Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

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


  • Please log in to reply
185 replies to this topic

#1 SmokeScreen

SmokeScreen
  • Member

  • 185 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 04 January 2013 - 12:34

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?

Advertisement

#2 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 13,423 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 04 January 2013 - 12:37

The relevant quote from Ron Dennis is:

Did we have the ability to create a situation where we could have stayed together? Categorically, yes. Would that have been the right thing to do? We didn't think so.


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

Edited by Risil, 04 January 2013 - 12:39.


#3 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,044 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 04 January 2013 - 12:43

Thats a very interesting quote and could mean many things but i don't subscribe to Ron's idea that it was Mclaren's decision to let Lewis go, no chance.

#4 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,248 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 04 January 2013 - 12:47

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?

That part is not an RD quote, but the newspaper. RD's direct quotes;

'I think it's wrong to portray that Lewis left this team.'

'At the end of the day, you end up with a situation where you're going to separate if the circumstances aren't right. Life isn't about one person deciding anything. It's never that way. It's about circumstances.'

'Everybody says, "Am I bitterly this or bitterly that?" What? I'm a realist. Did we have the ability to create a situation where we could have stayed together? Categorically, yes. Would that have been the right thing to do? We didn't think so.'


I'm not sure I understand what the link between the thread title and this article is either.

#5 McLarenNo1

McLarenNo1
  • Member

  • 143 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 04 January 2013 - 12:48

It is probably related to Lewis wanting less sponsor commitments and being able to keep trophies. They could have done probably both but did not want to change their rules for one driver so I think it was right thing to do on their side. They still left Lewis a very good offer.

#6 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 4,409 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 04 January 2013 - 12:49

Lots of Ron-Speak in there!

Anyone have a clue what he's going on about?

#7 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 4,409 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 04 January 2013 - 12:57

It is probably related to Lewis wanting less sponsor commitments and being able to keep trophies. They could have done probably both but did not want to change their rules for one driver so I think it was right thing to do on their side. They still left Lewis a very good offer.


Ah. That makes sense.............

#8 royalblue0

royalblue0
  • Member

  • 489 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 04 January 2013 - 13:13

Ron Dennis says Lewis was 'let go' in favour of Perez, Martin Whitmarsh says they did everything possible to keep him, including offering a deal which would have made him the highest paid driver in F1, so which one is telling the truth?

#9 bub

bub
  • Member

  • 1,992 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 04 January 2013 - 13:18

It is probably related to Lewis wanting less sponsor commitments and being able to keep trophies. They could have done probably both but did not want to change their rules for one driver so I think it was right thing to do on their side. They still left Lewis a very good offer.


This is what I thought when I read it. They could have offered Lewis a massive wage, let him keep trophies and make money from personal sponsors etc to get him to stay but decided not to.

As for McLarens equality, development etc. It does seem Button is favoured in this area which didn't work out for them in 2012 and is bound to bother Hamilton and be part of the reason he declined McLarens contact offers. I expect McLaren to continue to favour Button in regards to feedback and development path in 2012.

#10 03011969

03011969
  • Member

  • 435 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 January 2013 - 13:20

Ron Dennis says Lewis was 'let go' in favour of Perez, Martin Whitmarsh says they did everything possible to keep him, including offering a deal which would have made him the highest paid driver in F1, so which one is telling the truth?

They could both be telling the truth, depending how you interpret "possible" I suspect.

I suspect Whitmarsh means "possible within the framework we operate in at McLaren" rather than possible per se.

e.g. they have a policy of not letting drivers keep trophies, so it would mean to McLaren that letting Hamilton keep trophies is outside of 'possible', whereas it (obviously) is physically possible to let Hamilton keep trophies.

It does seem, from both Whitmarsh and Dennis, that while they both recognise Hamilton as a very good driver, he is not the messiah and while his talent merits a good reward that is not simply unlimited, or at least as high as Hamilton believes he merits.

I'd have to say, as somebody has been far from a fan of Ron Dennis over the years, his comments seem very measured, credible, and lacking the hyperbole regularly expressed by many on the subject of Hamilton's departure.

As for the OP title about "driver equality", McLaren have been shown to not always have driver equality (see various comments by DC on the subject, I am happy to dig them out) despite some naïve souls here regularly exposing their ignorance by declaring that they do.

