McLaren - A picture of harmony

[Mr Alcatraz]

You know, I notice something here and it's the reticence of engineering oriented people to understand the role a driver plays. We had it when McLaren said they produced a 'neutral' car when people couldn't understand how one car could favour another and we have it here when people just can't understand how one driver can look after his tyres better than another.

Given all the races that we've witnessed over the years, the races we had before refuelling came in sixteen years ago and the victories of people like Alain Prost, I can't believe that some people don't believe that actually happens. Only a driver decides how fast he can go, only a driver can control how much he moves the car around and only a driver knows how much understeer or oversteer he has and only he can tell how much grip he is getting from the tyres.

To dismiss driver input under these circumstances is just......a bit insane, and goes against every piece of evidence we have had in these kinds of races since the days of yore.

It's a no brainer. Trying to learn the parameters of the boots on long runs while trying different setups (plus not knowing fuel loads) is exactly why it was particularly hard for us consumers to draw conclusions during winter testing. The season will play out. Pilots will continue to reference "their tires going off" or they were really happy with a “race” set up that allowed them to be on, or close to the limit with positive, acceptable, calculated wear.
Then it will be like everyone on the forum knew it all along. And they will not be lying.
Just suffering from "selective amnesia"

[Giblet]

Drivers also never let the blame fall on themselves. "The tires went off" could also be worded "I worked the tires too hard" but no driver wants that quote or soundbite floating around.

Other great ones like "The car spun" instead of "I spun the car" or "Was unable to recover the spin" are also words we rarely if ever hear.

We need to remember that the only talking a driver does that is worth anything is the kind of language Kimi speaks, called "Laptimeese" or "Podiumian".

[safeaschuck]

Perhaps this is the real underlying reason why they pitted Lewis when they did - knowing that he's a racer that would sacrifice his tyres for the sake of track position. In a high pressure environment, what is the safest option?

That's the thing under these rules. You'll have drivers who'll think that staying out is the option to go for and refuse to make more stops than they have to and others will want raw speed and the ability to be two or three seconds a lap on fresh tyres. In some races it might well pay off, especially at places where overtaking is a bit easier.

The fatal mistake Hamilton is making is that he thinks he can go as fast as he likes and drive the car in the way that he wants, that he can stay out and that there is no downside.

Segendunum's is the best summary for me. Also the early remark about 2 diffreent races should be obvious to everyone?
I'm ready to be told I'm wrong but as far as I understand these tyres CAN go through a graining phase where they 'go off' for x amount of laps/time and then they come back to a level where they are usable again if not 100% competetive.

Button had got through this phase without loosing places and could live with the tyres, Hamilton was either in it, or had gone through it and thought that the addtional performance of a new set of tyres might get him up the field.
This seems like an emotionally motivated assumption, perhaps it was even made out of desperation, but it dosen't seem any more flawed than a lot of decisions made during the a race. Unfortunatly it was wrong.

If Hamilton hadn't been wearing the tyres a little harder by working in reduced downforce behind a Renault for a third of the race he would have been at a different phase of the tyres lifespan, also if he could have got past the Renault on similarly worn tyres he wouldn't have felt the need to come in.
Hamilton wanted the tyres to be the magic bullet, but neither coming in, nor staying out was going to get him the result he wanted so he (or the team depending on your viewpoint) gambled on a pitstop.
In terms of his reaction via the team radio and in interviews Hamilton let his emotions get the better of him, Whitmarsh and anyone in the pits would have had slightly less adrenaline pumping at the time and it shouldn't be too much of a suprise that they could give a more PR friendly soundbite, especially as they had the top stepof the podium anyway.
I wouldn't want to see 25 yr old Hamilton get off scott free though. He was a bit petulant, a bit immature, a bit jealous.... Human?

[ringo]

Ok, i think what needs to be laid out in detail is exactly how does the tyre degrade beyond it's usefulness and what inputs from the driver exactly influence the degradation.
That is the meat of the matter. One driver cannot get 20 laps more of life from one type of tyre while driving in the same situation as another driver. That is a basic understanding. It seems some truely believe that is not the case.

Driver input is a factor yes and other external factors. But how influential is it really? and what type of inputs are we talking about here, doing standing burn outs or a few twitches of the steering wheel to give you 20 more laps?

If Jenson did the same exact maneuvers as Hamilton, he may have worn the tyres just as much. Yes?
He would not have been able to drive the same race as Hamilton, passing the same drivers (may not even attempt any passing) and get 20 laps more out of the tyres.
This year's tyres are so much harder, they become even more insensitive to driving style than 2009, especially when 1/2 the load is burned off through the race.

