McLaren told Hamilton Button wouldn’t pass him during the Turkish Grand Prix

Hamilton asked 'Is Jenson going to pass me?' and was told 'No'

Hamilton asked 'Is Jenson going to pass me?' and was told 'No'

McLaren told Lewis Hamilton that Jenson Button would not pass him during the Turkish Grand Prix.

New footage of the Turkish Grand Prix posted on the official F1 website reveals Hamilton asked the team “If I back off is Jenson going to pass me or not?”

He was told “No Lewis, no.” This audio clip is shown before the footage of Button overtaking Hamilton, suggesting the exchange took place before the pass was made.

The exchange – which was not aired during the race broadcast – is as follows:

Lewis Hamilton: Jenson’s closing in me you guys.
McLaren: Understood, Lewis.
Lewis Hamilton: If I back off is Jenson going to pass me or not?
McLaren: No Lewis, no

After the race Hamilton said he was “surprised” Button had passed him. Now we know why.

The question now is, was Button ordered to hand the place back?

The following radio exchanges from McLaren were broadcast during the race. We do not know what the time gap was between them being said to the drivers and being broadcast on television:

Lap 44: Hamilton told to “save fuel” and advised that both cars received the same instruction.
Lap 50: BBC reported that Martin Whitmarsh and Phil Prew were on the radio to both drivers.
Lap 52: Button told “We need more fuel saving. Fuel is critical. Save tyres in turn eight.”

Button passed Hamilton at the end of lap 48 and Hamilton re-passed him at the start of lap 49.

Read more: Hamilton ??surprised?? by Button?s pass (Turkish Grand Prix team-by-team)

2010 Turkish Grand Prix

Browse all 2010 Turkish Grand Prix articles

Advert | Go Ad-free

269 comments on McLaren told Hamilton Button wouldn’t pass him during the Turkish Grand Prix

  1. Shimks said on 4th June 2010, 13:32

    What I noticed which was very strange was Hamilton’s demeanor as he got out of the car and when he was on the podium. He didn’t look particularly happy at all that he’d won the race. It was very strange, as it was his first win of the season. He didn’t celebrate at all when he got out of the car.

    At first, I thought it was because it was his dad’s 50th birthday and Hamilton was missing him, feeling emotional about the win, maybe wishing his dad was still his manager. All just my own speculation at the time).

    But now I wonder whether he was simply incredibly disappointed because he knew he’d only won the race because Button had been ordered to let him pass?

    To me, though, it looked like he really had to fight Button to get the position back. But maybe they just made it look good. I was surprised how quickly he managed to retake his position.

    Then again, Button looked pretty happy on the podium. So nothing really adds up here!

    :O)

    • Tango said on 4th June 2010, 13:56

      Yeah, but the fight looked to good not to be true.

      A shame about the speculation really. The one thing that got me bouncing on the sofa has to be real for c… sake

    • Rob said on 4th June 2010, 14:09

      I think Button was making a show of being happy for Lewis to show how he had no hard feelings about being retaken, and that it was just a racing thing rather than the team trying to trick Hamilton.

    • S Hughes said on 4th June 2010, 15:05

      Typical that you think that Button was ordered to give the place back but I suppose that is what this article implies.

      Lewis and Button were both told to save fuel and target lap times, which means in effect that no overtaking would take place.

      Then Hamilton noticed Button on his tail and asked if he would overtake if he continued his slower pace. Lewis was told categorically “No, Lewis, no” only for Button to overtake him. This is completely unfair and is why Button found it so easy to overtake – Lewis was slowing and not defending as he was TOLD there was no need to. Lewis had to fight to get that position back, bumping wheels at the same time.

      It was AFTER Lewis overtook Button that the critical fuel saving message was given, because the fuel situation was probably critical by then.

      I find it unbelievable but also typical, sad and unjust that this shameful incident of Hamilton being wronged by his team or his teammate is being construed as favouring Hamilton, when the opposite is true.

