Any sympathy for McLaren?

Posted on | Author Keith Collantine

Fernando Alonso, McLaren-Mercedes, Hungary, 2007 | Daimler ChryslerRon Dennis and McLaren-Mercedes made an almighty mess of qualifying for the Hungarian Grand Prix.

But even though I think the punishment meted out to Alonso was just, I have some sympathy for them team over what happened.

It would be better for the sport if McLaren’s championship points were reinstated at the appeal hearing.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions (16th-century proverb)

However badly McLaren handled the controversy last Saturday, I feel their intentions were ultimately good.

Ron Dennis sets the bar high when it comes to driver pairings. His approach is simple: get the two best drivers he can afford, treat them fairly, and may the best man win.

That was the case with all McLaren’s famous pairings: Niki Lauda and Alain Prost, Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna, Mika Hakkinen and David Coulthard, Kimi Raikkonen and Juan-Pablo Montoya – the lot. And you can’t argue with the results – McLaren have won more of everything than any team bar Ferrari.

If only Jean Todt had operated the same philosophy during the turgid years of Michael Schumacher dominance that this decade began with. I have no doubt Schumacher would still have won his titles, but we might have been spared the sad episodes at the A1-Ring and Indianapolis in 2002, among others.

That’s why I have respect for McLaren (and why, this year, I think more highly of Ferrari than I have since the days of Gerhard Berger and Jean Alesi in the mid-’90s – even if they hardly ever won anything back then).

There are those who cynically say it’s impossible for a team to have two number one stars, treat them fairly, and have them both get along. But if every team insisted on having an absolute number one and a subservient lackey then we would be forever watching farcical races with drivers holding up rivals to benefit their team mates.

There was an appalling German touring car ‘race’ at Zandvoort last week where half the Audi team seemed to spend most of the racing pulling over for the team’s favoured sons Mattias Ekstrom and Martin Tomcyk. Do we want to see F1 turn into that? Surely not.

From what happened this weekend it’s clear that McLaren’s qualifying strategy is designed to fulfil the two requirements of maximising the regulations to be as competitive as possible, and give their two drivers as fair treatment as is possible. But applying those two desires to F1’s over-complicated qualifying regulations is very difficult, and this is where they ran into trouble.

In the third part of qualifying, the drivers need to complete as many laps as possible to use up all the fuel they can, so that they can set their qualifying times at the end of the session with a light fuel load. The more laps they do, the more fuel they get for the fuel load they start the race with.

But McLaren realised that because of the time taken to service each car in the pits, there has to be a substantial gap of time between the two cars on the track. This makes it impossible to guarantee that, at ever circuit, each of their drivers can do the same number of laps.

Therefore, they set up a rota – their drivers would alternate which one got to have the ‘extra’ lap of fuel at each track.

Fernando Alonso, Lewis Hamilton, McLaren-Mercedes, Hungary, 2007 | Daimler ChryslerThe Hungaroring was supposed to be Alonso’s turn. But this is where things started to go wrong. Hamilton refused to let Alonso past at the start of the session, and all McLaren’s plans were thrown into disarray.

On both of Alonso’s visits to the pits during qualifying the team kept him stationary for an unusual length of time. And on the second visit, even after he was given the clear to proceed, Alonso chose to have a conversation with one of his engineers, even though he knew Hamilton was waiting behind him and time was critically short.

The end result, as we all know, is that Hamilton failed to get out in time.

Based on what we know so far, it’s not clear exactly how McLaren intended to ‘punish’ Hamilton for preventing Alonso from getting an extra lap of fuel in. Perhaps they would have changed his race startegy to make it less favourable, perhaps they would have given Alonso the ‘extra’ lap for the next two races.

It’s academic, because Alonso clearly took it upon himself to make sure Hamilton didn’t get an extra lap in. McLaren tried to support him, because Hamilton’s action had provoked it, but that only made things worse.

