This forum contains threads to discuss teams themselves. Anything not technical about the cars, including restructuring, performances etc belongs here.
I'm not opposed to team orders per se. I am angry at the bias of people saying the team driver who is (rather luckily) leading his teammate at the halfway point of a 24 round championship should have the full weight of the team behind him. I say let them race at this very early stage, just my opinion after 50 years of following McLaren F1. I'm not even of the belief that it should be left until the other driver has zero mathematical chance, that would be too democratic. If Lando drops a race with Oscar winning with fastest lap they would be 18 pits apart - not totally unlikely, both drivers must be allowed free reign with 8 (+3 sprints) to go. If you ASS U ME that fully backing one driver over the other will be the most profitable tactic then you may make an ASS over U and ME! It's still game on.
Turning attention to McLaren strategy I understand the way they went. Conservative. With 18 laps to go and Oscar maintaining a 5 second lead over Charles it should have been a case of "who blinks first". McLaren blinked and lost. Charles tyres were much older than Oscar's and the times as far as I can see were still quite strong. The gaps to Lewis and Carlos were such that even if the tyres went off the cliff the damage would be insignificant in results. Yes, when you make the choice to pit again while still aiming to win you need to do it early enough to be in with a chance of catching the leader. The magnitude of the tactical error was, in retrospect fairly low/medium and not in the range of Silverstone's howler.
But the fact remains, he heeded to team's interest. Not Oscar here.
You don’t win championships by only converting 20% of your poles to wins, and only getting 1 of your 2 wins on speed merit. Danny Ric and Carlos Sainz have better pole to win conversions and never had a car as fast as Lando:
Does anyone think with the Mclaren that they’ve had since Miami, that peak Hamilton, Alonso, Senna, Prost, Schumacher, current Verstappen, etc would have numbers like that? Absolutely not.
You can't justify the lack of judgement on Oscar's part and team's inability to manage this particular situation by quoting various theories and trying to downplay Lando's performance.
It’s a motor race. It’s Grand Prix Racing, not Grand Prix Time Trial.
Lando has shown a lack of judgement in terms of being a defensive driver.
You don’t win championships by only converting 20% of your poles to wins, and only getting 1 of your 2 wins on speed merit. Danny Ric and Carlos Sainz have better pole to win conversions and never had a car as fast as Lando:
Does anyone think with the Mclaren that they’ve had since Miami, that peak Hamilton, Alonso, Senna, Prost, Schumacher, current Verstappen, etc would have numbers like that? Absolutely not.
You can't justify the lack of judgement on Oscar's part and team's inability to manage this particular situation by quoting various theories and trying to downplay Lando's performance.
It’s a motor race. It’s Grand Prix Racing, not Grand Prix Time Trial.
Lando has shown a lack of judgement in terms of being a defensive driver.
Lando’s performance speaks for itself.
Again, you are simply moving away from teh argument by wandering around. It was the team that should have managed the situation and they failed miserably by not containing Oscar.
I'm not opposed to team orders per se. I am angry at the bias of people saying the team driver who is (rather luckily) leading his teammate at the halfway point of a 24 round championship should have the full weight of the team behind him. I say let them race at this very early stage, just my opinion after 50 years of following McLaren F1. I'm not even of the belief that it should be left until the other driver has zero mathematical chance, that would be too democratic. If Lando drops a race with Oscar winning with fastest lap they would be 18 pits apart - not totally unlikely, both drivers must be allowed free reign with 8 (+3 sprints) to go. If you ASS U ME that fully backing one driver over the other will be the most profitable tactic then you may make an ASS over U and ME! It's still game on.
Turning attention to McLaren strategy I understand the way they went. Conservative. With 18 laps to go and Oscar maintaining a 5 second lead over Charles it should have been a case of "who blinks first". McLaren blinked and lost. Charles tyres were much older than Oscar's and the times as far as I can see were still quite strong. The gaps to Lewis and Carlos were such that even if the tyres went off the cliff the damage would be insignificant in results. Yes, when you make the choice to pit again while still aiming to win you need to do it early enough to be in with a chance of catching the leader. The magnitude of the tactical error was, in retrospect fairly low/medium and not in the range of Silverstone's howler.