      • BeenDun said on 4th June 2010, 15:22

        Button passed Lewis because he made a fantastic move and Lewis had no answer. Lewis returned the favor straight away. Lewis was unhappy because Button sent him a message that Lewis is not in vulnerable. Hamilton won the race. However, Jenson took another bite out of him psychologically. Good show JB!

        • tharris19 said on 4th June 2010, 17:38

          You’re not well BeenDun. The only way Jenson could have affected Lewis’s psyche is if he could have made the pass stick, which he didn’t. Team orders or not he wouldn’t get another shot for the balance of the race. Jenson don’t possess the skills to overtake Lewis in a equal car when Lewis knows he is coming. That’s a fact!

          • BeenDun said on 4th June 2010, 22:44

            Not well? Did you see the look on Lewis face ? Jenson was the one celebrating. Lewis got his first win of the season and Jenson robbed him of the joy of victory. One thing Hamilton fans are is loyal and the other thing is dumb.

      • Electrolite said on 4th June 2010, 15:24

        No offence S Hughes, if this were the other way round you wouldn’t have said any of that, though, would you? It was most likely a big misunderstanding in the team, a mix up of signals, and when the two drivers were fighting on the track they were probably just as confused! These things happen!

        As for the tone of Keith’s article you mentioned (a Hamilton article, again) he is simply stating the facts, that’s all of what the article is made up of. The article ASKS if Button was told to give the place back, it doesn’t “imply it”. The misunderstanding led to the overtake, I think it’s safe to establish.

        And I agree, Button was being as defensive as he could on the straight without making any illegal moves, so Hamilton wasn’t just LET past. But no need to be so overdramatic about it…

        • S Hughes said on 4th June 2010, 15:32

          Overdramatic? Just stating facts.

          • Electrolite said on 4th June 2010, 16:00

            “I suppose that is what this article implies.”

            “I find it unbelievable but also typical, sad and unjust that this shameful incident of Hamilton being wronged by his team or his teammate is being construed as favouring Hamilton, when the opposite is true.”

            Those are opinions, not facts! The rest of the post was fine, and definitely I see what you’re saying – but it could have so just been a misunderstanding, where a die hard Hamilton fan such as yourself interprets it in the most extreme and biased fashion.

            Again, I pose the question – if it had been the other way round, and Hamilton had ‘crept up on an unsuspecting Button’ would you be making similiar accusations?

          • Don’t know about Hughes, Electrolite, but yes obviously.

            Have you watched the race edit? Hamilton clearly says, if I slow down will Button pass me. The team answers catogorically in the negative, next lap, theres Button making a crack at him. Seriosuly unfair, wrong infact. An if that had happened to Button it would have been just as bad.

            I don’t see how the article implies anything either, pretty nuetral as usual with keiths news posts. Calling someone a die hard Hamilton fan, an I must admit I’m a Hamilton fan, but as a McLaren fan first I can tell you that Hamiltons mood on the podium was completley justified, how worried and baffled would you be, if the team tells you not to worry about your teamate then he nearly sneaks by and steals the win.

            Facts are, McLaren made a screaming mess of their drivers instructions an it’s not being a blind fan to point out that hamilton was seriously wronged.

      • sumedh said on 4th June 2010, 17:56

        I agree.

        No wonder Hamilton was somber on the podium. He had been lied to by his team after all.

        I think what this article doesn’t ponder upon is – are Mclaren favoring Button instead of Hamilton?

        The team tells Car no. 2 that he won’t be passed by Car no. 1. If you look at both the overtakes, you can see that Hamilton was caught completely off guard by Button’s move, whereas Button tried as hard as he could to keep Lewis behind, but was unable to.

        To me, it seems that Button passed Hamilton thanks to the team’s help (which is clearly true – cannot be debated upon) whereas Hamilton passed Button without the team’s help (and perhaps – highly debatable, against their wishes too).