Alonso was penalised for delaying Hamilton in the pits in exactly the same way that Giancarlo Fisichella was punished for delaying Sakon Yamamoto in the track. I have no complaint about that penalty (although the Spanish motorsport federation RFEA does).

McLaren was penalised for holding Hamilton for the original 20 seconds. But it was the additional 10 seconds delay that Alonso forced upon him that prevented Hamilton from making the cut.

McLaren could conceivably argue, at its forthcoming appeal hearing, that it wanted Hamilton to get his lap in as late as possible because he would be able to enjoy the track when it had the most rubber down and therefore was at the peak of its conditions. It’s interesting that the team’s punishment (loss of championship points) is reversible, but Alonso’s (losing five places on the grid) is not.

If McLaren weren’t trying to stop Hamilton from setting his final lap time, then I think they should be cleared at the appeal. If they truly were trying to treat their drivers as fairly as possible, even when both of their drivers had undermined that, then that should be applauded.

But if I do feel a modicum of sympathy for them, it’s tempered by the thought that they made a rod for their own backs by handling everything so badly, failing to explain everything honestly straight after qualifying, and refusing to share their radio communications with the television broadcast.

It’s also frustrating that the qualifying system has gotten so complicated that teams have to go to such ridiculous lengths in order to treat both its drivers fairly.

Forcing drivers to qualify with their race fuel loads, and the unnecessary complexity of giving them fuel credit laps and all the rest of it, put McLaren in an unenviable position.

The governing body should take note of the problems the over-complicated qualifying system has caused, drop the requirement that drivers have to qualify with their race fuel loads, and make qualifying transparent and meaningful again.

Photos: Daimler Chrysler

Related links

Tags: / / / /

35 comments on “Any sympathy for McLaren?”

Jump to comment page: 1 2
  1. Haplo, Hamilton says sorry for doing so, this should tell you something. Is funny how the press says different things in UK and Spain, you have to read both of them to find out a little bit more of the reality.

  2. I find it somewhat difficult to understand how the FIA (race stewards) can really assess such a penalty.

    The other thing that’s amazing is the one-sidedness of the British press/fans. You would think that Hamilton is Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Darwin, and Churchill wrapped into one.

    Minneapolis – St. Paul, USA.

  3. You know what it would be really funny after all this, it would be that for the next season Hamilton will go to Ferrari and Alonso back to Renault…

    What the press would say then… I guess they would change their opinion, after all they do not only inform and they neither say all, and this is the mindenstens they should do.

    Gran Canaria, Canary Island, Spain

  4. Sean: I agree, but can you blame them? He really is something to be excited about. And it really is night and day when comparing the British press and the Spanish press (as Cristina pointed out).

    Cristina: in Gran Canaria? Wow, what a beautiful place.

  5. I am loving this….Mcclaren are tubes, why did they let it get this far? Both team and drivers are at fault. This is playground stuff…getting sick reading the antics of the children cheating..

  6. Well…
    The fact is that Alonso has almost lost the championship in this race.
    Hamilton said later “I’m sorry, it’s my fault”
    But the damage is done: Alonso shuold be the leader of the championship today and the problem is that, perhaps, he has lost the championship…

  7. Cristina: You can’t seriously think that Hamilton would leave McLaren? McLaren have been supporting him since he was 12 years old and Ron Dennis is his mentor. Also, McLaren has the best car in the field this year and is likely to repeat next year.

    Alonzo might leave, but I doubt it. Renault’s team talent was well picked over last year and this year’s car shows that. They may improve some next year, but Alonzo would be foolish to leave the MP-22/23 behind for a sub-par Renault next year. He simply won’t win races and he’s in the business of winning races. Unless Alonzo is absolutely miserable I feel pretty certain he stays…Hamilton too…

  8. Cristina: I blame them because it doesn’t help. It adds to the hyperbole and everything gets ratched upwards. As big Ron himself said, this year is “worse” than his struggle to control the loathing shared in the past by Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna. “There didn’t used to be the internet…”

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting that Lewis Hamilton is not deserving of every superlative one can conjure up. And while Alonso is an awesome driver, he is a bit of a prick in the Jacques Villeneuve model. I just wish the competition was left to the track.

