Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Button v Perez 2013 (part II)


  • Please log in to reply
249 replies to this topic

#1 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 3,486 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 19 November 2013 - 13:56

Then why not swap it at a pitstop? A damaged front left sidepanel on the front wing won't prevent your DRS from opening. Hell, there is a big black 'wall' behind the wing in the shape of a tire. I stand my ground, it is used as an excuse only.

 

Well, they often do, but it's a judgement call, and Macca tend not to be very good at those.

 

In Abu Dhabi, they pitted Jenson almost immediately, and changed tyres at the same time, even though there was nothing wrong with the tyres. Was the front wing that bad? I doubt it, it looked like a mistake to me, they could have left him out for a few laps to make his prime stint shorter.

 

In COTA, they didn't pit Jenson, even though there was a safety car, and he had started on the wrong tyres, so pitting would have had a double benefit. To me, another mistake (but the opposite one, this time).

 

Edit: yes, they could have replaced the wing at the first stop, but since their entire strategy was apparently based on stopping early and trying to get an undercut, there was no way they were going for that.


Edited by BillBald, 19 November 2013 - 14:05.


Advertisement

#2 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,545 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 19 November 2013 - 13:58

I didn't think bargeboards could be changed at a pitstop (at least I've never seen it). In fact AFAIK the front wing is the only bit that can be replaced during a race as all other damage would either be a left on, torn off or be a race ender.

 

Exactly, they take long enough to change to mean it's not worth doing it, but that doesn't mean you don't lose any performance if you lose a bargeboard.



#3 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 8,927 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 19 November 2013 - 14:24

I think with Button and Perez the same thing is happening at the days at BAR-Honda. A lot of posters on these Forums back then complained that Dave Richards had a 'mancrush' for Button and therefore was so completely blind for the good things the other drivers did (Sato and Villeneuve). Furthermore, there were vague conspirational whispers about technical advantages Button got, why Honda kept him when they took over the whole team, etc.

 

The answer I had back then still applies now: the leading people at McLaren know more about the achievements of the drivers than we do. We see only the time-differences between the drivers during laps, some corners, and then some finishing positions. The engineers of F1 teams have six of even more number-crushers who can see what every driver is doing at EVERY corner. At Honda, the engineers saw what Button did with the car, and I presume that McLaren see now what Button does with the car and Perez does with the car. That can lead to statements about 'disappointing' races of Perez, even if he finishes ahead of Button... not so strange as it seems, AFAIK.

 

Exactly.

 

MW said Perez was "solid". He did do basically what was expected, without incident, so that would seem to be a fairly accurate description.

 

Meanwhile he said JB race pace was "excellent" given his unfortunate qualifying and first lap contact. He's not saying he was excellent compared to Perez, he's saying the drive was excellent in the circumstances. Which is fair. I think the issue therefore is not what MW said, but what he left out, which was any reference to cause of a disappointing qualifying or first lap contact. But as you say, the team have more information on the factors of qualifying (the crux of it all) than we do...



#4 Lights

Lights
  • Member

  • 9,414 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 November 2013 - 18:05

I think with Button and Perez the same thing is happening at the days at BAR-Honda. A lot of posters on these Forums back then complained that Dave Richards had a 'mancrush' for Button and therefore was so completely blind for the good things the other drivers did (Sato and Villeneuve). Furthermore, there were vague conspirational whispers about technical advantages Button got, why Honda kept him when they took over the whole team, etc.

I thought that was because he was responsible for like, 80% of BAR's success during 2003-2005? Just like how this season Jenson's results have been far better than Sergio's. Just because Jenson is going through a bad phase doesn't mean his season was bad. IMO it was average and Sergio's was just bad, which is why McLaren let him go and kept Jenson.

 

But ok fair enough to the rest of your point.



#5 WitnessX

WitnessX
  • Member

  • 1,161 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 19 November 2013 - 20:09

Exactly.

 

MW said Perez was "solid". He did do basically what was expected, without incident, so that would seem to be a fairly accurate description.

 

Meanwhile he said JB race pace was "excellent" given his unfortunate qualifying and first lap contact. He's not saying he was excellent compared to Perez, he's saying the drive was excellent in the circumstances. Which is fair. I think the issue therefore is not what MW said, but what he left out, which was any reference to cause of a disappointing qualifying or first lap contact. But as you say, the team have more information on the factors of qualifying (the crux of it all) than we do...

The problem with Checo's race was that his tyres degraded earlier in the stints than the other cars, so his first stint faded at the end meaning Alonso caught up (and Hulk gained time). After the pit stop he was not able to run the lap times over four laps on the new tyres (vs. Alonso on old tyres) to maintain or build on his advantage to Alonso and so lost his position. I imagine Martin saw this as a wasted opportunity.

 

On his second stint he either had problems with tyres seven laps before the end or he just "gave up". He had a radio message as early as lap 33 to look after the tyres so he could attack Alonso at the end. Obviously he could not achieve that. The team would know why.


Edited by WitnessX, 19 November 2013 - 20:10.


#6 bub

bub
  • Member

  • 2,247 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 19 November 2013 - 20:42

The problem with Checo's race was that his tyres degraded earlier in the stints than the other cars, so his first stint faded at the end meaning Alonso caught up (and Hulk gained time). After the pit stop he was not able to run the lap times over four laps on the new tyres (vs. Alonso on old tyres) to maintain or build on his advantage to Alonso and so lost his position. I imagine Martin saw this as a wasted opportunity.

 

On his second stint he either had problems with tyres seven laps before the end or he just "gave up". He had a radio message as early as lap 33 to look after the tyres so he could attack Alonso at the end. Obviously he could not achieve that. The team would know why.

 

The tyres degraded quicker than expected for a lot of cars due to the temperature. All things considered, Perez did a good job to finish where he did in the car he had. Expecting him to beat Alonso is asking a bit much imo. The Ferrari is probably a better car and Alonso is a 2x WDC. 