Edited by 3011969, 04 January 2013 - 13:28.


#11 BernieEc

BernieEc
  • Member

  • 2,131 posts
  • Joined: August 11

Posted 04 January 2013 - 13:21

It is probably related to Lewis wanting less sponsor commitments and being able to keep trophies. They could have done probably both but did not want to change their rules for one driver so I think it was right thing to do on their side. They still left Lewis a very good offer.


There's some logic to that...makes sense

#12 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 4,409 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 04 January 2013 - 13:23

The original source (without the Daily Mail getting its dirty mitts on it.....)

Hamilton also announced that he would be driving for Mercedes in 2013. So is Dennis, who signed him for the team as a teenager, disappointed by his departure?

He replies that “disappointed” is the wrong word to use. “Whatever people choose to do at the end of a contractual period, the professional thing to do is to be supportive of the other side,” he says. “We don’t wish him every success at Mercedes – that’s understandable, as he’s obviously going to be a competitor – but we don’t wish him anything negative.”

While things could have been different, he says, neither party was prepared to make the changes needed to maintain the relationship. “That applies in both directions.

"I think it’s wrong to portray that Lewis left this team. At the end of the day, you end up with a situation where you’re going to separate if the circumstances aren’t right.”

He adds: “Life isn’t about one person deciding anything. It’s never that way. It’s about circumstances. Everybody says: ‘Am I bitterly this or bitterly that?’ What? I’m a realist. Did we have the ability to create a situation where we could have stayed together? Categorically, yes. Would that have been the right thing to do? We didn’t think so.”


http://www.cbi.org.u...ven-to-succeed/

Edited by maverick69, 04 January 2013 - 13:38.


#13 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 13,423 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 04 January 2013 - 13:32

Depends on your reading of "possible", doesn't it? If keeping Hamilton would've involved either 1) reducing his PR commitments or 2) giving him Alonso-like #1 status -- things Ron Dennis and Mclaren weren't prepared to consider doing -- then Whitmarsh's and Dennis's comments match up.

When Martin Whitmarsh made those comments, he was rejecting accusations in the motorsports media that Mclaren preferred to work with Button, that they were being too reckless about the future of their lead driver, a world champion in the best form of his career.

Fast-forward a few months and now Ron Dennis is speaking to a business magazine in the capacity of Mclaren Group chairman. He is a road car manufacturer, electronics supplier to the world's two biggest racing series, and a "performance consultant" to organisations in various fields. The Mclaren Group -- the perception of its brand and values, its long-term future -- is more important than one racing driver, whatever his talents and ego. Different situation, different audience, different mindset.

You might argue that an organisation that prides itself on fairness and ultra-professionalism and surfaces so polished you could eat your face off of them is at odds with a racing team that wants success. First-tier problems, to coin a phrase.

#14 Avastrol

Avastrol
  • Member

  • 363 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 04 January 2013 - 13:58

You might argue that an organisation that prides itself on fairness and ultra-professionalism and surfaces so polished you could eat your face off of them is at odds with a racing team that wants success. First-tier problems, to coin a phrase.


In the end it's all about values and vision. First-world problems they may seem to be, but as heavily discussed in business schools, maximization of the bottom line might not always be the end goal for a corporation (I suppose in Mac's case, this would be winning and cleaning up championships), especially if it has lots in contradiction with a company's raison d'etre (professionalism, equality, doing things the 'clean and right way').

I expect things to change only once Ron passes on control or ownership of whatever stake he has, and if the new guard adopts a winning-at-all-costs mentality, eschewing the values of old.

#15 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,476 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 04 January 2013 - 14:11

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.

#16 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 04 January 2013 - 14:13

It's just Ronster not going to put up with being portrayed as the loser. Fair enough.

#17 mstar

mstar
  • Member

  • 1,105 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 04 January 2013 - 14:25

Please remember the DailyMail isn't always accurate with its F1 news, its got a habit of doing ust a "headline" grabbing articles.

It should be remembered Mclaren in the way its structured, the ultimate decision is done by the board members of mclaren GROUP not the race team. RD said earlier in the season when asked about the contractual issue, that Mclaren (like all other organisation) has obligations to its sponsors/investors and no race driver/person working for Mclaren is more important or can jeopardise the whole company reputationally/financially etc etc. They have to pay for engines and they have a BIG expansion plans for the group so that budgeting has already been done and agreed at board level for those plans.