That's exactly how they lost the title in 2007.
They lost the title in 2007 because they foolishly left Hamilton out 1 lap too long when it rained and another a mechanical issue.
I'm not opposed to team orders per se. I am angry at the bias of people saying the team driver who is (rather luckily) leading his teammate at the halfway point of a 24 round championship should have the full weight of the team behind him. I say let them race at this very early stage, just my opinion after 50 years of following McLaren F1. I'm not even of the belief that it should be left until the other driver has zero mathematical chance, that would be too democratic. If Lando drops a race with Oscar winning with fastest lap they would be 18 pits apart - not totally unlikely, both drivers must be allowed free reign with 8 (+3 sprints) to go. If you ASS U ME that fully backing one driver over the other will be the most profitable tactic then you may make an ASS over U and ME! It's still game on.
Turning attention to McLaren strategy I understand the way they went. Conservative. With 18 laps to go and Oscar maintaining a 5 second lead over Charles it should have been a case of "who blinks first". McLaren blinked and lost. Charles tyres were much older than Oscar's and the times as far as I can see were still quite strong. The gaps to Lewis and Carlos were such that even if the tyres went off the cliff the damage would be insignificant in results. Yes, when you make the choice to pit again while still aiming to win you need to do it early enough to be in with a chance of catching the leader. The magnitude of the tactical error was, in retrospect fairly low/medium and not in the range of Silverstone's howler.
That's exactly how they lost the title in 2007.
They lost the title in 2007 because they foolishly left Hamilton out 1 lap too long when it rained and another a mechanical issue.
They had the opportunity to manage the situation throughout the year. They didn't lose it for one sporadic incident.
You can't justify the lack of judgement on Oscar's part and team's inability to manage this particular situation by quoting various theories and trying to downplay Lando's performance.
It’s a motor race. It’s Grand Prix Racing, not Grand Prix Time Trial.
Lando has shown a lack of judgement in terms of being a defensive driver.
Lando’s performance speaks for itself.
Again, you are simply moving away from teh argument by wandering around. It was the team that should have managed the situation and they failed miserably by not containing Oscar.
Lando left the door wide open, AGAIN. That’s on Lando. In order to be passed, you need to invite someone to pass you. That’s a skill a race car driver should have to prevent.
It’s a motor race. It’s Grand Prix Racing, not Grand Prix Time Trial.
Lando has shown a lack of judgement in terms of being a defensive driver.
Lando’s performance speaks for itself.
Again, you are simply moving away from teh argument by wandering around. It was the team that should have managed the situation and they failed miserably by not containing Oscar.
Lando left the door wide open, AGAIN. That’s on Lando. In order to be passed, you need to invite someone to pass you. That’s a skill a race car driver should have to prevent.
It's on team that they failed to manage the situation that they could have easily addressed. They failed and they might just lost the WDC. It's on them.
Again, you are simply moving away from teh argument by wandering around. It was the team that should have managed the situation and they failed miserably by not containing Oscar.
Lando left the door wide open, AGAIN. That’s on Lando. In order to be passed, you need to invite someone to pass you. That’s a skill a race car driver should have to prevent.
It's on team that they failed to manage the situation that they could have easily addressed. They failed and they might just lost the WDC. It's on them.
Manage what? Lando inviting people to beat him up at the start? Including sprint races, that is 7x now, with 5 different drivers.
That’s a Lando problem.
Last edited by Hoffman900 on 02 Sep 2024, 05:28, edited 1 time in total.
They lost the title in 2007 because they foolishly left Hamilton out 1 lap too long when it rained and another a mechanical issue.
They had the opportunity to manage the situation throughout the year. They didn't lose it for one sporadic incident.
You know why people like Mclaren? Because they didn’t do that crap like Ferrari.
I am sure neither do you. There is only one driver that can win WDC and the wisdom is to prioritize the points leader. That's how titles are and history is made. Otherwise, history will remember them as fools like in 2007.
