay, Macca are just ensuring the best chance of victory for their best driver" or something. Well...

[sarcasm,cynical mode] It's okay for Jenson to receive 'superior strategies' because he's already won twice and leading the WDC!! Ur a hater [/sarcasm,cynical mode]

If he gets bizarre inferior strategies I'll be convinced.
That hasn't happened in any race so far though.

Which race do you think was the most bizarre, inferior strategy?

Mclaren is trying too hard to slice the pies. I think that there is a deficiency in the team's data collecting system and so they choose to split strategies to increase the chances of maximum Constructors points. The only problem with this is that the team will always give Hamilton, the driver is more able to overtake, the more difficult strategies (like Monza 2009). Jenson on the other hand, the driver who needs time and serenity to think, will get the cleaner and easir strategies all the time. Of course there is no point in giving him the harder mission when you don't expect him to carry it out. So I guess a revision of Mclaren's data gathering systems and strategy making coupled with fairly constant race conditions is the only hope for Hamilton to get an equally advantageous (if not just as easy) strategy.

I know you weren't replying to me but I feel we have to make a distinction between an inferior strategy ,a difficult strategy and maybe even a risky strategy.

Hey, it's a forum, you can answer if you want.
Gwan.
Do you think he's had a bizarre inferior strategy? If so where?

I'm quite certain that the driver who qualifies in front has the first choice of strategy, and the other driver can choose their own strategy as well as long as it doesn't interfere with the first drivers (pit on the same lap).

What's your point?

Anyway... Lewis has been faster than Jenson in most instances and I expect the usual hierarchy to prevail in most of the remaining GPs. Jenson is leading now thanks to "clever" gambles. Good for him. However, the law of the averages will catch up to Jenson and his "clever" gambles will not work as well in the future.

I'd say the driver in front on the track has first choice (not always the same thing) - and if that's the case there's no way the second driver can interfere with them, even if they do choose to stack in the pits.

Australia - he didn't need that 3rd pitstop - Whitmarsh said so afterwards despite what Bridgestone said.

China - why didn't he get clear info from his engineer like Button did? Lewis wasn't even sure what was said over the radio so jumped into the pits at the last minute. Poor communication and unequal quality of info there. I thought the shake up of the engineers meant sharing of info and increased effectiveness - well it only appears to have happened in Button's side of the garage.

Even Malaysia was strange - you could say leaving Hamilton out so long on hard tyres was in case rain came but he did a lot of work and only ended up 2 places ahead of his teammate.

The only race where the strategies haven't been weird/unequal was Bahrain and look what happened there. Maybe the ensuing strategies were a consequence of Bahrain, who knows. I'll put the paranoia on hold at the moment, but I think it would be stupid of McLaren to be too obvious in this regard because people will only question the results.

Your post is mostly opinions passing as "facts".

I think that's true to a certain extent. I wonder what the priority would be in practice. If Button qualified in front and planned to stop on lap 19, would Lewis be able to take that lap to pit if he happened to get a better start and was 2 seconds in front of Jenson? I'm curious as to how that works.

Even when Heikki qualified ahead of Hamilton, he stuffed up the race and ended up behind more often than not. So yes, it was sensible to give Hamilton a better time in qualifying. But why should they do that with strategies this year? Has Button proved he is a better driver than Hamilton already so should always get superior strategies? Really?

Hamilton only got new parts ONCE before Heikki - why is this old chestnut regurgitated again and again?

Hardly bizarre, given that both Red Bulls and Nico Rosberg did the same thing. It was only (arguably) a bad call with the benefit of hindsight. Do you think Mclaren deliberately sacrificed a podium position? Jenson was already leading, why would they deliberately disadvantage Lewis?


Surely proof that there isn't a conspiracy. If there was he'd have received a clear call to pit, or not to pit - as it is it seems he made his own decision. And given that he made the same call as both Ferraris, both Red Bulls and Schumacher there's no way you could argue that it was a bizarre decision to pit.

His strategy in Malaysia was exactly right - he finished where he did because he couldn't pass Sutil.


What happened there? Neither of them could overtake a healthy car except in the pits? Is that what you mean?

Be sure to tell us when journalists start to write their stories about how Hamilton is being deliberately held back to let Button win.

Actually I'd be very surprised if they were starting the races now with a definite intention to pit on any particular lap.

Actually, I got that bit wrong. British journalists in particular won't be saying that. Some are already saying Button is the man to bet on.

I'm sure the computer spits out an "optimum" lap that would bring the best race time, assuming the driver is not being held up. How often that will happen under the current rules is another matter (probably not often unless starting from pole).

Interesting article on the comparison: http://paddocktalk.com/news/html/story-134003.html

Put all the BS theories aside...

All the excuses are still founded in some people's belief that Lewis is fundamentally faster than Jenson -

There is absolutely no solid evidence of this in a race or qualifying situation WHEN IT MATTERS (ie stop bringing up FP - fuel, tire, setup variables are beyond consideration)

Reset all your belief's to zero pre the start of the season, and judge the two on what they have done this year... Wake up and smell the salt people

Whhhatt?