#7 Ricardo F1

Ricardo F1
  • Member

  • 38,470 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 19 November 2013 - 20:50

I thought that was because he was responsible for like, 80% of BAR's success during 2003-2005? Just like how this season Jenson's results have been far better than Sergio's. Just because Jenson is going through a bad phase doesn't mean his season was bad. IMO it was average and Sergio's was just bad, which is why McLaren let him go and kept Jenson.

 

But ok fair enough to the rest of your point.

I think they've both struggled with a crappy car, keeping Jenson is more down to needing an experienced development driver in the seat in a critical period while taking a flier on Magnussen (which I think is worth a gamble).  McLaren are treading water for 2015 at this point basically, when presumably with Honda they'll be aiming for a top driver to come in and fight with a (hopefully) gamble gone right in Magnussen.



#8 study

study
  • Member

  • 2,452 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 19 November 2013 - 20:51

Exactly.

 

MW said Perez was "solid". He did do basically what was expected, without incident, so that would seem to be a fairly accurate description.

 

Meanwhile he said JB race pace was "excellent" given his unfortunate qualifying and first lap contact. He's not saying he was excellent compared to Perez, he's saying the drive was excellent in the circumstances. Which is fair. I think the issue therefore is not what MW said, but what he left out, which was any reference to cause of a disappointing qualifying or first lap contact. But as you say, the team have more information on the factors of qualifying (the crux of it all) than we do...

 

Maybe if this was a one off occasion that would be a valid point.

 

How many times does it have to happen before it is excepted as the norm by Whitmarsh?

We've had it a few times with Perez, we had loads of occasions with Lewis, Whitmarsh has blinkers on for Button.



#9 WitnessX

WitnessX
  • Member

  • 1,161 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 19 November 2013 - 21:44

The tyres degraded quicker than expected for a lot of cars due to the temperature. All things considered, Perez did a good job to finish where he did in the car he had. Expecting him to beat Alonso is asking a bit much imo. The Ferrari is probably a better car and Alonso is a 2x WDC. 

Perhaps thats true.

 

However the point of my post was to point out the lack of raw material "positives" that Martin needs to write/fawn about.


Edited by WitnessX, 19 November 2013 - 21:45.


#10 selespeed

selespeed
  • Member

  • 1,059 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 19 November 2013 - 22:30

After the pit stop he was not able to run the lap times over four laps on the new tyres (vs. Alonso on old tyres) to maintain or build on his advantage to Alonso and so lost his position. I imagine Martin saw this as a wasted opportunity.

 

 

martin released him into traffic....he had to overtake vergne and gutierez...he lost almost a second in the last sector while overtaking gutierez.



#11 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 3,486 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 19 November 2013 - 23:38

martin released him into traffic....he had to overtake vergne and gutierez...he lost almost a second in the last sector while overtaking gutierez.

 

Did McLaren mess up?

 

Vergne and Gutierrez immediately went faster than Checo, as soon as Massa and Jenson got out of their way. Delaying Checo's pitstop would have dropped him back further behind them, so he wouldn't have been held up until he caught them, and that might have kept him ahead of Alonso. This would only work if Checo's tyres could do the extra laps without falling off the cliff and letting Alonso past.

 

I suppose that they could also have left Jenson out, so Massa would have probably stayed out and continued to hold up his train, and Checo could then have pulled enough of a gap to pit and come out in front of Vergne and Gutierrez. Jenson's side of the garage wouldn't have been too happy though.

 

It appears that McLaren's big strategy idea was to pit earlier than others to get the undercut. Maybe that's why they pitted Checo when they did, in which case they were showing a lack of flexibility.


Edited by BillBald, 19 November 2013 - 23:41.


#12 coppilcus

coppilcus
  • Member

  • 347 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 20 November 2013 - 07:24

I think with Button and Perez the same thing is happening at the days at BAR-Honda. A lot of posters on these Forums back then complained that Dave Richards had a 'mancrush' for Button and therefore was so completely blind for the good things the other drivers did (Sato and Villeneuve). Furthermore, there were vague conspirational whispers about technical advantages Button got, why Honda kept him when they took over the whole team, etc.

The answer I had back then still applies now: the leading people at McLaren know more about the achievements of the drivers than we do. We see only the time-differences between the drivers during laps, some corners, and then some finishing positions. The engineers of F1 teams have six of even more number-crushers who can see what every driver is doing at EVERY corner. At Honda, the engineers saw what Button did with the car, and I presume that McLaren see now what Button does with the car and Perez does with the car. That can lead to statements about 'disappointing' races of Perez, even if he finishes ahead of Button... not so strange as it seems, AFAIK.

The same kind of statements took place on the season that Jenson couldn't find the 'balance of the car' for 20 races...

Sometimes, it seems, people thinks f1 teams are like tempes of innocence good manners and values... Well, at least whenever arguments suits our ideas, it's such a shame for the sport that one or two teams take 'pay drivers', doesn't allow free competition between teammates, tangles with the kers system of no 2 drivers and make private testing of tires... but yes, only in McLaren decisions are taken pondering only performance.

Edited by coppilcus, 20 November 2013 - 07:46.


#13 coppilcus

coppilcus
  • Member

  • 347 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 20 November 2013 - 07:42

Maybe if this was a one off occasion that would be a valid point.
 
How many times does it have to happen before it is excepted as the norm by Whitmarsh?
We've had it a few times with Perez, we had loads of occasions with Lewis, Whitmarsh has blinkers on for Button.


It's easy: £ increase for Perez plus £ for paying magnussen's seat at marrusia equals buttons salary, and they have to add the bill from Mercedes engines... They were expecting to obtain every egg from one basket, negotiated hard for it and gained nothing, have to dump Perez and changed the announcement date of their new sponsor to February.