If Hamilton wants to save tyres he can. If Button wants to burn them he can. All drivers are adaptable and can vary their use of the tyre based on their situation. They are not "style" limited to come off the gas earlier or brake a little softer or move a knob on the steering wheel.
In Button's case he had no reason whatsoever to push them to the limit. In Hamilton's he had no other choice but make more use of them.

All who deny this have yet to produce any quantitative evidence that one driver can get 20 laps out of the same tyre than another driver in the same car driven in the same exact situation (bad air, duelling with other cars etc).

Anyway lets wait till Malaysia, where the pit strategy will be right! We will see if anyone has to change tyres 20 laps too soon.

[ringo]

Perhaps this is the real underlying reason why they pitted Lewis when they did - knowing that he's a racer that would sacrifice his tyres for the sake of track position. In a high pressure environment, what is the safest option?

That's the thing under these rules. You'll have drivers who'll think that staying out is the option to go for and refuse to make more stops than they have to and others will want raw speed and the ability to be two or three seconds a lap on fresh tyres. In some races it might well pay off, especially at places where overtaking is a bit easier.

The fatal mistake Hamilton is making is that he thinks he can go as fast as he likes and drive the car in the way that he wants, that he can stay out and that there is no downside.

Segendunum's is the best summary for me. Also the early remark about 2 diffreent races should be obvious to everyone?
I'm ready to be told I'm wrong but as far as I understand these tyres CAN go through a graining phase where they 'go off' for x amount of laps/time and then they come back to a level where they are usable again if not 100% competetive.

Button had got through this phase without loosing places and could live with the tyres, Hamilton was either in it, or had gone through it and thought that the addtional performance of a new set of tyres might get him up the field.
This seems like an emotionally motivated assumption, perhaps it was even made out of desperation, but it dosen't seem any more flawed than a lot of decisions made during the a race. Unfortunatly it was wrong.

If Hamilton hadn't been wearing the tyres a little harder by working in reduced downforce behind a Renault for a third of the race he would have been at a different phase of the tyres lifespan, also if he could have got past the Renault on similarly worn tyres he wouldn't have felt the need to come in.
Hamilton wanted the tyres to be the magic bullet, but neither coming in, nor staying out was going to get him the result he wanted so he (or the team depending on your viewpoint) gambled on a pitstop.
In terms of his reaction via the team radio Hamilton let his emotions get the better of him, Whitmarsh had slightly less adrenaline pumping at the time and was able to give a more PR friendly soundbite.

So you know what he was thinking?
He did not have any input into the matter. The called him in and he came in.
He has said that his tyres felt great and we have to live with that quote. If someone says he is lying, then the debate cannot go beyond that.
I also want to know what information do you have on his tyres not being able to finish the race? Whitmarsh did not admit this or confirm it.
All the drivers tyres were wearing down. Check Massa for instance. He was sliding all over the place, yet he managed to stay ahead of Alonso. His driving was much worse than the precise controlled driving Lewis was doing, and so were his tyres. His engineer had to guide him to the finish, yet he finished comfortably.

Where did you get the Magic bullet talk from? He had said no such thing, and i can't tell when last he was focused on depending on tyres to get around a driver.

The whole move was made by the team, and it was based not on his tyre wear but on the other cars having to pit later down in the race. The driver who pits first has an advantage since they have faster times for more laps. This is why the team mentioned rosberg and shumacher's times.

Hamilton would have went past Kubica eventually; in the same way he attempted to get past alonso. At least that is what i expected until he came in to pit.

[Rob W]

That is the meat of the matter. One driver cannot get 20 laps more of life from one type of tyre while driving in the same situation as another driver. That is a basic understanding. It seems some truely believe that is not the case.

On the 1st point I agree. But one driver can definitely get a few more than another in the same situation. And, historically compared to Hamilton. Button would be that guy. Sure, it may not be 20 laps but he certainly is easier on tires by all comments on TV by pundits like Brudle, Coulthard etc and in discussion I can recall in contrast to your earlier comment: "All evidence so far suggests hamilton is better on the tyres."

If you were referring to being better at maintaining the tires in any given situation hardly anyone would agree with you I imagine - drivers or pundits. If you were referring to hamilton being better, i.e. faster on them, then you are probably right. I don't see Button having the raw pace of Hamilton.

It's just that Hamilton's sort of raw pace seems to come at a cost on his tires which, this season, will potentially hurt him more than in previous years on a few tracks.

