How did Button end up ahead of Perez in Spain?
- This topic has 31 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Eurgh, really need to have a set response for people who somehow think Hockenheim 2008 and 2010 were the same.
matt90 : Of course they werent the same in your eyes. In one, your favourite driver benefits, the change of position is not for the first 2-3 positions and on the other hand, when its Alonso and Ferrari and the exchange in positions is carried out blatantly, then its supposedly bad. Its like saying that killing someone isnt bad when its carried out secretly.
Such fanboyism clouds the brain and makes people write very silly thingsI can’t quite believe people are seriously comparing Hockenheim 2008 and 2010, let alone using them to justify such a serious allegation that British commentators and fans are ‘jingoistic’.
—
Hockenheim 2008: Lap 52/67 – Lewis Hamilton, having led virtually the entire race from pole position, has seen his 15 second lead disappear after the Safety Car is deployed, but he is still yet to make his final stop, unlike everyone else behind him who has made their final stop under the Safety Car.
After building up as much of a gap as he can after the race goes green again, Lewis pits on Lap 50 and comes out behind his teammate Kovalainen, who has spent the entire race behind Hamilton up to that point. With Hamilton by far the fastest car on track and easily McLaren’s best chance of winning, Kovalainen is either instructed or elects to move over for his teammate to allow him to attack for the win.
Given that Kovalainen had been comfortably slower than Hamilton all race and was more than likely going to get passed by Lewis sooner or later had he defended, this decision to move over makes a lot of sense and allows Hamilton to attack, then pass the cars ahead and, ultimately, win the race.
In summary; Hamilton, the leading McLaren all race long, found himself behind his slower teammate due to his team’s error, and Kovalainen allowed him through to enable him to battle for the win.
—
Hockenheim 2010: Lap 49/67 – Felipe Massa, having led the majority of the race from the start after taking the lead on the opening lap, has made his one and only stop of the race and is ahead of his teammate, Fernando Alonso, on merit. This is the first race Massa has led on merit since his return to the sport following his near-fatal accident, exactly one year prior to this date.
Alonso, in second, is quicker than Massa and is looking to make a move to pass his teammate for the lead. Alonso has a go on Lap 21, but Massa, perfectly legitimately, holds him off and keeps the lead. Rather than go for another overtake, Alonso starts to drop back. The gap remains around three seconds for the next 20 laps before the gap is closed and Alonso is again behind his teammate.
Instead of trying to overtake his teammate for the lead on the track, despite being the faster car, Alonso decides that the team should tell Massa to move over for him. Alonso has not spent a single lap ahead of Massa all race. Massa is leading the Grand Prix and on course to win, barring any mechanical issues, and Vettel in third is around seven seconds behind the two Ferraris and showing no signs of being able to catch them and challenging them for the win.
Even though Alonso is perfectly allowed to try and overtake his teammate, even though Massa has been ahead of him all race long on merit, not because of some random Safety Car intervention or strategy cock-up on Ferrari’s part, the team decide to give in to Alonso’s moaning and tell Felipe to let him through to give up a win that he was fully entitled to. Massa does so, and Alonso goes on to win the race. Alonso and Ferrari may be happy, but Massa is robbed of a victory that he was fully deserving of on the anniversary of the crash that nearly cost him his life simply because Alonso didn’t want to have to overtake his teammate to win.
In summary; Massa, ahead of his teammate all race long, is leading and in total control of the race. Alonso tells the team to make Massa move over for him so he can take the victory without having to try and overtake him for it, which they do.
—
If you are genuinely unable to see the differences between the two scenarios above and truly consider them to be one and the same, I believe you are entirely beyond reason.
It’s not the first time McLaren has told it’s drivers to hold station and it won’t be the last (was it Turkey2010 when Jenson didn’t get the message and passed Hamilton only for Hamilton to repass him THEN they held station?).
Re: Hockenheim 2010 – Although what MagG says is true, Unfortunately for Massa he was already out of the running for the championship and ultimately it proved critical come the season finale even if not working out in Alonso’s favour in the end.
Lap 52/67 – Lewis Hamilton, having led virtually the entire race from pole position, has seen his 15 second lead disappear after the Safety Car is deployed, but he is still yet to make his final stop, unlike everyone else behind him who has made their final stop under the Safety Car.
I know McLaren had this thing about electing to use team orders in favor of the guy who was ‘supposed’ to win the race, as in Melbourne 1998 (first race of the season), and a botched attempt at San Marino 1989, but it’s still a very clear team order, impacting the race in a manner a battle between 2 drivers of a different team would not. It’s different from Ferrari’s ‘number one driver finishes first when possible’ idea of Hockenheim 2010 and Austria 2002, that is right, but it’s not any better.
Imagine Schumacher was still between DC and Mika after his failed pit stop in Melbourne 1998. DC would have won the race fairly, as he and his crew did not make a mistake. If a Ferrari were between Hamilton and Kovalainen, it would not have mattered Hamilton was faster than Heikki. Lewis was unlucky with the safety car and his pit stop, sure, but if anyone other than Heikki was in front of him, they wouldn’t think ‘ah, bugger, Lewis deserves this more than I do’.