#14 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 1,911 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 20 November 2013 - 07:52

The same kind of statements took place on the season that Jenson couldn't find the 'balance of the car' for 20 races...

Sometimes, it seems, people thinks f1 teams are like the monasteries of good manners and values... Well, at least whenever arguments suits our ideas, it's such a shame for the sport that one or two teams take 'pay drivers', doesn't allow free competition between teammates, tangles with the kers system of no 2 drivers and make private testing of tires... but yes, only in McLaren decisions are taken pondering only performance.

 

I am not saying that McLaren and Whitmarsh are treating Perez correctly. Far from it, I think they %&^*^* him over royally... just like you expect in the cut-throat business of F1. But ask yourself this: in this multi-million dollar enviroment, which is plagued by moneyproblems... do you really think that any F1 team is looking for anything else than absolutely the best circumstances for its own survival, even if that means if you have to ruin or seriously jeopardize the chances of other teams or your own drivers? Do you think that a F1 principal would ^*&() his own team by giving an inferior driver - a second tier-driver, like the fanboys call Button - preferential treatment?

 

Ofcourse not. Ron Dennis hired Niki Lauda at the end of 1981 because he thought he needed Lauda in 1982 to develop McLaren. In 1984, just when Lauda thought he could reap the benefits of developing the McLaren-TAG, Alain Prost unexpectly was fired by Renault. He Presto, Prost was a McLaren-driver. Dennis 'loved' Lauda... but when Prost showed up - younger, faster, cheaper - his loyalty to Lauda was gone. Prost instantly was the new team's favorite and of Dennis. Just as you expect from a shark in the sharkpool.

 

Now you have Martin Whitmarsh. So perhaps he is to flattering about Button and too dry about Perez. Do you really think he does that out of 'man-love'? Or do you think he knows (or thinks he knows, perhaps he is wrong, just like Briatore was once wrong about Button... though he was very, very right about Alonso) something in his role as a teamprincipal that makes him act so?

 

Rhetorical questions, obviously...


Edited by Nemo1965, 20 November 2013 - 07:54.


#15 selespeed

selespeed
  • Member

  • 1,059 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 20 November 2013 - 08:19

Did McLaren mess up?

 

Vergne and Gutierrez immediately went faster than Checo,

 

no...but did perez mess up??

 

how did vergne and gutierez went faster than checo if he overtook them??



#16 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 8,927 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 20 November 2013 - 09:06

Maybe if this was a one off occasion that would be a valid point.

 

 

I'm only judging this one occasion therefore it is. Thanks for confirming.



#17 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 8,927 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 20 November 2013 - 09:19

The same kind of statements took place on the season that Jenson couldn't find the 'balance of the car' for 20 races...
 

Inventive! I think you'll find that was an issue for a phase of races in the middle of the year, that McLaren and JB got on top of. Perhaps Jenson's performance at Spa that year will convince you that they ultimately overcame the "balance issue"? Otherwise that was a stratospheric performance...

 

Jenson himself admits (and all expert observers conclude) that his weakness is that he needs a well balanced car to perform. That is an accepted fact.

 

However, what is clear to me is that McLaren consider this to be fundamentally an ENGINEERING issue. When JB has a car that is not balanced, I get the distinct impression that MW (on behalf of the team) consider that they haven't done their job on the engineering side, rather than blaming JB for his "weakness". Perhaps JB's detractors don't think this is fair and JB should shoulder part or all of the blame. Whatever, I think this is the root of the issue that leads people to think MW is too forgiving/praising.

 

Personally I think they're in it together. Sometimes I wish JB could adapt his driving style (which seems like an easy enough option), but then I also think that MW has a point. If they know exactly what is wrong with the car for JB's driving style, he's been there for nearly 4 years. Just fix it already!



#18 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 1,911 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 20 November 2013 - 09:40

Inventive! I think you'll find that was an issue for a phase of races in the middle of the year, that McLaren and JB got on top of. Perhaps Jenson's performance at Spa that year will convince you that they ultimately overcame the "balance issue"? Otherwise that was a stratospheric performance...

 

Jenson himself admits (and all expert observers conclude) that his weakness is that he needs a well balanced car to perform. That is an accepted fact.

 

However, what is clear to me is that McLaren consider this to be fundamentally an ENGINEERING issue. When JB has a car that is not balanced, I get the distinct impression that MW (on behalf of the team) consider that they haven't done their job on the engineering side, rather than blaming JB for his "weakness". Perhaps JB's detractors don't think this is fair and JB should shoulder part or all of the blame. Whatever, I think this is the root of the issue that leads people to think MW is too forgiving/praising.

 

Personally I think they're in it together. Sometimes I wish JB could adapt his driving style (which seems like an easy enough option), but then I also think that MW has a point. If they know exactly what is wrong with the car for JB's driving style, he's been there for nearly 4 years. Just fix it already!

 

Well, I think you are right: McLaren has been doing something fundamentally wrong the last four years. And I have an idea (I am not an engineer!) that it has to do with that there seems to be a 'stiff car' concept at McLaren that they find very, very hard to let go. For the last twenty years, AFAIK, McLaren has always built the lowest riding, stiffest suspension-car of the whole grid. But, apparently, both Red Bull and Renault have gone the other way. They have cars that flex all over the place, look at how the Renault sometimes sparks... in corners, not even on the straights!

Perhaps McLaren are stuck in ye old ground effect days, in which low, rigid ride height was the all conquering axioma. Perhaps they need a paradigma shift. But I think Rinehart is on to something: MW does feel that McLaren have taken the wrong turn this year (and some other years) and he feels that it's more McLarens than Buttons fault... but indeed, they are in it together. Good post!



#19 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,400 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 20 November 2013 - 11:14

Is it best to have a WDC campaign with a driver so sensitive to the balance of the car? I can't see them as WDC challenger, unless McLaren builds a rocketship.



