145 replies to this topic

[dawg_7529]

maybe im secretly heiki kovalainen who in covert style, tries to raise the alarmbells thatat mclaren, everything is lewis lewis lewis and the 2nd driver is used and abused for everything. We should all write letters to the fia we think mclaren does not belong in f1 and they should be thrown out.

[four1]

Originally posted by Kooper


Actually, Lewis forced McLaren into choosing a three-stopper. Nineteen other drivers had no problems with the same Bridgestones. Bridgestone actually suggested a 2 stop strategy for Lewis but Mac chose the 3 stopper themselves.

http://f1.autosport....w.php/rid/5/p/4

This, for me, puts things into more proper perspective. It seems that LH and McLaren knew that they had to qualify ahead of Ferrari to have a chance to win the race and therefore chose a 3-stop strategy. Only problem was that things didn't go as planned. LH failed to get pole and that compromised their strategy. I don't buy the BS about LH being the only driver who took turn no. 8 so harshly that Bridgestone advised the team to do a 3-stopper. Maybe this is the behaviour by McLaren that bothers a lot of people.

As for me, I really don't care. I am a tifoso and I do believe that a team has a right to call whatever shots they like to achieve their team goals. As Domenicali just said after yesterday's race, "The most important thing is the team's interests and this is the key point for us." No hiding behind an artificial facade of "fairness for our drivers, we always let them race each other equally". I love Ferrari's transperancy and that's one of many reasons why I am proud to be a tifoso.

[internetf1]

Originally posted by four1
I love Ferrari's transperancy and that's one of many reasons why I am proud to be a tifoso.

MS stealing RB's win sure was transparent.

[four1]

Originally posted by internetf1


MS stealing RB's win sure was transparent.

Exactly. They stuck it out there for everyone to see without calling it "a gentlemen's agreement" like honest Ron did in 1998. Ferrari were so fortright that the FIA had to write a rule about not making it so obvious.

[internetf1]

Originally posted by four1


Exactly. They stuck it out there for everyone to see without calling it "a gentlemen's agreement" like honest Ron did in 1998. Ferrari were so fortright that the FIA had to write a rule about not making it so obvious.

Ferrari never had two strong drivers at any time. Meanwhile McLaren have never shied away from letting two strong drivers race each other. Without McLaren we'd never have Senna/Prost. Kimi/JPM. Hamilton/Alonso. Ferrari has nothing that compares to those rivalries. And that's why I'm proud to be a McLaren fan.

[Buttoneer]

Originally posted by dawg_7529
maybe im secretly heiki kovalainen who in covert style, tries to raise the alarmbells thatat mclaren, everything is lewis lewis lewis and the 2nd driver is used and abused for everything. We should all write letters to the fia we think mclaren does not belong in f1 and they should be thrown out.

You've not said 'for sure' nearly enough to be a driver.

[pingu666]

"We suggested a (two stop) strategy of 20 laps, 18 laps, 20 laps, but finally they decided on a three-stop strategy," said its motorsport director Hirohide Hamashima.

20 laps on the soft tyre would of been pretty horrid for lewis...

[tifosi]

Originally posted by internetf1


MS stealing RB's win sure was transparent.

Exactly, much better than McLaren's pathetic attempts to give Hakinnen wins.

[Anders Torp]

Originally posted by dawg_7529
At least we have prove that evil mclaren and evil dennis, have fulled up heiki heavier than god, british sensation, british ace, british guiding light, british man of the hour, british rookie of the year, british brdc driver of the year, british driver of the decade, british hero, british soon to be 693 times world champion, lewis hamilton

Your writing is as good as your thinking.

[four1]

Originally posted by internetf1


Ferrari never had two strong drivers at any time. Meanwhile McLaren have never shied away from letting two strong drivers race each other. Without McLaren we'd never have Senna/Prost. Kimi/JPM. Hamilton/Alonso. Ferrari has nothing that compares to those rivalries. And that's why I'm proud to be a McLaren fan.

You can't be too proud if you're really a McLaren team fan because 2 of those 3 pairings never produced championships for your team.