The race team senior members probably couldn't imagine losing LH and probably made their point to MW etc BUt remember MW representing the race team is one voice in the Mclaren board decision.
The other Mclaren board team will look at his salary/value(if he wanted less sponsor time etc)
So the decision to make that final offer (with or without trophies/less sponsorship commitments etc) probably not 100% what MW wanted but a board decision, he can only put his case forward. So in a way RD may be right in saying that they could of kept LH, if they wanted, but i suspect the board decided the final offer was final and thats it. Of course they considered if its turned down it was part of the decision process.

And lewis declined the offer so that was that, Mclaren lost him but the board knew of that likelyhood and accepted that risk (MW probably didn't like it).

Edited by mstar, 04 January 2013 - 14:31.


#18 R Soul

R Soul
  • Member

  • 568 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 04 January 2013 - 14:28

It's like a soap opera with jilted Ron saying "no no, we left him".

#19 03011969

03011969
  • Member

  • 435 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 January 2013 - 14:36

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.

It's called calling the shots if you get your way. Lewis may have been trying to call the shots, but McLaren called his bluff.

Perhaps Ron knows Hamilton's true value better than you?

Advertisement

#20 F1ultimate

F1ultimate
  • Member

  • 2,859 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 04 January 2013 - 14:36

Lots of Ron-Speak in there!

Anyone have a clue what he's going on about?


Political spinning. Mclaren has a very different culture than Red Bull, Ferrari or Lotus. At Mclaren, no driver regardless of talent is bigger than the team. Driver are never celebrated because they drive for the team and not themselves. Ron is just being himself by exercising technical verbal acrobatics to put a spin on Hamilton's departure in the team's favor.

#21 03011969

03011969
  • Member

  • 435 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 January 2013 - 14:46

Political spinning. Mclaren has a very different culture than Red Bull, Ferrari or Lotus. At Mclaren, no driver regardless of talent is bigger than the team. Driver are never celebrated because they drive for the team and not themselves. Ron is just being himself by exercising technical verbal acrobatics to put a spin on Hamilton's departure in the team's favor.

Ferrari have a very strong "The team is bigger than any diver" ethos, so I'm not sure how McLaren have "a very different culture" than Ferrari. And to be fair I think that would apply to any front running team.

#22 Burtros

Burtros
  • Member

  • 940 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 04 January 2013 - 14:50

Daily Mail is gutter press, it shows when you isolate Dennis comments from the rest of the article. Misleading and sensationalising to make money.

Same as a lot of people on here, falling into the DM's trap. Dennis does not actually say anywhere that McLaren ditched Lewis.

About all I can actually get is hes saying it doesnt matter Hamiltons gone. Well sorry, Ron, it does. You should have kept him and your team should have won both titles this year. He'd be better of facing the real facts and dealing with them than trotting out this shite every so often.

#23 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 13,423 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 04 January 2013 - 14:51

Driver are never celebrated because they drive for the team and not themselves.


Senna and Hakkinen were never celebrated?

#24 F1ultimate

F1ultimate
  • Member

  • 2,859 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 04 January 2013 - 14:52

^^
Only past drivers no longer driving are celebrated.

Ferrari have a very strong "The team is bigger than any diver" ethos, so I'm not sure how McLaren have "a very different culture" than Ferrari. And to be fair I think that would apply to any front running team.


Ferrari have no1 policy and will 100% get behind the best driver, and blatantly obvious so. Mclaren on the other hand have an equal status policy which levels both drivers to an employee level.

Edited by F1ultimate, 04 January 2013 - 14:53.


#25 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 4,409 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 04 January 2013 - 14:52

Daily Mail is gutter press, it shows when you isolate Dennis comments from the rest of the article. Misleading and sensationalising to make money.

Same as a lot of people on here, falling into the DM's trap. Dennis does not actually say anywhere that McLaren ditched Lewis.

About all I can actually get is hes saying it doesnt matter Hamiltons gone. Well sorry, Ron, it does. You should have kept him and your team should have won both titles this year. He'd be better of facing the real facts and dealing with them than trotting out this shite every so often.


:up:


#26 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 13,423 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 04 January 2013 - 14:55

Daily Mail is gutter press, it shows when you isolate Dennis comments from the rest of the article. Misleading and sensationalising to make money.