Advertisement

#20 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 1,911 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 20 November 2013 - 11:54

Is it best to have a WDC campaign with a driver so sensitive to the balance of the car? I can't see them as WDC challenger, unless McLaren builds a rocketship.

 

Button doesn't need a rocketship (just as Alonso does not need it, or Vettel or Hamilton or Rosberg). He does need a car (more than Hamilton) that is predictable in the set-up, from race to race, and quick enough to compete with the rivals. The problems most teams have with the current tyres is not that they are too soft, or whatever, but that their behaviour is unpredictable from tyre to tyre from race to race. Again, I am not an engineer, but as I see it the cars are so aerodynamicly complex on the side and top of the car and front underside, that small changes in the compound of the tyres or even the weather (headwind/or backwind), makes for big changes in behaviour of the car. Even Hamilton - the man most likely in F1 now to drive around problems - is complaining about it, as does Alonso. Look at Austin and the differences between Alonso/Massa, Hamilton/Rosberg, Bottas/Maldonado.

 

The same thing has happened in the 70's and 80's, by the way. In 1977 the Ferrari 312 t heated the tyre so unevenly, that Lauda, Reuteman en Foghieri (the engineer) were completely baffled. 'The car was good THERE yesterday, now it sucks. how?' That is how Niki Lauda described it. Once they figured out what was happening (the Ferrari front suspension design overloaded the sidewall of the tyres), the 312 was basically okay. But it took Ferrari half a season to figure it out.

 

Ligier lost two worldchampionships and perhaps three worldchampionships (1979,1980, 1981) because the tyres and the rims let them down. The specifications changed because of the general demands of F1 in itself... and it hurt one particular French team, which relied on a very sturdy chassis and good mechanical grip. The tyres, however, were more and more adapted to ground effect-and turbo cars.

 

Is it a weak point of Button? Absolutely. That is why the combination of Hamilton and Button was such a good one.


Edited by Nemo1965, 20 November 2013 - 13:48.


#21 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 3,486 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 20 November 2013 - 13:37

no...but did perez mess up??

 

how did vergne and gutierez went faster than checo if he overtook them??

 

Vergne and Gutierrez were faster than Checo while he was on old options. They were prevented from showing it until Jenson pitted, followed the next lap by Massa (who was causing the train).

 

After he pitted for new primes Checo was faster but couldn't immediately overtake them.

 

McLaren would probably say that Checo didn't look after the tyres well enough, that's why he didn't pull a big enough gap on V & G, even though they were being held up.

 

Checo might say the strategy was at fault.

 

I would say they could have tried leaving Checo out a bit longer, but it was starting to look as though Alonso could pass him on the track anyway, which would have made the strategy a bit irrelevant.


Edited by BillBald, 20 November 2013 - 13:41.


#22 pizzalover

pizzalover
  • Member

  • 292 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 20 November 2013 - 14:16

Well, I think you are right: McLaren has been doing something fundamentally wrong the last four years. And I have an idea (I am not an engineer!) that it has to do with that there seems to be a 'stiff car' concept at McLaren that they find very, very hard to let go. For the last twenty years, AFAIK, McLaren has always built the lowest riding, stiffest suspension-car of the whole grid. But, apparently, both Red Bull and Renault have gone the other way. They have cars that flex all over the place, look at how the Renault sometimes sparks... in corners, not even on the straights!

Perhaps McLaren are stuck in ye old ground effect days, in which low, rigid ride height was the all conquering axioma. Perhaps they need a paradigma shift. But I think Rinehart is on to something: MW does feel that McLaren have taken the wrong turn this year (and some other years) and he feels that it's more McLarens than Buttons fault... but indeed, they are in it together. Good post!

 

 

Oddly enough, GP motorbikes tried and very quickly abandoned carbon fibre frames. They are just too stiff, and don't give any feel to the rider. A little flex is the fastest option. As far a bikes are concerned anyway.


Edited by pizzalover, 20 November 2013 - 14:18.


#23 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,615 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 20 November 2013 - 14:22

 

In all prudence, as an admin you should take a more proffesional and also let's say a more neutral approach. Button would have to do a lot of wrongs to be ousted from McLaren, and having an experienced driver for next year is clearly important. When two drivers show similar speed, but Button is one of them, he would always get the nod, atleast as long as Whitmarsh has a say.

 

 

Hehehe, he's been very so-so lately, but getting caught up in a first-lap touch can happen every now and then. Still, three races on the trot.... not good.

 

 

If you would like me comment with a more considered response then I certainly can.

 

Your stated position is that Button is slower by a not-very-exact margin of specifically measured time ("a few hundredths") and Perez allowed a certain yet indefinite period of acclimatisation ("there is (normally) quite some time") which could still be ongoing for all I know, followed by a subjective statement of ability ("racecraft is better") which you are now not so sure about ("Still, three races on the trot").  Between you and selespeed, there was an unverifiable and  contradictory judgement based on unsubstantiated fact.  The post is phrased as if hewn from Cairngorm granite but really has no substance.

 

You provide no information about how you are measuring your hundredths or by which benchmark it is measured.  There is no allowance for acclimatisation only an absolute certainty in your own mind that Perez should be allowed it.  I can't even imagine how one measures racecraft and you flip flopped on that anyway so probably best to leave it well alone but move on instead to the final coup de grace which is the suggestion that if two drivers were similarly fast then as long as Whitmarsh says something, Button would always be the one to stay.  That you chose to put this solid gold troll right after admonishing me for the poor quality of my response is a dish far to rich for me when served up by a former moderator.

 

Button has been criticised many times over his career for being slow, or poor at defending or poor at overtaking, or poor at adapting, and yet he's seen off a number of teammates not in terms of Team Principal love, but results.  We even have a thread dedicated to trying to come up with a points method which stripped him of his 2009 championship, if you search.  The criticism will probably be valid one day if it isn't already.  His reaction speeds will slow, his ability to read a race will be impaired, or there will be one too many knobs and dials on the steering wheel and he will move on to other things or down the grid.