QUOTE

While Hamilton is clearly quicker in the races

http://paddocktalk.com/news/html/story-134003.html

Thank you. Come again.

Interesting but highly flawed... comparing faster laps when not accounting for traffic is of questionable value. Still, over the course of an entire season that should even out to a certain extent, making it something to check in on later.

What we really need is for them to qualify one-two and have good starts. Unfortunately, I don't see gaining that much on Red Bull in qualifying.

As flawed as your previous assessment that whoever finishes better has necessarily been faster...

It's quite a detailed analysis which covers alot of things that alot of people and even journalists are simply not taking into account.

This is from that article:

I think it is now clear that JB, like his hero Prost, does not believe in going any faster than is necessary. Paddock life article to be taken with a grain of salt.

The only time we will find out how fast he is when he has to chase LH in a straight fight.... even then he seems like the kind of guy who would settle for second and then fight another day.

holy smokes, there's some seriously paranoid thinking going on here..

I agree that Jenson's decision in Australia was something he had to do rather than chose to do. However in comparison, I feel that Lewis making the decision to pit for inters in China was due to trying to replicate Jenson's decision in Australia.

Regarding Jenson's decision to not pit for inters in China, I agree that it was to do with his experience of inters degrading in Australia. However I don't quite agree with your assessment that Jenson's decision to not pit in China was 50:50. In fact, it was the correct decision - not just in hindsight - but in fact on the balance of probability. The reason is quite simply because the inters are well known not to last for more than 3 or 4 laps if the track is not wet enough. Hence, if it's dry - the slicks are better, and if it's not wet enough - the slicks are still better. The probability of slicks being the better tyre were more like 70:30.

However I am surprised that McLaren, and other teams, did not think of this simple balance of probability.

You do know what 'mostly' means?
If not let me know.

Well you seem to forget that mclaren said to lewis rain will get heavier...

How could anyone possibly think Jenson could win fairly?

I mean to say...

It's just ridiculous...

Unbelievable...

Bizarre...

Most of the field pitted on lap 3 IIRC.

I'm struggling to decide whether it's more amusing than it is genuinely sad, should Button beat Lewis this season, and of course there's no guarantee's either way, it seems the reasons will be nothing to do with talent but more to do with "luck", a conspiracy by McLaren to undermine Lewis, Lewis not having his "support group" or possible even something to do with the tv programme "dancing with the stars".

It really does beggar belief that some of his fans will micro analyse everything and anything in an effort to deflect the true reason for his lack of performance when the simple truth is writ large, Button has performed better, up to now.

This thread is seriously heading the wrong way. I know it's a 3 week break, but the conspiracies are even worse than at the GP's where these things actually happened.

The only thing I thought of while reading these pages is, how frustrated does one have to be to seriously believe McLaren try to impede Hamilton's races in any way, ever.

If they really messed up his strategies, Red Bull/Ferrari/Mercedes must be doing exactly the same with their drivers, as they pitted at the same moments Hamilton did (even though Button didn't).

do you think Jenson will try to win it unfairly?

Oddly enough, there's still quite a few people that still aren't convinced that Button is "the real deal". Even if you think Lewis is better and will get the edge over the course of the season there's still no reason not to acknowledge Jenson's quality. A WDC and his start to this season makes assertions to the contrary seem absolutely ridiculous. There's no shame in underestimating a driver - I underestimated Massa before he showed himself to be a match for Kimi at Ferrari.

Edit: typo

Every driver fanbase will have fans that make excuses, nothing worth putting your effort into and I don't know why you are seeing as it's off-topic.


On the subject of who is performing better - when Button has finished higher than Hamilton (2 of 4) he was in the big points positions, and if you compare the times when he has finished behind Hamilton, both of them weren't on the high end of the points-paying positions. Hamilton finished several positions ahead of Button in Bahrain and Malaysia which for me shows the opposite. I'll say Hamilton is performing better right now, for me Button has been very patchy in his results, almost what people would describe as "Hamilton-esque" a couple of years back.

No. Why?

I overestimated Kimi before he showed himself to be a match for Massa at Ferrari.

The odd thing about Jenson is, if he's not 'the real deal', why is he 11 points ahead of the best current F1 driver?

What constitutes a driver being 'the real deal' anyway?

Similar as to why Raikkonen was seen as the real deal after his win in the 2008 Spanish Grand Prix with a championship lead of 9 points after four races.

No he hasn't. Not that I subscribe to the conspiracy theory either, but Jenson's success/Lewis' problems have been quite specific in their roots and not about ability in a general sense.

Which was, however, in the best car on the grid.

What is the real deal... I'm quite sure Hamilton fans decide that these days. Anyone who beats Hamilton is the real deal. But only when he's beaten fair and without a disadvantage for Lewis. So to be honest, it's not really possible to be the real deal.

Thanks for the link, that's quite interesting.

Funny they mention Bernie's medal system, if that would have become a reality, Lewis would have to worry even more....

"Button has two Grand Prix triumphs - Australian Grand Prix, Chinese Grand Prix - and using Bernie Ecclestone's gold medal system, that makes him a better driver."