Same as a lot of people on here, falling into the DM's trap. Dennis does not actually say anywhere that McLaren ditched Lewis.

About all I can actually get is hes saying it doesnt matter Hamiltons gone. Well sorry, Ron, it does. You should have kept him and your team should have won both titles this year. He'd be better of facing the real facts and dealing with them than trotting out this shite every so often.


You call the Mail gutter press, and that's your interpretation of Dennis's comments? :drunk:

#27 Burtros

Burtros
  • Member

  • 940 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 04 January 2013 - 14:58

You call the Mail gutter press, and that's your interpretation of Dennis's comments? :drunk:


Whats wrong with my interpretion then?

Such a ****ing waste of time just offering smart arse comments with no substance. Why bother?

Edited by Burtros, 04 January 2013 - 14:59.


#28 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,134 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 04 January 2013 - 15:10

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.


Really? A few of us were sure that Ron would move to push Lewis out as soon as he went to RB to ask for a drive at Canada 2011.

Ron's pay cut comments confirmed that theory imo. Add to that the "shit" contract that Lewis was offered initially, it seems pretty clear that he was being edged out.

The main spin going on is Whitmarsh trying to give the impression they tried as hard as they could to keep him.

#29 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,044 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 04 January 2013 - 15:18

Really? A few of us were sure that Ron would move to push Lewis out as soon as he went to RB to ask for a drive at Canada 2011.

Ron's pay cut comments confirmed that theory imo. Add to that the "shit" contract that Lewis was offered initially, it seems pretty clear that he was being edged out.

The main spin going on is Whitmarsh trying to give the impression they tried as hard as they could to keep him.


Its not a huge surprise that Lewis's new contract was short of one or two 0's compared with his previous one, he signed it in 2008 (i think) when Mclaren were backed by Mercedes and the world's economy was doing quite well, now though Mclaren are an independent team, who next year have to cough up for their engines for the first time in a long time and most of the world is struggling to rub two pennies together.

From what was said the deal he was finally offered wasn't much shy of the Mercedes one, save for image rights and sponsor appearances, no offence to Perez but i don't think anybody in the paddock would pick him over Lewis, not unless their hand was forced.

#30 Smile17

Smile17
  • Member

  • 1,116 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 04 January 2013 - 15:18

There's no such thing as driver equality at McLaren.

#31 Watkins74

Watkins74
  • Member

  • 5,684 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 January 2013 - 15:26

The original source (without the Daily Mail getting its dirty mitts on it.....)

Going by that version I don't see anything wrong with what Dennis said.

#32 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 4,409 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 04 January 2013 - 15:39

Going by that version I don't see anything wrong with what Dennis said.


To be fair - neither do I in terms of the relationships he talks about. As he alludes to - it is quite a common phenomenon.... I know I've been there in a round about way.

The flip-side is that he also alludes to the inflexiblity that often sticks to McLaren...... Often hindering the success of the very operation that has given it the opportunity/coverage to expand in to the other areas that Ron discussed in the original article.

#33 senna da silva

senna da silva
  • Member

  • 4,431 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 04 January 2013 - 15:41

Really? A few of us were sure that Ron would move to push Lewis out as soon as he went to RB to ask for a drive at Canada 2011.

Ron's pay cut comments confirmed that theory imo. Add to that the "shit" contract that Lewis was offered initially, it seems pretty clear that he was being edged out.

The main spin going on is Whitmarsh trying to give the impression they tried as hard as they could to keep him.


That's not true. Mac didn't push Lewis out, if they had wanted to they wouldn't have changed their offer to him.
What Ron is saying is that both sides would have had to compromise in order to continue a working relationship which apparantley neither side was willing to do.
Ultimately, and I think this is very important, the final decision to separate was Lewis's.

#34 SmokeScreen

SmokeScreen
  • Member

  • 185 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 04 January 2013 - 15:49

Actually i did not mean Driver equality just for the sake of it. My original title was my intention but I must apologise for the lack of clarity – possibly the dailymail headline required its own thread too as it is generating volume on the Ronspeak/Ronresponse aspect.