 

However, from the end of this year Button was out of contract so if his performance was found wanting or he was surplus to requirements, he would be gone from the end of this Sunday's race. McLaren know what he is capable of, and they consider he will be a good model for Magnussen to learn from, so he stays. Not a slow, erratic, little-bit-shit or incapable model, but a better one than Perez might be.  They brought in two new drivers the last time they had a hot young prospect so there was never a guaranteed place for Button.

 

The quality of a driver cannot simply be measured by his 'raw speed', even if you could come up with a measurement to define what you mean by that. His quality is measured very simply by his ability to translate whatever abilities he does have into results.  Button has provided those results over the course of the season and Perez has not.



#24 race addicted

race addicted
  • Member

  • 19,537 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 20 November 2013 - 14:53

If you would like me comment with a more considered response then I certainly can.

 

Your stated position is that Button is slower by a not-very-exact margin of specifically measured time ("a few hundredths") and Perez allowed a certain yet indefinite period of acclimatisation ("there is (normally) quite some time") which could still be ongoing for all I know, followed by a subjective statement of ability ("racecraft is better") which you are now not so sure about ("Still, three races on the trot").  Between you and selespeed, there was an unverifiable and  contradictory judgement based on unsubstantiated fact.  The post is phrased as if hewn from Cairngorm granite but really has no substance.

 

You provide no information about how you are measuring your hundredths or by which benchmark it is measured.  There is no allowance for acclimatisation only an absolute certainty in your own mind that Perez should be allowed it.  I can't even imagine how one measures racecraft and you flip flopped on that anyway so probably best to leave it well alone but move on instead to the final coup de grace which is the suggestion that if two drivers were similarly fast then as long as Whitmarsh says something, Button would always be the one to stay.  That you chose to put this solid gold troll right after admonishing me for the poor quality of my response is a dish far to rich for me when served up by a former moderator.

 

Button has been criticised many times over his career for being slow, or poor at defending or poor at overtaking, or poor at adapting, and yet he's seen off a number of teammates not in terms of Team Principal love, but results.  We even have a thread dedicated to trying to come up with a points method which stripped him of his 2009 championship, if you search.  The criticism will probably be valid one day if it isn't already.  His reaction speeds will slow, his ability to read a race will be impaired, or there will be one too many knobs and dials on the steering wheel and he will move on to other things or down the grid.

 

However, from the end of this year Button was out of contract so if his performance was found wanting or he was surplus to requirements, he would be gone from the end of this Sunday's race. McLaren know what he is capable of, and they consider he will be a good model for Magnussen to learn from, so he stays. Not a slow, erratic, little-bit-shit or incapable model, but a better one than Perez might be.  They brought in two new drivers the last time they had a hot young prospect so there was never a guaranteed place for Button.

 

The quality of a driver cannot simply be measured by his 'raw speed', even if you could come up with a measurement to define what you mean by that. His quality is measured very simply by his ability to translate whatever abilities he does have into results.  Button has provided those results over the course of the season and Perez has not.

 

OK, you threw in a little bit of "drama-queening there", 'cause I've never said Button was a little bit that, and por in this and that area, suggesting that I'm of the opinion he's just. no. good. That's not right. Simple. Button is a damn good driver, and on his day, unbeatable. I've said, and I maintain that Perez has shown more raw speed than Button, and that is quanitifiable. For a few years I've done my own qualifying comparisons thread, where I only compare times set in the same session and on the same compound. (NOT following the model which another forumer here uses, comparing across all three segments of qualifying.) Problem is, I'm not in at home, not even in my home-country where I have the numbers written down. From memory it was very close between them, so with Perez having a good run in Austin I have a feeling he's now faster on average. A bit of leeway is, and should, always be given to the new guy in the team, it obviously isn't still so, the season is over in less than a week and it's been a long season. Back in the days when these debates were more common (it was, from more than one perspective, easier to discuss these things then), we used to allow the driver the first half of the season, where if close to the guy already settled in would be good, if faster, great. Obviously it depended on who the new one was teamed against, but I remember good debates around Montoya vs Räikkönen at McLaren, and also Trulli vs R. Schumacher at Toyota. 

 

Moving on to race craft; I'm not yo-yoing like you so eagerly try to imply. Button has done 247 GP-starts, and very soon he started showing good, wise and mature race-craft. When he then, in '13, well into his career has three races on the trot where he's involved in tangles, it can certainly be described as "so-so."  

I think most will agree, be it fans, fan-boys or neutrals, without thinking their boy had gotten his hair fumbled.


Edited by race addicted, 20 November 2013 - 14:55.


#25 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,400 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 20 November 2013 - 15:04

Oddly enough, GP motorbikes tried and very quickly abandoned carbon fibre frames. They are just too stiff, and don't give any feel to the rider. A little flex is the fastest option. As far a bikes are concerned anyway.

Riders didn't know when they reach the end of grip and just fell of when the grip ended. The flexing gave them a warning they were on the edge.



#26 Dalton007

Dalton007
  • Member

  • 2,936 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 20 November 2013 - 15:41

Does Perez have more raw speed? If so, he's being hampered because he can't get his set-up right for most race days to show his speed for 70 laps.



#27 Lights

Lights
  • Member

  • 9,414 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 20 November 2013 - 17:15

"But there were two nagging issues for Jenson to contend with in the warm Spanish sun. The first was unreliability with the new powerplants, regularly limiting his track time. The second was Brazilian hotshoe Bruno Junqueira, who was also eying up the Williams drive and had sponsorship that could sway the team in his favour. The prized F1 seat was ultimately decided by a shoot-out between the pair, but with near identical laptimes, it was almost impossible for the senior Williams management to make a decision. On the morning of the team’s new car launch on 24 January 2000, Sir Frank Williams spoke to Junqueira first and then to Button. Just minutes before the press conference, the team boss had finally made up his mind: “We’ve decided to go with Jenson,” he announced to the world’s media." 