        • Shimks said on 4th June 2010, 21:50

          “To me, it seems that Button passed Hamilton thanks to the team’s help (which is clearly true – cannot be debated upon)…”

          Okay, let’s not debate that, seeing as you have decided to make it fact!

          I wonder, though… Miscommunication? Or 8 races in, not THAT many to go, and the team thinking that seeing as Button is already ahead…

          McLaren have made the mistake before of having 2 great drivers. Maybe they’ve learnt and are already wanting to secretively make one driver (with the most points) their number 1?

        • HG said on 5th June 2010, 0:25

          “Lied to” Sumedh? – no, it was a screw up, and button had other ideas. No big deal.

        • BeenDun said on 5th June 2010, 1:02

          It’s funny how the only people who care about this are Hamilton fans. Hamilton gets passed by Button and it’s the end of the world. Button made a clean pass and took Hamilton clear and simple. It wasn’t because Hamilton had slowed or any other excuse you can conjure up. It was a pass of one driver by another plain and simple. Lewis returned the favor at the next turn so what is the problem? Clean fighting by two world champions. To Button fans it was just good racing. To Hamilton fans it’s like some horrible, unspeakable event took place that has to have an explanation. Hamilton can be passed. Button can pass him. It’s not the end of the world.

          • S Hughes said on 5th June 2010, 1:54

            It’s funny how insults about Hamilton fans (calling them dumb, etc) don’t get removed from this site, but other insults do. Hmmmm.

          • BeenDun said on 5th June 2010, 5:22

            Because in this case it’s not an insult. It’s a fact. Let’s see some more 1000 word posts from you rationalizing why Button was able to pass Lewis. Just like the rationalizations created to explain why Hamilton is not destroying his teammate like everyone said he was going to. Hamilton isn’t destroying Button because he can’t. If he could, he’d already be way ahead by now.

  2. Steezy said on 4th June 2010, 13:37

    I don’t think it was team orders, more like miscommunication between the team to Hamilton and the team to Button

  3. Lamo2741 said on 4th June 2010, 13:37

    Or it could just be that Button saw an oppertunity to make a name for himself! Sly and Devious!

  4. steph said on 4th June 2010, 13:41

    I once again have this constant feeling in F1 that I’m missing something. I’ve seen some comments that Button is being favoured and I’m at a loss. Yes, this could well have benefitted Jenson had Lewis not fought back. However, I read this (I reiterate I could well be wrong) as a case of just plain and simple miscommunication/ wires crossed between the two garages.

    There just doesn’t seem to me, to be any concrete proof of favouritism. Mclaren want to win obviously but to covertly fix their own 1-2? I don’t think so.

    I get Hamilton’s anger I really do, I;d be fuming as he so easily could have lost but I think it was a situation that arose out of clumsiness. I do think the order for Button to save fuel was mostly legitimate but possibly Mclaren trying to get back no top of the situation after the confusion and not wanting to crash.

    • bosyber said on 4th June 2010, 14:00

      Well, said, I feel quite similar about it.

      I tend to believe in clumsiness and miscommunication over clever scheming; maybe I am naïeve.

      • steph said on 4th June 2010, 14:31

        Well we are in the same naive boat :P I like to think of it as just looking on the bright side myself.

        There is one bit I don’t really like
        “Lewis Hamilton: If I back off is Jenson going to pass me or not?
        McLaren: No Lewis, no”

        I don’t thnik there is favouritism at all but that doesn’t really make things look good. Obviously it was wrong anyway but the idea of maintaining position is good for a team etc but robs Jenson of a fight if he had been cleverer with fuel. Similarily I’d say this if it was the other way round. Although even when there was refuelling I suspect that many times 1-2 positions were encouraged to stay in the same order so I think it is perhaps about a wider issue than just Mclaren possibly.

        • PatrickL said on 4th June 2010, 15:02

          There is nothing wrong with teams not wanting their drivers battle till the finish line.

          They had 30 seconds to Webber’s damaged car and well over 40 seconds to Schumacher.