Given the amount of championships that Ferrari won in the last decade, they obviously don't need to justify to me why they don't have "two strong drivers at any time".

I stated that a team has a right to call whatever tactics they want in order to achieve their desired results. Don't be fooled, McLaren also desires those results more than trying to convince you about letting their drivers race. Was it an oversight for you not to include Hakkinen/Coulthard in your great examples of driver pairings? After all, this was one that produced their desired goals and by coincidence was the one that first showed us how one driver slows right down to let the other one go through. I admired that move as a team that clearly knew what it wanted until "Honest" Ron had to go and spoil it by justifying it as a "gentlemens' agreement".

[internetf1]

Originally posted by four1


You can't be too proud if you're really a McLaren team fan because 2 of those 3 pairings never produced championships for your team.

Given the amount of championships that Ferrari won in the last decade, they obviously don't need to justify to me why they don't have "two strong drivers at any time".

I stated that a team has a right to call whatever tactics they want in order to achieve their desired results. Don't be fooled, McLaren also desires those results more than trying to convince you about letting their drivers race. Was it an oversight for you not to include Hakkinen/Coulthard in your great examples of driver pairings? After all, this was one that produced their desired goals and by coincidence was the one that first showed us how one driver slows right down to let the other one go through. I admired that move as a team that clearly knew what it wanted until "Honest" Ron had to go and spoil it by justifying it as a "gentlemens' agreement".

I like when a team allows their drivers to race even if they don't win anything. This is racing and not wrestling.

[tifosi]

Originally posted by internetf1

This is racing and not wrestling.

Is there any particular part of the definition of the word "team" you do not fully understand?

[Henrik B]

Originally posted by Kooper


Actually, Lewis forced McLaren into choosing a three-stopper. Nineteen other drivers had no problems with the same Bridgestones. Bridgestone actually suggested a 2 stop strategy for Lewis but Mac chose the 3 stopper themselves.

http://f1.autosport....w.php/rid/5/p/4

I hadn't seen that statement from Bridgestone. Thanks.

I hate to raise it in such a flamefest as this topic, but isn't it a bit... strange that the Bridgestones couldn't handle the combination of Lewis, McLaren and turn eight? I refuse to believe that Lewis is THAT different from the next guy (and in that case, how could he "copy" Alonsos setups with such an extreme driving style, but that's also another topic...).

Put it like this, would Bridgestone be happy with a Ferrari going with a onestopper like Glock did? As I understand it it wasn't tyre wear in the usual sens, but high loads in that corner, and something that would ony happen with a fast car.

And in THAT case, aren't we pretty close to Michelingate?

[dawg_7529]

Originally posted by internetf1


Ferrari never had two strong drivers at any time. Meanwhile McLaren have never shied away from letting two strong drivers race each other. Without McLaren we'd never have Senna/Prost. Kimi/JPM. Hamilton/Alonso. Ferrari has nothing that compares to those rivalries. And that's why I'm proud to be a McLaren fan.

Then you must be devastated and outraged mclaren this season doesnt treat heiki equal to lewis and have fueld him way heavier in about all the qualifying sessions in 2008, whereas evil ferrari starngely enough, seems to give the advantage every gp to the other driver.

Welcome on board the ferrari fan base dude. We have the nicest and most honest team ever. The fia even invented a rule that you cannot be so transparant and give the other driver a disadvantage!!

[pedrovski]

So if bridgestone are saying they recommended 20-18-20 stints, then why are mclaren saying they needed to do 3 stop?? Maybe they're covering Lewis's lousy qual performance?

[tifosi]

Originally posted by dawg_7529

Welcome on board the ferrari fan base dude. We have the nicest and most honest team ever. The fia even invented a rule that you cannot be so transparant and give the other driver a disadvantage!!

Please don't be a Ferrari fan. Can't you be for Red Bill or someone?

[dawg_7529]

We at ferrari, we dont like ron dennis, anyone at mclaren or lewis hamilton. So no, we at ferrari rule.

[inca_roads]

Originally posted by lukywill
kovalainen is in the mclaren number 22 to make a good number 2 role to hamilton.

have any doubts? look at the points table: 28 lh, 14 heikki.

every second mclaren driver has indeed a equal treatment.