#28 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,545 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 20 November 2013 - 17:24

OK, you threw in a little bit of "drama-queening there", 'cause I've never said Button was a little bit that, and por in this and that area, suggesting that I'm of the opinion he's just. no. good. That's not right. Simple. Button is a damn good driver, and on his day, unbeatable. I've said, and I maintain that Perez has shown more raw speed than Button, and that is quanitifiable. For a few years I've done my own qualifying comparisons thread, where I only compare times set in the same session and on the same compound. (NOT following the model which another forumer here uses, comparing across all three segments of qualifying.) Problem is, I'm not in at home, not even in my home-country where I have the numbers written down. From memory it was very close between them, so with Perez having a good run in Austin I have a feeling he's now faster on average. A bit of leeway is, and should, always be given to the new guy in the team, it obviously isn't still so, the season is over in less than a week and it's been a long season. Back in the days when these debates were more common (it was, from more than one perspective, easier to discuss these things then), we used to allow the driver the first half of the season, where if close to the guy already settled in would be good, if faster, great. Obviously it depended on who the new one was teamed against, but I remember good debates around Montoya vs Räikkönen at McLaren, and also Trulli vs R. Schumacher at Toyota. 

 

Moving on to race craft; I'm not yo-yoing like you so eagerly try to imply. Button has done 247 GP-starts, and very soon he started showing good, wise and mature race-craft. When he then, in '13, well into his career has three races on the trot where he's involved in tangles, it can certainly be described as "so-so."  

I think most will agree, be it fans, fan-boys or neutrals, without thinking their boy had gotten his hair fumbled.

 

But your method of measuring "raw speed" doesn't take account of the way each driver has chosen to approach the setup compromise between qualifying and racing. Button has finished ahead of Perez despite having qualified behind him on five occasions this season. That means his average speed in the race was faster than Perez's, so I don't understand what the problem is with saying he was faster? The ultimate goal is to finish the race in the highest possible position. Qualifying well is only a means to that end, but so is setting the car up for the race, and those two extrinsic values usually conflict, meaning a balance has to be struck. Calling a driver slow (or slower) because he attaches relatively more importance to setting the car up for the race than getting a good grid position is unfair if the net result is that the driver who is slower on Saturday is quicker on Sunday.

 

It's a mistake in the era where setup changes between qualifying and the race are banned and overtaking is relatively easy to regard speed over one lap as being more important, or more indicative of "raw speed", than speed over a grand prix distance. The opposite is true.



#29 coppilcus

coppilcus
  • Member

  • 347 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 20 November 2013 - 18:00

I am not saying that McLaren and Whitmarsh are treating Perez correctly. Far from it, I think they %&^*^* him over royally... just like you expect in the cut-throat business of F1. But ask yourself this: in this multi-million dollar enviroment, which is plagued by moneyproblems... do you really think that any F1 team is looking for anything else than absolutely the best circumstances for its own survival, even if that means if you have to ruin or seriously jeopardize the chances of other teams or your own drivers? Do you think that a F1 principal would ^*&() his own team by giving an inferior driver - a second tier-driver, like the fanboys call Button - preferential treatment?

Ofcourse not. Ron Dennis hired Niki Lauda at the end of 1981 because he thought he needed Lauda in 1982 to develop McLaren. In 1984, just when Lauda thought he could reap the benefits of developing the McLaren-TAG, Alain Prost unexpectly was fired by Renault. He Presto, Prost was a McLaren-driver. Dennis 'loved' Lauda... but when Prost showed up - younger, faster, cheaper - his loyalty to Lauda was gone. Prost instantly was the new team's favorite and of Dennis. Just as you expect from a shark in the sharkpool.

Now you have Martin Whitmarsh. So perhaps he is to flattering about Button and too dry about Perez. Do you really think he does that out of 'man-love'? Or do you think he knows (or thinks he knows, perhaps he is wrong, just like Briatore was once wrong about Button... though he was very, very right about Alonso) something in his role as a teamprincipal that makes him act so?

Rhetorical questions, obviously...

Every view of the story is rethorical... we are not Perez, button, Dennis or Whitmarsh, and we do don't swept the floors of their offices as to be able to spy on them, but for me the simplest scenario is the closest one that can explain the reality on facts we do not know: performance issues.

I'll assume that the team has every data on Perez as to judge him by performance, and that view is not the same as the media and fans have.

Where did the media get the data that button was indeed 40 seconds faster than Perez on abudabhi? did they also collect the data from Perez and the time that cost him bad strategies, pit stops and traffic? Why they cant see what every sane f1 fan has perceived very clearly: the 28 is a bathtub with wheels, can't overtake any reasonable fast car and only performers in clear air? If the decision to fired Perez is indeed performance wise, why oh why are you doing so at the last two gp's of the season if all that precise and cuantatious amount of data (including tha simulator performance of magnussen where the Dane crushes Jenson and Sergio) is avelaible? Oh boy, the ones responsible of taken that decision, on such abundant and clear database, are just morons, it took them a bluddy year to saw that one coming and nobody should trust their judgment on that one!

The simplest scenario is monetary wise and could explain well the timing and harsh treatment of sergio within the team and publicly...

... at least for me, though you can't trust me either because I don't like to do homework.

:lol:

Edited by coppilcus, 20 November 2013 - 18:47.


#30 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 1,911 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 20 November 2013 - 19:22

Hehe, you don't need to do homework to discuss Jenson Button...  I didn't. The things about Lauda and Ligier is out of the top of my head, I've been following F1 (and especially the engineering side, as much as I can follow it) since the seventies...