...But how influential is it really? and what type of inputs are we talking about here, doing standing burn outs or a few twitches of the steering wheel to give you 20 more laps? If Jenson did the same exact maneuvers as Hamilton, he may have worn the tyres just as much. Yes?

Jenson doesn't drive like Hamilton so the only way to know what he would be like if he drove the same is to look back at Hamilton again. Kinda pointless really.

Two drivers can lap at the same speed in the same car and end up with vastly different tire wear. See NASCAR for ample evidence of that.

All who deny this have yet to produce any quantitative evidence that one driver can get 20 laps out of the same tyre...

See your quote above in red? Touché.

[PlatinumZealot]

He is correct. This site is a technical site right. The only scientific evidence that we have so far, the data from Bridgestone, says that Hamilton was better on the tyres.

In Melbourne Hamilton and Button had two very different races in two different positions. So there is no controlled scenario to find out who was better on the tyres then.

And so my Question is this: How did the team know that Hamilton's tyres could not last the race when the team clearly had no previous data of the tyre in those exact conditions? Remember they had no clue the SOFT tyres can last fifty laps. If they knew that, they would have WAITED for the Ferraris lap times to degrade massively or for them to pit first. Sort of like a last man standing situation.

So how did they know at the time that the Hamilton's and Ferrari's and The Renaults tyres and in extension Button's tyres would not last 20 more laps?

Whitmarsh said he SAW Hamilton's tyres graining. Is a cross eyed middle aged man's vision from 50 meters away in low daylight light conditions any better than what Hamilton was Feeling in the car?

I don't think so. Hamilton said the tyres felt great and Kubica said Hamilton was much faster. The only issue is that Hamilton is a part of the team and so he has to do what they say. Remebmer Hamilton was in the middle of a fight with Kubica. When you are in a fight, the adrenaline levels in your blood increase rapidly and you just can't think straight. His mind was in no position to make those kinds of deep tyre calculations and so he simply accepted the order to pit without hesitation.

[PlatinumZealot]

Ah good.. just in time:

http://www.formula1.com/news/interviews ... 10602.html

Q: How concerned were you about the tyres lasting on Kubica’s car?

SN: Before the race I never would have thought that the option tyre could perform so well over 50 laps, but the way the race unfolded meant that we had no choice but to try and make them last the distance. If we had pitted for fresh tyres, we would have dropped a long way down the field.

[DaveKillens]

One thing about many truly GREAT drivers is that they take ownership of their teams. Drivers such as Fangio, Prost, and Schumacher, for example, not only are great drivers, but also used their brains to improve their situation. In Formula One, it's not the driver who goes out and puts in qualifying lap after qualifying lap wins most races. Instead, it's the driver who knows who to race, and when to race are the long-term champions.

They were right. Mclaren were wrong on the strategy, and there was no way hamilton could do such a calculation with 20 odd laps to go, no driver could, he is not a tyre engineer.

A lot of testing in pre-season, and on race weekend is to collect data on tire wear versus amount of fuel carried. Obviously, this data is critical. Many drivers who are truly dedicated to their craft and success will spend countless hours going over graphs and reams of tire data with their engineers. And once the race begins, those who did their homework start the race with a more comprehensive understanding of what to expect from their tires under different scenarios.

Other drivers, for example Jacques Villeneuve when he was at BAR, just showed up, drove, got out of their cars and disappeared until their next driving duty required their presence. I suspect that right now, Lewis Hamilton is in that category. I believe he did not know or bother to learn all the data collected so far, and had to rely on his team to make the calls, because in all honesty, all he could determine was whether the present tires were quick or not.

Meanwhile, Jenson Button, with years spent in inferior cars had to learn how to maximize every aspect of his car. I believe that he goes to the bother of learning the tire wear characteristics, and uses this information to advance his position.

At the beginning of the Melbourne race, Lewis Hamilton was attempting to pass anyone and everyone. That looks nice on the surface, but maybe not very smart. Button watched Hamilton pass him, and made the easy observation that Hamilton was pushing his car and tires much harder than Button. Jenson was most likely aware of his expected tire life, and the warning signs. So he and his team made a very ballsy call, and pitted for slicks when it appeared to be a sign of desperation or insanity. it was neither, it was the right call based on the situation at hand.

Jenson did more than attempt to win by just going fast. Jenson Button took a risk and changed tires, and wound up where he hoped, near the front, in clear air, and away from the tussle and fighting further back. Once in that position, it was basically a case of bringing the car home.

Some believe that Hamilton drove a better race than Button. Lewis Hamilton was definitely involved in more action and drama, but Jenson Button did the right thing, made the right calls, and inherited a win when Vettel's car broke. Who's the better driver in Australia? Definitely Button, because he used his head.

