Is McLaren really off the pace?

[Just_a_fan]

I think that the reason for Mclaren title drought could be due to Ron Dennis's working style and the way he manage the MTC.

Umm, you do realise that Ron has led the team for the last 26 years, don't you? You know during all of those successful years too. Jeez, it's not like he's recently arrived on the scene.

[raymondu999]

I think CHT means the current 2009-2010 title drought, which were all post-Dennis

[Just_a_fan]

If it's post-Ron then how can Ron's management style be the problem? Makes no sense at all.

[raymondu999]

Sorry I didn't make myself clear. I think (and I could be completely wrong) that CHT means the 2009-2010 title drought is due to the (lack of) Ron Dennis's management style

[Tamburello]

I don't think that mclaren needs a dominant car: they just need a strong base, and to reduce all the errors by the drivers and race management. I still think that Monza and Singapore played a big part in throwing away the championship

Nope you are wrong, and i see what you are suggesting subliminally. Why don't you just say Hamilton threw away the championship that they never had?
Singapore would not have happened if the car was fast enough.
Passing a redbull which is 1 second a lap faster than you, on a street circuit is not something you'd expect to happen at all.

You should realize that most of the issues last year were because of a inferior car boxing above it's weight class. It shouldn't have won Australia, Redbull had bad luck, neither turkey, or china. Many races the 25 wasn't even worthy of a podium finish.

A dominant car is what is needed to control the races and win predictably, not depending on the driver's talent to turn a ribsy dog of a car into a Thoroughbred.
I wont even mention praying for weather gambles. Shameful behavior which should only be excused for back markers.

Agreed. About the only race in which the MP4-25 was the fastest car was in Canada, and even there I think RB cocked up their strategy to give Hamilton a win. McLaren banked a lot of points early in the season due to Vettels reliability problems and Red Bull's less than optimal strategies (Melbourne, Turkey) but once these to aspects were under control, the McLaren was no match until Monza.

[fausto cedros]

Ringo wrote:Nope you are wrong, and i see what you are suggesting subliminally. Why don't you just say Hamilton threw away the championship that they never had?

I agree on a general basis, but i mantain what i said: i had a chance to exchange a few words with the boss on thursday before the race and the matter was:taking good points in Monza and in the last championship races would have meant a real possibility to clinch thetitle in an inferior car, and that was the team's plan. We all know how it ended. If the chance to win wasn't there, there would be no point in securing hamilton and button at the wheel. But this is a matter old as racing itself. Besides,ham itself said that he feared monza could well have been one of those title costing errors.

[raymondu999]

Actually I think the McLaren was well fast in China. AND they did the right strategy (at least on Button they did). It doesn't matter that the other teams lost that race due to strategy, because strategy is part of the game. If you cock up your strategy, you cock up your race (potentially)

[CHT]

I think CHT means the current 2009-2010 title drought, which were all post-Dennis

Nope thats not what I meant. I was referring to the Mclaren WCC title drought since 1998. 13 years in the making and still counting?

[raymondu999]

I don't think you can count it as 13. More like 12. We don't know. They might pull it off this year

[Pup]

13 years of no WCC title for a top budget team like Mclaren is a long time...If you are a financial backer to a team like Mclaren, I am sure you must have already throw[n] in the towel and call[ed] it a day.

Because as we know, sponsors draw the line at 12; or 11, actually*.

...

By the way: http://www.bigmsmallcbigl.com/



,,,

[CHT]

I don't think you can count it as 13. More like 12. We don't know. They might pull it off this year

If Vettel and Webber continue to run into each other on race day and Massa sending his "bro" to race, then maybe Mclaren might win it.

But honestly, if Mclaren cant put it together this year, I think they should just let Lewis go instead of trying to hold him back for marketing reasons.

...

[segedunum]

What they represent is you being wrong. McLaren have done better over the past four years than they averaged over the last thirty.

Sometimes........there are no words. In the last four years they won.....a driver's title they fell over the line for. That's it. Zip zilch. They've won more in the previous thirty years than that...... Once again, you don't describe what those averages are supposed to mean other than covering up McLaren's lack of championships for quite some time. You either win or you don't, and when you're in the ballpark you expect to pick up a few wins. Their return rate has just been poor and there's no way of covering it up.

There's no way to spin that fact to claim that they are on the decline. They aren't - plain, simple.

I'm sure that's what people thought of Williams around 2003/2004. That proved to be the last hurrah. The current situation smells rather similar. The end of Mercedes engines in a couple of years, treading water when it comes to competing with rival winning teams and an uncertain independent future.

...

[Just_a_fan]

There's no way to spin that fact to claim that they are on the decline. They aren't - plain, simple.

I'm sure that's what people thought of Williams around 2003/2004. That proved to be the last hurrah.

And as I've already pointed out, Ferrari had an even longer gap between title wins and then had their best ever run.

Success comes and goes. Sometimes you get it because of other peoples mistakes (e.g. Turkey last year), sometimes you're just the luckiest, sometimes the cleverest, sometimes simply being the most consistent even though you're never the quickest (look at last year's WCC race where McLaren finished ahead of Ferrari even though the latter probably had the better car). Indeed, having the quickest car is no more a guarantee of success than any other single factor; it's getting enough factors lined up on your side that gets you over the line first.

You seem to feel the need to believe that McLaren are finished. Great, good for you. But if you can predict the future so well, I'd suggest buying a lottery ticket might not be a bad plan...

[myurr]

I don't think you can count it as 13. More like 12. We don't know. They might pull it off this year

Also technically they had the best car in 2007 and would have won the constructors but were excluded. The car was also capable in 2008 but the second driver, whilst a lovely guy, wasn't the biggest points scorer in history.

[Tamburello]

Actually I think the McLaren was well fast in China. AND they did the right strategy (at least on Button they did). It doesn't matter that the other teams lost that race due to strategy, because strategy is part of the game. If you cock up your strategy, you cock up your race (potentially)

Nah. They weren't as fast the the RB or Ferrari I don't think but lucked out with Button on the correct strategy. Remember on three or four drivers out of the whole grid made the right call.

But yes, race-craft which includes strategic thinking is vital and Red Bull in particular were found wanting in this regard in the first half of the season.