 

Regarding the idea that Checo was ousted because of the money or that he was hauled into the team because of the money? And now that they have a new sponsor (Gilette?) he is not needed any more?

 

That is a very plausable idea... but you did not mention that earlier, though. Or am I very much mistaken?

 

 

Oddly enough, GP motorbikes tried and very quickly abandoned carbon fibre frames. They are just too stiff, and don't give any feel to the rider. A little flex is the fastest option. As far a bikes are concerned anyway.

 

Regarding this topic: I don;t think for F1 drivers it has to do with feel. It is more that with a 'normal' ground effectcar you set up the correct rake for the possible downforce, and then with springs and bumstops and packers try to arrange that the rake doesn't change a lot at the most important parts of the track. That means a stiff car, especially at the front.

 

However, that is a with a ground effect car where the most of the venturi-effect (AFAIK) is created in the middle and back of the car. If I understand the techincal analyses on Autosport a little bit, the current semi-ground effect cars have the majority of venturi-like effect on the front of the car. I still don't understand why and how the Renault and Red Bull still can have so much flex and bouncing on the track without severe disturbing effects, but the answer to the riddle is there somewhere...


Edited by Nemo1965, 20 November 2013 - 19:23.


#31 SNiko

SNiko
  • Member

  • 1,051 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 21 November 2013 - 01:54

Does Perez have more raw speed? If so, he's being hampered because he can't get his set-up right for most race days to show his speed for 70 laps.

 

His raw speed is slightly higher than Button's at the moment. But you know, Button is not the fastest driver on a grid, moreover, even in ideal conditions and in his best shape he still the slowest driver of top 5. So, Perez had to be faster, much faster than Button by default and ideally from the beginning of the season, not from the end.



#32 race addicted

race addicted
  • Member

  • 19,537 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 21 November 2013 - 01:56

Pat Symonds says that nowadays, the difference between a wet set-up and a dry set-up, is typically around seven tenths. You don't, if you tune your car with a Q-bias, drop very much race-pace, certainly much less than if you soften it up and add wings for the wet. 

Generally, I don't think there's much setting up for the Saturday, more than for the Sunday, when we have the tires we have. Perhaps a degree or two on camber to aid tyre warm-up.

 

The season is 19 GP-weekends long, which is long enough to catch up eventualities such as one driver going more towards qualifying than for the race, and then the other driver does it sometime later.



#33 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,545 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 21 November 2013 - 09:23

The season is 19 GP-weekends long, which is long enough to catch up eventualities such as one driver going more towards qualifying than for the race, and then the other driver does it sometime later.


Not if the same pattern is repeated every weekend.

There are problems with judging raw speed on race performance too. Drivers tend not to push when they don‘t need to, so looking at the race times you‘d think Vettel was only a few tenths faster than the others when it is obvious that his real advantage is enormous. Traffic can also prevent drivers doing the laptimes of which they are capable. Safety cars distort the picture by costing drivers more time the higher they‘re running when the SC comes out, as do delays at pitstops. These are all factors that are likely to balance out over a season.

If you judge raw speed based on qualy, you run into factors that could consistently distort the picture in favour of one particular driver and not balance each other. On the majority of occasions when Button has been outqualified by Perez he has finished in front of him. In a way it doesn‘t even matter if its down to the setup or if it‘s just a driver weakness such as being bad at working heat into the tyres and keeping them switched on, it is still incorrect in my view to say that a driver has inferior raw speed compared to his teammate even when he gets to the chequered flag before him, because in that case the relative slowness on the qualy lap would be due to a special factor that doesn‘t apply to the majority of laps completed over the weekend.

Edited by redreni, 21 November 2013 - 09:24.


#34 selespeed

selespeed
  • Member

  • 1,059 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 21 November 2013 - 09:49

Button has finished ahead of Perez despite having qualified behind him on five occasions this season. That means his average speed in the race was faster than Perez's, so I don't understand what the problem is with saying he was faster?

 

one of those five races is monza....where in qualifying perez was 0,013 faster...and had a faster lap in the race by 0,223...but had a slow pitstop...1,483 slower than buttons...

was he slower or faster in the race??



#35 Obi Offiah

Obi Offiah
  • Member

  • 8,516 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 21 November 2013 - 09:56

one of those five races is monza....where in qualifying perez was 0,013 faster...and had a faster lap in the race by 0,223...but had a slow pitstop...1,483 slower than buttons...

was he slower or faster in the race??

It's a more complex issue than that, e.g:

1) What was there respective average lap time?

2) Was either of them stuck in traffic?

3) How much tyre preservation was taking place?



#36 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 3,486 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 21 November 2013 - 12:27

It's a more complex issue than that, e.g:

1) What was there respective average lap time?

2) Was either of them stuck in traffic?

3) How much tyre preservation was taking place?

 

It's very difficult to compare the race pace of Jenson and Checo, because it's hard to find occasions on which they were both running in clean air. This is all about the very poor strategy decisions made by the team.

 

Monza is a case in point. The cars had been set up to be very slow in a straight line, and they spent almost the entire race stuck behind Ricciardo, with no hope of overtaking. Their one chance to get past was during the single pitstop, and they blew it (unsurprisingly).



#37 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 8,927 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 21 November 2013 - 12:58

 I've said, and I maintain that Perez has shown more raw speed than Button, and that is quanitifiable. 

 

Sure there have been occasions where Perez has been quicker than Button, but so have all teammates - Webber has sometimes been quicker than Vettel, Irvine was sometimes quicker than Schuey. I'm sure you get the drift.

 

But the driver who is considered to have "more raw speed" than his teammate, does it more often and under comparable circumstances.

 

Can you really quantify that for Perez? The floor is yours.


Edited by Rinehart, 21 November 2013 - 12:59.