Right now I consider that Lewis Hamilton has not developed as much as he should have. He appears to be a simple pilot, one who requires direction because all he does, and wants to do is go fast. I also believe that the years he spent with his father as manager retarded his development. Lewis needs a manager who can not only negotiate contracts, but steer Lewis into a development path where he can begin to take ownership of the team, and be more than a quick driver.

I cannot rate Button up there with the likes of Schumacher, or Prost, or Fangio, but I believe he's a level above Hamilton in using the assets at his disposal. He knows when to fight, and who to fight, he uses strategy as the tool it is, and knows that to be successful, it takes more than just going on track and putting in quick laps and battling anyone and everyone for position to become a champion.

[ringo]

Nice story there.
Really interesting, but it looks like you are assuming Hamilton is stupid for some reason, when you don't know the guy.
I see your point concerning drivers taking in some of the engineers data, but it is not supported by any facts that Jenson learned more than Hamilton. Secondly Button did not calculate anything, he dealt with his current situation and that was that.
Basically he was in cruise control. Front of the pack is an easier race, less action, more time to play around with the car because he has nothing else to do and not much stress and thinking goes into it after you are 25 seconds up on you nearest competitor.

I agree with Button being a very cunning guy, those 10 years had to count for something, but I think we are looking too much into this race, as people always look too much into anything involving Lewis Hamilton.

I repeat for a third time, Malaysia this week folks!!!! Hamilton will just have to prove all doubters wrong for the umpteenth time!!
Mclaren will learn from this and make wiser decisions.

[timbo]

Hamilton will just have to prove all doubters wrong for the umpteenth time!!

One thing about Hamilton is that he always have to prove that he is not stupid somehow.
In his 3+ years of F1 career he has fantastic results but also did/was involved in crazy amount of crap. Don't know if he's unlucky, has bad karma or maybe sometimes does not think a lot

[myurr]

Hamilton will just have to prove all doubters wrong for the umpteenth time!!

One thing about Hamilton is that he always have to prove that he is not stupid somehow.
In his 3+ years of F1 career he has fantastic results but also did/was involved in crazy amount of crap. Don't know if he's unlucky, has bad karma or maybe sometimes does not think a lot

Or he's both really competitive and still relatively new to F1. Name one driver that didn't make bonehead mistakes or get caught up in some controversy or another in their first few seasons.

[timbo]

Or he's both really competitive and still relatively new to F1. Name one driver that didn't make bonehead mistakes or get caught up in some controversy or another in their first few seasons.

Well, we can do count offs. I bet he would be among the leaders.
Interestingly that he got his massive championship lead at 2007 by NOT making mistakes. His first half season was flawless.
And last year after the recovery from "liegate" he was quite solid.
Is that he just doesn't like pressure? Look how qualifying in Melbourne was a flop for him after much inflated "burnoffs" scandal. He almost recovered from that, but his comments after the race showed that he is not in good spirit.

[Mysticf1]

Basically he was in cruise control. Front of the pack is an easier race, less action, more time to play around with the car because he has nothing else to do and not much stress and thinking goes into it after you are 25 seconds up on you nearest competitor.

This is very true, but why was he up front and in cruize control rather than mixed up in battles further back? Because he used his head and switched tyres rather than trying to overtake the car in front. No matter how you justify it Hamilton was out foxed from a similar position at that time in the race, regardless of pitting twice or otherwise.

[myurr]

My take on it is that McLaren were, with Hamilton, too busy racing the Red Bull of Mark Webber than worrying about the Ferrari's. They felt they had them licked on race pace and so weren't worrying so much about them. Webber pitted, was going fast, McLaren reacted to bring Hamilton in and make sure he came out in front of Webber.

Where I feel they went wrong is in considering that if they had kept the track position and all the other cars had needed to pit for tyres then they would only have lost a place to Webber (barring other incident). By stopping Hamilton they lost track position to both Ferrari's and arguably Kubica as well (chances were that Hamilton would have found a way past eventually).

The only other mitigating fact that I can think of is that Hamilton had spent most of the race following and passing people which is without question harder on the tyres than just cruising at the front (or in clear air). Button had been blessed with the latter situation and thus would automatically be easier on the tyres regardless of driving style etc.

The deciding factor for McLaren was quite probably their belief that Hamilton had already taken too much out of his tyres to get to where he was, and that he would need to stop again regardless of what the others do. In which case it was better to bring him in when they did and make sure he was in front of Webber than wait and see what happened with the others and concede that place.