Where is Spa 1998 in this comparison? If anything, Hill in that case used the ‘we need the result’ talk, which has been employed by a fair number of teams afterwards. Malaysia 1999 had Schumacher obviously moving over for Irvine and purposely bothering Hakkinen, which in my eyes (mind you, Schumacher fanboy aged 9 at the time) was very weak. I believe Sauber employed team orders over P5 in 2001 or 2002.
Team orders are always ugly, regardless of how much ‘bad luck’ is in play or whatever ‘agreements’ there were. But they’re a part of F1, especially when the championship is in play, which is exactly what happened in both cases of Hockenheim. Of course people are going to be biased about team orders when they feel they negatively impact the championship.
The secretism deosn’t matter- there’s simply a clear-cut difference between letting your team mate through so that he can go and finish a further few places ahead, and swapping the drivers in the lead for no benefit in that particular race when both drivers are mathematically still in the hunt for the championship. To call that fanboyism is showing a delusional misunderstandnig of the large number of differences between the two cases. It strikes as the same kind of ignorance that people displayed when they thought Glock let Hamilton win the title.
The secretism deosn’t matter- there’s simply a clear-cut difference between letting your team mate through so that he can go and finish a further few places ahead, and swapping the drivers in the lead for no benefit in that particular race when both drivers are mathematically still in the hunt for the championship.
Massa was not in the championship hunt anymore by Germany. He was almost 80 points behind. Alonso was by far Ferrari’s best bet, and it nearly paid off at the end.
It doesn’t matter if Massa let Alonso through for the win, and Kovalainen “only” let Hamilton through for 3rd position. Bottom line is, on both occasions illegal team orders gave one driver the win. If Heikki defended against Lewis like any other driver, Hamilton would not have won that race. Plain and simple.
I bet that if Massa let Alonso through, who a few laps later overtook the lead 2 cars to win the race, people would still be complaining about team orders.
I bet that if Massa let Alonso through, who a few laps later overtook the lead 2 cars to win the race, people would still be complaining about team orders.
I hear you. And I completely agree with you.
on both occasions illegal team orders gave one driver the win.
I think it does matter whether or not it is the race leader that moves over, for many of the fans. And anyway, I don’t think anybody outside McLaren knows the radio traffic between Kovailanen and the pit wall, so perhaps he wasn’t instructed to move over at all.
I think it does matter whether or not it is the race leader that moves over, for many of the fans.
Yes, but very likely, Hamilton would not have been able to catch and overtake the leaders if Kovalainen had just defended his position a little. Therefore, in a more indirect way, the team orders did effect the lead and the result of the race, which ultimately effected the championship.
And anyway, I don’t think anybody outside McLaren knows the radio traffic between Kovailanen and the pit wall, so perhaps he wasn’t instructed to move over at all.
And anyway, I don’t think anybody outside Ferrari really knows the true meaning of “Felipe is faster than you” between Massa and the pit wall, so perhaps he wasn’t instructed to move over at all.
I guess that Kovalainen accidentally missed the apex of the hairpin by about 25 meters while travelling at approximately 30 km/h.
The excuses for McLaren’s hypocrisy are getting unbearable.
@Kingshark
How can you say that Hamilton wouldn’t have won if Kovalainen had defended? He passed Massa and Piquet just fine without team orders and took the lead with eight laps to spare. Kovalainen defending at that point in the race, when Hamilton was much faster and would have got through anyway, would only have risked a DNF and dropped points.I’m with Magnificent Geoffrey on this one. Hockenheim 08 and 10 are fundamentally different.
How can you say that Hamilton wouldn’t have won if Kovalainen had defended? He passed Massa and Piquet just fine without team orders and took the lead with eight laps to spare. Kovalainen defending at that point in the race, when Hamilton was much faster and would have got through anyway, would only have risked a DNF and dropped points.
Hamilton and Kovalainen were driving identical cars. If Kovalainen had just defended his position a little harder for a few laps, Hamilton may not have caught Massa. Bottom line is, though we’ll never know whether Lewis would have won that race if Heikki tried to defend, it would undoubtedly have made his job much harder if Heikki did defend.
Same goes with Germany 2010 – Alonso could have passed Massa on merit alone. He was already getting a few good runs/chances into the hairpin. Ferrari played it safe and smart, and told Massa to let him by. Again, though we’ll never know whether Alonso would have won that race if Massa tried to defend his position, it would undoubtedly have made his job much harder if Felipe did defend.
Same situation, one received tonnes of backlash while the other got a free pass? Why? Because one was done by Ferrari and the other by the sainted McLaren.
McLaren are worse than Ferrari. At least Ferrari have made it clear that they have a #1 drivers’ policy. McLaren continue with their double-faced behavior. They pretend that they let the drivers race, and then deploy so many blatant team orders. Of course, McLaren is a media darling so I’m not expecting any major criticism as usual.
As for Magnificent Geoffrey’s comment, he hates Ferrari, so I’m not even going to bother reading his comment.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.