Yawn.

I support Hamilton. He beat Alonso. Get over it.

I supported Montoya. Kimi beat him. I got over it.

[Oho]

Originally posted by tifosi


Exactly, much better than McLaren's pathetic attempts to give Hakinnen wins.

What would those be?

[dawg_7529]

Originally posted by Oho


What would those be?

mika?

yes ron darling
are you ready for your pitstop?
i dont know ron, gimme a few laps

ron?
yes dc
can i come in now?
no dc, mika doesnt know yet and he has the first call
but its raining and im on slicks!!
no dc, mika first

mika baby
yes ron darling
do you think you know what you want? intermediates or full rian tyres?
i dont know ron, give me a few laps

ron?
yes dc
i spun out and lost 25 seconds, can i please come in for wet tyres
no dc, mika is first

ok ron, i come in now and i want full wets
ok mika, darling

hmm ron, these full wets are too slow i come in now for intermediates
okay mika

ron?
yes dc
im still on slicks
shut up dc
mika is first

[Peter Perfect]

Originally posted by dawg_7529


mika?

yes ron darling
...

I still don't understand how it was Brundles fault.

[dawg_7529]

brundle is dcs manager

[Peter Perfect]

Originally posted by dawg_7529
brundle is dcs manager

It all makes so much sense now! Brundle is actually the kingpin! Ron, Mika and Hamilton are his puppets! He's been manipulating F1 for years now and getting away with it!

[internetf1]

Originally posted by pedrovski
So if bridgestone are saying they recommended 20-18-20 stints, then why are mclaren saying they needed to do 3 stop?? Maybe they're covering Lewis's lousy qual performance?

Because 20 laps on softs would have ruined Hamilton's race, whether he qualified on pole or not. Kimi was catching him up rapidly during his last few laps on the short stint on softs.
http://www.fia.com/r...story_Chart.pdf

[Oho]

Originally posted by dawg_7529


mika?

Blaa blaa blaa, [rest of the living brain donor blabber removed]

How exactly does this answer the question? I guess I better not hold breath.

[Chiara]

http://en.f1-live.co...513152423.shtml

McLaren should not break its policy of driver equality in 2008, the team's British driver Lewis Hamilton insists.

Despite the 23-year-old's 14-point advantage over his new teammate Heikki Kovalainen, and the Mercedes-powered team's championship deficits to the dominant Ferrari, Hamilton remains committed to McLaren's long-standing avoidance of so-called 'number one' drivers.

Many pundits insist that Woking-based McLaren's failure to beat Ferrari to the crowns last year was its reluctance to favour either former driver Fernando Alonso, or Hamilton.

But even though Hamilton is regarded by some as the obvious choice as McLaren's potential no.1, the Briton insists that he wants the policy of driver equality to continue.

When asked if his higher status should be confirmed at Monaco, where last year he was ordered to finish behind Alonso in order to avoid a potentially race-ending collision on the tight streets, Hamilton replied: "No, I don't think so."

Last year's championship runner-up said Kovalainen "had a fantastic race" despite his damaging early pitstop last weekend in Turkey.

"We're a team and I want it to continue as it is, fair and square," Hamilton added.

D.B. © CAPSIS International
Source: GMM

[kar]

Equal in the sense that Lewis is let through at the starts so that he isn't held up by his teammate who actually has some petrol in his car.

[Suntrek]

Originally posted by Chiara
http://en.f1-live.co...513152423.shtml

When asked if his higher status should be confirmed at Monaco, where last year he was ordered to finish behind Alonso in order to avoid a potentially race-ending collision on the tight streets, Hamilton replied: "No, I don't think so."
D.B. © CAPSIS International
Source: GMM

Only one answer possible here though. Can anyone imagine Lewis - or any other driver for that matter - to answer "yes, I think so" on such a moronic question?

[Peter Perfect]

Originally posted by kar
Equal in the sense that Lewis is let through at the starts so that he isn't held up by his teammate who actually has some petrol in his car.

I didn't see anyone letting their teammate through at the start. What race were you watching?