(having gone with the numbered points below as having a negative impact on any driver’s WDC charge)My question is really will it be business as usual, following the past 3 years, for McLaren which RD is suggesting in the article?
or

will McLaren tweak a few things in order to “show via results” how emphatically they have moved on and are achieving? (which would be the defensive but politically astute thing to do).

so what I will be watching out for (& btw I think Lewis would have stayed if he felt he had a chance for WDC irrespective of the loathed PR duties and corporate rigidity):
1. Robson appears to be vastly more competent engineer than his team rival will the race team be re-arranged to give Perez a head start?
2. will Mugello 2012 situation be the norm? (can we speculate on how costly that turned out to be?)
3. if car suits Button but not Perez (an assumption based on experience and settling in time which may well turn out false however) will development be put on hold while Perez is brought up to speed?
4. considering Whitmarsh’s interview a couple of months back – need to be conservative in car design and development due to corporate partners – doesn’t that limit the chances of McLaren doing a Brawn 2009? (since when does conservative and F1 Racing fit? those companies really should take a running hike – but of course their money is needed unfortunately).




#35 03011969

03011969
  • Member

  • 435 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 January 2013 - 15:50

There's no such thing as driver equality at McLaren.

True, but what they are better at (certainly than Ferrari, who are abysmal at it) is managing it. Ferrari are a bit too honest and open about favouring a driver at a certain point in the championship, whereas McLaren would never broadcast it, and to be fair to them it can be relatively easy to manage, e.g. bring a driver in for a pitstop at an inopportune moment. You have to give marks to McLaren for presentation, but the workings are, indeed, just as grubby as any other team.

#36 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 4,409 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 04 January 2013 - 15:56

There's no such thing as driver equality at McLaren.


So who was the favoured driver last year?

#37 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,749 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 04 January 2013 - 16:01

True, but what they are better at (certainly than Ferrari, who are abysmal at it) is managing it. Ferrari are a bit too honest and open about favouring a driver at a certain point in the championship, whereas McLaren would never broadcast it, and to be fair to them it can be relatively easy to manage, e.g. bring a driver in for a pitstop at an inopportune moment. You have to give marks to McLaren for presentation, but the workings are, indeed, just as grubby as any other team.


McLaren had two separate development paths and teams for Kimi and JPM, because of how different their driving styles were.

Ferrari broke their own gearbox to get their favored driver in a better position.

Their approaches are not the same, no matter how much you try to equate them.

Edited by boldhakka, 04 January 2013 - 16:01.


#38 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,119 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 04 January 2013 - 16:07

There's no such thing as driver equality at McLaren.


Sometimes there is, sometimes there´s not, but there is equality in McLaren much more often than in other long time top teams. Only period I felt there was not equality in the last 12 years, and that´s all the time I´ve been watching the sport live (not through old videos), is 2008-2009. The rest was perfectly fair for anyone all since the decline of Mika in 2001 throught to today. Only these two years were fishy, when Kovalainen got stupid strategies too many times.

#39 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,211 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 04 January 2013 - 16:08

Ron Dennis says Lewis was 'let go' in favour of Perez, Martin Whitmarsh says they did everything possible to keep him, including offering a deal which would have made him the highest paid driver in F1, so which one is telling the truth?


Where does he say that?


Advertisement

#40 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,211 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 04 January 2013 - 16:15

That's not true. Mac didn't push Lewis out, if they had wanted to they wouldn't have changed their offer to him.
What Ron is saying is that both sides would have had to compromise in order to continue a working relationship which apparantley neither side was willing to do.
Ultimately, and I think this is very important, the final decision to separate was Lewis's.


Absolutely true. Mac haven't dumped him, but it looks like the final offers were take it or leave it, and LH left it.

#41 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 13,423 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 04 January 2013 - 16:20

Only these two years were fishy, when Kovalainen got stupid strategies too many times.


FIA's fault for introducing the "qualify on race fuel load" rule, and failing to mandate individual pit boxes a la Indycar or NASCAR. Shockingly negligent for sporting body -- essentially forced teams to give one driver a substandard strategy, unless the team thought they could do something really radical with tyre strategy, like Hamilton at Turkey in 2008.

#42 PARAZAR

PARAZAR
  • Member

  • 1,088 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 04 January 2013 - 16:30

I don't see any bitterness in what RD is saying. It's pretty straightforward. I was in a similar employment situation recently. They weren't willing to give me what I was asking for, which wasn't just about finances and I wasn't willing to accept what they offered, so we parted ways. There was no animosity, I thanked them, they thanked me and that was it.