Lando left the door wide open, AGAIN. That’s on Lando. In order to be passed, you need to invite someone to pass you. That’s a skill a race car driver should have to prevent.
It's on team that they failed to manage the situation that they could have easily addressed. They failed and they might just lost the WDC. It's on them.
Manage what? Lando inviting people to beat him up at the start? Including sprint races, that is 7x now.
That’s a Lando problem.
It's a team game and there was no need for the second driver to attack the driver in points lead and has the best chance to challenge and win the WDC. Common sense.
It's on team that they failed to manage the situation that they could have easily addressed. They failed and they might just lost the WDC. It's on them.
Manage what? Lando inviting people to beat him up at the start? Including sprint races, that is 7x now.
That’s a Lando problem.
It's a team game and there was no need for the second driver to attack the driver in points lead and has the best chance to challenge and win the WDC. Common sense.
Clearly you’ve never raced anything.
Oscar had a run on his line. He slams on the brakes and he gets mugged by everyone behind him and probably ran into. All he did was release the brake and roll into a hole Lando gave him. Lando could have just as easily put his car down the middle of the track and prevented this from the get go and he didn’t. Again, he choked.
Manage what? Lando inviting people to beat him up at the start? Including sprint races, that is 7x now.
That’s a Lando problem.
It's a team game and there was no need for the second driver to attack the driver in points lead and has the best chance to challenge and win the WDC. Common sense.
Clearly you’ve never raced anything.
Oscar had a run on his line. He slams on the brakes and he gets mugged by everyone behind him. All he did was release the brake and roll into a hole Lando gave him. Lando could have just as easily put his car down the middle of the track and prevented this from the get go and he didn’t.
I don't need to race anything to have some sense of managing teams and it's core objectives. Regardless of what Lando did or Oscar did, team should have simply prioritized Lando's position who has the best chance to win the WDC given how weak Red Bull has got. Bigger team objectives are important than petty driver ambition.
[quote=Dunlay post_id=1241970 time=1725247922 user_id=48326]
[quote=Hoffman900 post_id=1241969 time=1725247840 user_id=41250]
[quote=Dunlay post_id=1241968 time=1725247664 user_id=48326]
It's a team game and there was no need for the second driver to attack the driver in points lead and has the best chance to challenge and win the WDC. Common sense.
[/quote]
Clearly you’ve never raced anything.
Oscar had a run on his line. He slams on the brakes and he gets mugged by everyone behind him. All he did was release the brake and roll into a hole Lando gave him. Lando could have just as easily put his car down the middle of the track and prevented this from the get go and he didn’t.
[/quote]I don't need to race anything to have some sense of managing teams and it's core objectives. Regardless of what Lando did or Oscar did, team should have simply prioritized Lando's position who has the best chance to win the WDC given how weak Red Bull has got. Bigger team objectives are important than petty driver ambition.
[/quote]
You can’t priotize a position if the driver isn’t up to the task of defending himself.
That’s motorsports and sports in general. Nothing is handed to you. It’s the whole GR “but I was forecasted to win” attitude.
Last edited by Hoffman900 on 02 Sep 2024, 05:37, edited 2 times in total.
Oscar had a run on his line. He slams on the brakes and he gets mugged by everyone behind him. All he did was release the brake and roll into a hole Lando gave him. Lando could have just as easily put his car down the middle of the track and prevented this from the get go and he didn’t.
I don't need to race anything to have some sense of managing teams and it's core objectives. Regardless of what Lando did or Oscar did, team should have simply prioritized Lando's position who has the best chance to win the WDC given how weak Red Bull has got. Bigger team objectives are important than petty driver ambition.
You can’t priotize a position if the driver isn’t up to the task of defending himself.
That’s motorsports and sports in general. Nothing is handed to you. It’s the whole GR “but I was forecasted to win” attitude.
History is full of examples of how to prioritize team's objective and do things that are important, regardless of a driver is defending his position or not. Losing a WDC is a matter of shame with such stupid decisions. Remember James Vowel's, "Valtteri this is James here". That's how you make tough decisions.