Could it be that the combination of Hamiltons lighter car and starting on the racing line somehow helped him get a better start? Or does that not fit into your tinfoil-hat view of the world?

[pedrovski]

Equal treatment at mclaren?? with Kova 14 points behind Lewis I think we can put that to bed now. It's tough luck for Kova. I think mac's strategy at this race made sense. hamilton couldn't do anything on the soft tyre, qualifying on the hard with an optimal fuel level would have put him behind Kova and we can't have that. so it made sense to lighten him up to qualify on the harder tyre. Ron looked really pissed after the race as he had a chance to win and his drivers let him down.

[kar]

Originally posted by Peter Perfect


I didn't see anyone letting their teammate through at the start. What race were you watching?

Could it be that the combination of Hamiltons lighter car and starting on the racing line somehow helped him get a better start? Or does that not fit into your tinfoil-hat view of the world?

If Hamilton was in Kovaleinen's position he would have darted his car to the right to chop P3's nose off, and get an inside line into t2.

Rather than doing that Kovaleinen went into turn 1 on the inside and turned in _very_ early, putting him on the outside for t2, but left Raikkonen nowhere to go.

The only reasonable explanation for what appeared a predetermined move, is to cover Raikkonen, not Hamilton. Given the fuel strategies at play Kovaleinen had nothing to fear from Hamilton in terms of track position and plenty to fear from Raikkonen.

I'm not saying I disapprove of the McLaren strategy at the start - but it was pretty clear there _was_ a strategy. And it worked well for Hamilton, less so for Heikki.

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by kar


If Hamilton was in Kovaleinen's position he would have darted his car to the right to chop P3's nose off, and get an inside line into t2.

Rather than doing that Kovaleinen went into turn 1 on the inside and turned in _very_ early, putting him on the outside for t2, but left Raikkonen nowhere to go.

The only reasonable explanation for what appeared a predetermined move, is to cover Raikkonen, not Hamilton. Given the fuel strategies at play Kovaleinen had nothing to fear from Hamilton in terms of track position and plenty to fear from Raikkonen.

I'm not saying I disapprove of the McLaren strategy at the start - but it was pretty clear there _was_ a strategy. And it worked well for Hamilton, less so for Heikki.

I think you're ignoring Mr perfect's explanation, which is very likely correct and backed up by the fact that practically everyone on the 'dirty' side of the track lost out at the start.

[Mika Mika]

Originally posted by kar


If Hamilton was in Kovaleinen's position he would have darted his car to the right to chop P3's nose off, and get an inside line into t2.

Rather than doing that Kovaleinen went into turn 1 on the inside and turned in _very_ early, putting him on the outside for t2, but left Raikkonen nowhere to go.

The only reasonable explanation for what appeared a predetermined move, is to cover Raikkonen, not Hamilton. Given the fuel strategies at play Kovaleinen had nothing to fear from Hamilton in terms of track position and plenty to fear from Raikkonen.

I'm not saying I disapprove of the McLaren strategy at the start - but it was pretty clear there _was_ a strategy. And it worked well for Hamilton, less so for Heikki.

Different angle, Heikki was pinched between the BMW and Kimi just behind...

[kar]

Raikkonen certainly didn't. He got a great start still and definitely didn't lose out much at all to Hamilton, right up until Kovaleinen basically took his nose off.



Check it out.

[kar]

Originally posted by Mika Mika




Different angle, Heikki was pinched between the BMW and Kimi just behind...

Ahhh that's a much better view of it actually.

Okay, fair enough, Kovaleinen didn't have much option there then. Kimi certainly got away well though despite being on the dirty side.

[Mika Mika]

Originally posted by kar


Ahhh that's a much better view of it actually.

Okay, fair enough, Kovaleinen didn't have much option there then. Kimi certainly got away well though despite being on the dirty side.

If Kimi had 2m up i think he'd of got the inside line... He had to yied though... only fair....

[Stibbles]

Originally posted by kar


If Hamilton was in Kovaleinen's position he would have darted his car to the right to chop P3's nose off, and get an inside line into t2.