#43 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,119 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 04 January 2013 - 16:36

FIA's fault for introducing the "qualify on race fuel load" rule...


No, it was there since 2003 and it was shown lots of times that it was possible to be fair even with it. McLaren was known for their drivers usually pitting one lap appart, as close to the optimal strategy as possible.

And fair to ridiculous and obsessive levels actually, remember the 2007 "we´ll alternate between our drivers the extra fuel burning lap in circuits where it´s only possible for one of our drivers to do X burning fuel laps and the other has to do one less lap".

Kova didn´t get any of these courtesies. But, as I said, there´s equality in McLaren much more often than in other top teams, so the statement I quoted and answered before is basically nonsense and probably bitter.

#44 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 13,423 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 04 January 2013 - 16:42

Whoa, I'd forgotten all about the "fuel burning" laps in Q3. :drunk:

#45 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,044 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 04 January 2013 - 17:01

No, it was there since 2003 and it was shown lots of times that it was possible to be fair even with it. McLaren was known for their drivers usually pitting one lap appart, as close to the optimal strategy as possible.

And fair to ridiculous and obsessive levels actually, remember the 2007 "we´ll alternate between our drivers the extra fuel burning lap in circuits where it´s only possible for one of our drivers to do X burning fuel laps and the other has to do one less lap".

Kova didn´t get any of these courtesies. But, as I said, there´s equality in McLaren much more often than in other top teams, so the statement I quoted and answered before is basically nonsense and probably bitter.


Wasn't the whole fuel burning thing gotten rid of after '07? There's no doubt though that Heikki didn't get equal treatment, in '09 in particular his car was often an older spec one to Hamilton's.

Edited by olliek88, 04 January 2013 - 18:06.


#46 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,476 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 04 January 2013 - 17:02

It's called calling the shots if you get your way. Lewis may have been trying to call the shots, but McLaren called his bluff.

Perhaps Ron knows Hamilton's true value better than you?

McLaren may have called his bluff but Lewis has walked out of there happy. There was a visible change in him after the deal was announced and it didn't strike me as the behaviour of a man who hadn't got what he wanted, especially as Lewis has failed in the past to hide negativity in his life.

I'm sure Ron Dennis does know Hamilton's true value better than me, I've only met Lewis twice and he's known him for 15 years. That's probably why he's trying to save face here in the article ;)

(I'm aware it is to be taken with a pinch of salt now the Daily Fail has got hold of it)

#47 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 3,518 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 04 January 2013 - 17:59

I don't see any bitterness in what RD is saying. It's pretty straightforward. I was in a similar employment situation recently. They weren't willing to give me what I was asking for, which wasn't just about finances and I wasn't willing to accept what they offered, so we parted ways. There was no animosity, I thanked them, they thanked me and that was it.


This sounds right to me. There was obviously going to be an upper limit of what McLaren would offer Lewis (in terms of money, but also other things), and this was not the same as the highest offer they could actually afford (or deliver). This would be the same for any driver. It looks like Mercedes offered more, and also that Lewis wanted to leave anyway. It could be that McLaren always knew that what they were offering was insufficient and, in that way, they eased him out. That's not my opinion, but it is possible.

I have long suspected that the stories about McLaren coming close to securing his signature, or it being a finely balanced decision, were a charade. For PR purposes, it makes McLaren look like they did their best to keep him, and avoid alienating McLaren fans or sponsors. It also makes Lewis seem more fair minded that he did not just tell them to take a hike.

#48 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,633 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 04 January 2013 - 18:06

It's also possible that LH was just stringing them along and never had any intention of resigning.


That is more than possible.


#49 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,119 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 04 January 2013 - 18:17

Wasn't the whole fuel burning thing gotten rid of after '07?


Can´t remember :| Hope it was, 2 seasons is surely enough time even to FIA to understand it was pointless.

#50 Dolph

Dolph
  • Member

  • 4,574 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 04 January 2013 - 19:09

That part is not an RD quote, but the newspaper. RD's direct quotes;



I'm not sure I understand what the link between the thread title and this article is either.



Exactly. If anything its more about money and Hamiltons want to do less PR work and bring on personal sponsors. Driver equality has never been raised once. Don't know where does the OP takes this from.

Edited by Dolph, 04 January 2013 - 19:12.