    Really, what is needed is a 3-car McLaren team. Kimi, LH and Alonso. Kimi would leave those two so far behind, they would scratch each other’s behinds just to figure out what’s going on :)


  9. @McLaren Man, it’s inevitable there would be rumors of the drivers leaving. The way I see it, Hamilton will stay, but only on the condition that Alonso leaves. If Alonso stays, Hamilton may just decide to leave. I don’t know how much longer those two can co-exist without Suzuka 1989-1990 happening all over again.

    @Milos, Q3 should be changed, but there may still be issues with Alonso-Hamilton favoritism. But it would never be as obvious as what happened last Saturday is Q3 was different. But we must avoid a knee-jerk reaction because of it.

    @Clive, I believe the FIA interfered because both Alonso and Hamilton are championship contenders. Had it been any other midfield team, they wouldn’t have bothered. Which brings up the question: where must the line be drawn? When should the FIA intervene and when shouldn’t it?

    @John Crane, I think this sport stopped being a gentleman’s sport a long time ago. To be specific, it stopped towards the end of 1989. Hill and Coulthard? I would refer you to Spa 1998. DC took Schumi out (even if it wasn’t on purpose) and Hill demanded team orders from Eddie Jordan to make sure Ralf wouldn’t try to pass him, which he didn’t have any right to do.

    @Sean, nice to see you here! You’re from Minneapolis, isn’t that where the bridge collapse happened? Hope you and your loved ones are ok.

    @Cristina, nice to see you here too! Canary Islands? Wow, what a lovely place to live! Are you still affected there by Alonso-mania?

  10. Wow! I did it again…..suffered through 28 postings, most reasonable even if at opposite sides of the issue. Thanks for keeping it clean guys, but my vote goes to Clive in post #12:
    The FIA go on and on about “bringing the sport into disrepute”, yet history tells us that the worst offender in that regard is the FIA itself. Ask anyone what they think about F1 and a part of their answer will be mockery of the constant idiotic disputes and lawsuits that have become endemic in the sport, all of which are the result of a governing body that has made the rules so complex and open to interpretation that logical and fair decisions are almost impossible.

    THE END.

  11. Journeyer: Yep, I’m currently less than 1km from the fallen bridge. I think its quite fortunate that more people weren’t hurt. I’m personally affected in that my commute to work now takes a bit longer. That’s absolutely nothing.

    This seems like a good board/blog/forum.


  12. Agreed, Journeyer, the FIA intervened because the parties concerned are big players. Does that not strike anyone as completely the wrong reason for any legislative body to become involved? Are we now saying that there are rules for the big guys but the minnows don’t need to concern themselves with that? Surely even-handedness has to be the first requirement of any body empowered to hand out punishments. Justice is supposed to be blind, remember.

  13. It is completely wrong? Justice must be served fairly… As our local mayor says, “The law is for all; otherwise, none at all.”

    But who would intervene and scold the FIA on this? At the very least, the European Parliament (as the FIA is in Paris). But they already ruled that they respect the FIA’s jurisprudence on motorsport matters.

    What a tangled web we live in.

  14. Indeed so, Journeyer, indeed so. Funnily enough, I feel a blog post coming on… ;)

  15. @ Sean
    Many British fans are so pro-Hamilton because we have relatively few home-grown heroes in sports we’ve helped estblish:
    It’s a sorry state of affairs, but look at Button – he’s been the media darling for years without really ever making much of a mark in terms of championships, points, podiums etc. It’s hardly surprising that some of us have gone a bit gaagaa over Hamilton. Even if you’re not a fan, you’ve got to admit that he’s given a startly debut display of talent.

    Indulge us a little. He even got a mention as a ‘celebrity spot’ in Heat magazine a couple of weeks ago – certainly the dizzy heights of fame.

Jump to comment page: 1 2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.