Rather than doing that Kovaleinen went into turn 1 on the inside and turned in _very_ early, putting him on the outside for t2, but left Raikkonen nowhere to go.

The only reasonable explanation for what appeared a predetermined move, is to cover Raikkonen, not Hamilton. Given the fuel strategies at play Kovaleinen had nothing to fear from Hamilton in terms of track position and plenty to fear from Raikkonen.

I'm not saying I disapprove of the McLaren strategy at the start - but it was pretty clear there _was_ a strategy. And it worked well for Hamilton, less so for Heikki.

Pretty sensible really - it was almost identical to ferrari's strategy at Brazil last year. The only screw-up was that Kov got his tyre punctured by KR - otherwise it would have worked a treat.

[HSJ]

Originally posted by Buttoneer
The '10 laps more' is because Hamilton pitted on lap 16 and Heikki then pitted on 26. But think people forgot about the pit and opportunity to top up on lap 2. I have no idea how much fuel they put in, but I would be surprised if Heikki had gone further than Kimi who pitted on lap 21. I think the problem is that we can only guess, sadly. Maybe the journal this week will have more insight?

I timed it and Heikki had the fuel hose connected for 2sec, but that's not how much fuel actually goes in. He probably got just few laps worth of fuel more, so while 10 laps is too much, the real figure is probably 5-8 laps. Turun Sanomat say it was 7-8 laps and that's probably it. So Heikki was faster than Lewis despite having 7-8 laps more fuel. Now it is clear that LH is being favored. They fuel Heikki heavier in an attempt to make sure LH is ahead on the grid. It didn't work in Spain, so they increased it for Turkey. It still didn't work, so maybe next time... LH was probably supposed to take pole in Turkey with the fuel load he had. Yeah yeah, I know, the excuse is that LH was on a three-stop strategy and Heikki on a two-stop strategy, but the pattern is quite clear nevertheless.

[Darth Sidious]

Originally posted by HSJ


I timed it and Heikki had the fuel hose connected for 2sec, but that's not how much fuel actually goes in. He probably got just few laps worth of fuel more, so while 10 laps is too much, the real figure is probably 5-8 laps. Turun Sanomat say it was 7-8 laps and that's probably it. So Heikki was faster than Lewis despite having 7-8 laps more fuel. Now it is clear that LH is being favored. They fuel Heikki heavier in an attempt to make sure LH is ahead on the grid. It didn't work in Spain, so they increased it for Turkey. It still didn't work, so maybe next time... LH was probably supposed to take pole in Turkey with the fuel load he had. Yeah yeah, I know, the excuse is that LH was on a three-stop strategy and Heikki on a two-stop strategy, but the pattern is quite clear nevertheless.

7-8 laps seems way too ambitious for me.

Whitmarsh said that Heikki would have gone longer than Massa but would have had to stay close, so that's three laps heavier at least for a start. However because Whitmarsh said he would have had to stay close it doesn't make it much more than that, and I'd say four or five at the most depending on how close Whitmarsh was talking about. For it to be 7 or 8 laps heavier he could have had the entire length of the front straight between them and still been able to pull off the overtake which goes against what Whitmarsh was saying. And I also can't accept that Heikki put his car on the front row grid against Massa - a Turkey specialist - with five or six laps more fuel than he had in his Ferrari. The difference of 0.18s doesn't fit with the guesstimate of 0.08s per lap fuel adjustment, which would mean Heikki was driving a car 0.4s heavier than Massa's in Q3.

My best guess is a stop on 20 or 21, but that's all it is - a guess

[Blue]

Even though it feels day to day more apparent that Lewis is favored, I would still not make the final call to either directions.

My guess / estimate is that Heikki was sentenced to be the second driver until Europe races, because he is the noob in the house. I hope they will remove the curse mark.

Last race was not telling as even Lewis was lighter he was on 3 stopper, witch was slower. So one could argue that it was Heikki, who got the better chance to win.