#38 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 8,927 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 21 November 2013 - 13:05

 

Regarding the idea that Checo was ousted because of the money or that he was hauled into the team because of the money? And now that they have a new sponsor (Gilette?) he is not needed any more?

 

That is a very plausable idea... but you did not mention that earlier, though. Or am I very much mistaken?

 

I don't think MW could have been any clearer on the matter: They dropped Perez because they think Magnussen is better. What is there to unpick?



#39 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,545 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 21 November 2013 - 13:09

It's very difficult to compare the race pace of Jenson and Checo, because it's hard to find occasions on which they were both running in clean air. This is all about the very poor strategy decisions made by the team.

 

Monza is a case in point. The cars had been set up to be very slow in a straight line, and they spent almost the entire race stuck behind Ricciardo, with no hope of overtaking. Their one chance to get past was during the single pitstop, and they blew it (unsurprisingly).

 

I agree, it's very difficult to say race by race. At Monza Button finished ahead, but you can make a strong case that there was an element of bad luck for both drivers (poor strategy) and more so for Perez (slow pitstop). This is why you have to look at it over a period of time because these factors which affect our judgement of individual races ought to balance out over time, unless one driver is consistently being given strategic priority by the team, which I don't think applies in this case (Mclaren being quite adept at giving both drivers equally poor strategies on average over a season).

 

If you look not only at the races where Button beat Perez having started behind him, but also at the races where Button beat Perez having started ahead of him, we're talking about most of the races and this is reflected in the points and, for me, if you start to try to get around that by saying "yes but Perez has more raw speed and, with experience, his racecraft would improve and therefore he's just as good a prospect for next season as Button", that's placing reliance on a concept of "raw speed" which, if it exists at all, is more or less irrelevant in modern F1.



Advertisement

#40 race addicted

race addicted
  • Member

  • 19,537 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 21 November 2013 - 13:27

Sure there have been occasions where Perez has been quicker than Button, but so have all teammates - Webber has sometimes been quicker than Vettel, Irvine was sometimes quicker than Schuey. I'm sure you get the drift.

 

But the driver who is considered to have "more raw speed" than his teammate, does it more often and under comparable circumstances.

 

Can you really quantify that for Perez? The floor is yours.

 

It's quantifiable. As I said in my response to Buttoneer, I have kept tabs on qualifying comparisons for years, this year too, but the numbers are at home. I'm abroad on paternity leave.



#41 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,545 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 21 November 2013 - 14:36

It's quantifiable. As I said in my response to Buttoneer, I have kept tabs on qualifying comparisons for years, this year too, but the numbers are at home. I'm abroad on paternity leave.

 

Qualy times are quantifiable. Raw speed isn't.



#42 Fox1

Fox1
  • Member

  • 631 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 21 November 2013 - 16:12

I don't think MW could have been any clearer on the matter: They dropped Perez because they think Magnussen is better. What is there to unpick?

If there is a wrong decision to be made you can pretty much count on MW & McLaren's cast of characters to find it and make it.



#43 trogggy

trogggy
  • Member

  • 7,247 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 21 November 2013 - 16:29

And every random internet poster will spot all those mistakes and go 'Ooooooh!'.



#44 Fox1

Fox1
  • Member

  • 631 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 21 November 2013 - 16:52

And every random internet poster will spot all those mistakes and go 'Ooooooh!'.

Maybe the internet should be regulated to only allow criticism of McLaren for screw-ups that only affect JB to be permitted.



#45 Lazy

Lazy
  • Member

  • 5,271 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 21 November 2013 - 17:12

Maybe the internet should be regulated to only allow criticism of McLaren for screw-ups that only affect JB to be permitted.

ROFL



#46 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 1,911 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 21 November 2013 - 19:24

I don't think MW could have been any clearer on the matter: They dropped Perez because they think Magnussen is better. What is there to unpick?

 

Nothing, I think. But at least the money thing is a plausible theory (that I don't believe, btw, I just have to admit it is plausible), while the other that plagues Buttons threads everywhere is Martins 'manlove' for Button...



#47 trogggy

trogggy
  • Member

  • 7,247 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 21 November 2013 - 21:49

Maybe the internet should be regulated to only allow criticism of McLaren for screw-ups that only affect JB to be permitted.

No, that would be silly.

Posting something like 'If there is a wrong decision to be made you can pretty much count on MW & McLaren's cast of characters to find it and make it' in this thread is way beyond silly.  You can't even see silly from there.  If you have a specific decision in mind then post it.



#48 Ricardo F1

Ricardo F1
  • Member

  • 38,470 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 22 November 2013 - 00:23

I don't think MW could have been any clearer on the matter: They dropped Perez because they think Magnussen is better. What is there to unpick?

Well more to the point they're looking to 2015.  2014 is going to be an interim year at McLaren, I think that's clear.  They want Button in the car because he's a very known quantity, knows the organization, the car, feedback loops and probably some peeps at Honda.  They've clearly seen enough of Perez to believe he's not going to be WDC in 2015, so given that next year is a bit of a write-off the risk of running Magnussen is less than it might otherwise be.  If it's a success then you've got Magunusen and Vettel/Alonso/Hamilton (best case) in 2015 - with a fall back of Magnussen / Button if Honda isn't promising to be a world beater.  If it fails you've got Button and Hamilton/Alonso/Vettel/next star in a car for 2015.



#49 charly0418

charly0418
  • Member

  • 1,214 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 22 November 2013 - 00:25

so what's gonna happen with Vandoorne? Obviously he has to impress in GP2 first, but what if he does?



#50 Ricardo F1

Ricardo F1
  • Member

  • 38,470 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 22 November 2013 - 00:44

so what's gonna happen with Vandoorne? Obviously he has to impress in GP2 first, but what if he does?

Well if Magnussen does a Hamilton then you've got Magnussen / Vandoorne for 2015 and beyond.