[ex Rhodie racer]

What´s that old saying? Everyone is equal, only some are more equal than others? I think that´s a fair description of how things work at Mac.
Actually, I feel their trouble is that they are chasing and not leading. I think at the moment they plan their stratagy around Ferrari´s, and as such, end up making more mistakes in the end. With grid position so vital these days, they are always playing catch up and exposing themselves to more risk taking. Maybe the drivers are not quite up to it, or maybe the car is at fault, or maybe it´s a combination of the two. Whatever the problem, I think they should work out the quickest way to complete the race, then work on getting their cars to the front in quali under those conditions. That way, a natural #1 and #2 will emerge. Any other way is contrived and everyone ends up more confused that before.
Again, I see Dennis as the problem here, because he´s put all his eggs in Lewis´s basket and doesn´t want to end up with the egg on his face. It´s time he let go, and let´s Lewis stand on his own two feet. I could understand him protecting Lewis last year, as he might have been afraid Fred, with his experience and reputation, would swamp him, but that is not the case any longer.
Let them compete Ron, and then back the better of the two when it comes to crunch time. It´s your only hope I´m afraid.

[Chiara]

http://en.f1-live.co...605103918.shtml

Kovalainen not 'number two' now - Haug
Equal status to remain throughout the season
05/06/08 10:39

Heikki Kovalainen's 23 point deficit to his McLaren team-mate Lewis Hamilton has not relegated him to de facto 'number two' status.

That is the insistence of team engine partner Mercedes-Benz's competition boss Norbert Haug, who denies that the Finnish driver will now fall in line to protect Hamilton's slim championship lead over the two Ferrari competitors.

Asked by Switzerland's Motorsport Aktuell when the right moment will arrive to concentrate on just a single driver, Haug replied: "In our opinion, never."

Although delivering good pace relative to Briton Hamilton this year, team newcomer Kovalainen, 26, has been struck by bad lack and in the eyes of some is unlikely to now bridge the gap in the title chase.

But Germany's Haug insists: "After six races, I would not say that.

"You only need to look at last year - at a later stage than this in the championship, Kimi Raikkonen was a greater distance from the top than Heikki is now."

Source: GMM
© CAPSIS International

[vsubravet]

Originally posted by Chiara
http://en.f1-live.co...605103918.shtml

Kovalainen not 'number two' now - Haug
Equal status to remain throughout the season
05/06/08 10:39

Heikki Kovalainen's 23 point deficit to his McLaren team-mate Lewis Hamilton has not relegated him to de facto 'number two' status.

That is the insistence of team engine partner Mercedes-Benz's competition boss Norbert Haug, who denies that the Finnish driver will now fall in line to protect Hamilton's slim championship lead over the two Ferrari competitors.

Asked by Switzerland's Motorsport Aktuell when the right moment will arrive to concentrate on just a single driver, Haug replied: "In our opinion, never."

Although delivering good pace relative to Briton Hamilton this year, team newcomer Kovalainen, 26, has been struck by bad lack and in the eyes of some is unlikely to now bridge the gap in the title chase.

But Germany's Haug insists: "After six races, I would not say that.

"You only need to look at last year - at a later stage than this in the championship, Kimi Raikkonen was a greater distance from the top than Heikki is now."

Source: GMM
© CAPSIS International

It still wouldn't be enough for the legion of McLaren bashers, who would settle for nothing less than RD giving it in writing, certified by the FIA and lodged in the ICJ.

[Tuxy]

Originally posted by Burai
Jesus, do we not have moderators around this place at all?

I thought that the year so far has been proof enough that McLaren DO treat their drivers equally.

[Buttoneer]

Originally posted by vsubravet


It still wouldn't be enough for the legion of McLaren bashers, who would settle for nothing less than RD giving it in writing, certified by the FIA and lodged in the ICJ.

And blessed by the Pope?

[howardt]

No further proof is required after 2007. Mclaren's equal driver policy caused team cooperation to unravel completely, but they still stuck with it rather than back their 2xWDC driver as the #1. Ron's persistence with equal status cost Mclaren their world champion driver - who quit in disgust - the 2008 WDC, and arguably the $100m fine and the WCC since it was a fit of pique at not being #1 that caused FA to threaten to dob them in to Mad Max.
If they don't change the policy for that, they won't change it for anything.