          If they allowed Hamilton and Button to race then both would have had to continue at max pace. Unnecessarily stressing all the components. This could result in failure or the drivers taking each other off.

          From the team’s perspective that’s pretty much unwanted.

          Again, the FIA already said that nursing the cars in formation to the finish is OK.

          • steph said on 4th June 2010, 15:10

            I know there’s nothing wrong with it from the team’s point a view. Hell, if I was manager I’d want them to cruise to the end and maintain order but it is something I don’t really like that’s all I’m saying. In an ideal world, well in my little dream world, they’d all be battling it out right across the line but with the risk of crashing and/or fuel issues that isn’t possible. I understand it but I’m not a fan.

        • Well you tell the truth to the driver. Lewis wasn’t explicitly asking for Jenson to be held back, he wanted to know if the fight was still on. He wanted situational awareness from his race-engineer.

          The response should have been “You are critical on fuel, you must slow down or fail to finish, we can’t make any promises for Jenson, watch your back”.

          Then at least Hamilton would know where he stood, and he could have driven accordingly, slowly but defensively.

          To tell him “No” (twice in one sentance), left him out on the track bent over, wide-open and ready to be done-up and done-in. His quick understeering, dirty-side braking, cut across the Turn 1 kerb saved that whole McLaren team from exploding Sunday night.

          Poor judgement call by the McLaren pitwall … again. Imagine if Hamilton had someone like a Smedley in his corner, instead of a procession of innacurate, analysis-paralysed McLaren droids.

          • steph said on 4th June 2010, 15:14

            “. Lewis wasn’t explicitly asking for Jenson to be held back, he wanted to know if the fight was still on”

            I’m not critising Lewis, he had every right to ask that I’m saying Mclaren should have got their facts right.

          • That’s what I’m saying as well.

            If there wasn’t a deal, and Jenson insistes no-one said anything to him, then why tell Lewis something which is fundamentally not the case.
            What on earth were they expecting to happen, what’s their thought process, one driver told the race was over and the other still going full-bananas?

            That whole pit-wall seriously needs to have their heads clanked together. They badly need to raise their game, they are falling down on the job.

          • definatley, McLarens supposed Leigon of super efficient muticulousotrons are making screamer after screamer, it’s a new system an all, but team management and race controll are getting a little to amusing for their own good.

          • bosyber said on 4th June 2010, 17:15

            Indeed. McLaren need to think about how to get their drivers (or just Hamilton?) the best information, without leading them to wrong conclusions, such as happened here, or with China pits for Hamilton based on unclear info on weather/tires.

            And Hamilton needs to learn from Button: do your thing, and let the team tell you if you misunderstood.

          • tharris19 said on 4th June 2010, 17:57

            I agree, he needs a competent engineer to cover his back on the pitwall. The one he has now has show himself to be lacking under stress in a number of races.

    • tharris19 said on 4th June 2010, 17:50

      There is something strange going on at McLaren between Hamilton and the pitwall. At practically every race they seem to be at each others throat. Bad pit stops, wrong tires, bad communication,etc. I think he can forget a WDC this year and should either consider requesting a new engineer for next season or moving on to something else.

  5. Untitled258 said on 4th June 2010, 13:42

    Its bugger all to do with Mclaren lying.

    Its more likely that the team told them both to save fuel, presuming they would settle in place and they wouldn’t do anything stupid, but Jenson saw the opportunity to over take and took it, hes a racing driver, what do you expect?

    People are always way to Happy/Quick to cry foul when it comes to anything done to Hamilton.

    • DanThorn said on 4th June 2010, 13:46

      My thoughts exactly. If it was the other way around I have no doubt that Lewis would have had a pop at the lead himself.

      • Kanyima said on 4th June 2010, 14:16

        I hate ‘ifs’!!!!
        How about this: If Hamilton hadn’t passed Webber & Vettel while they lay on the side of the road, he wouldn’t have won!!
        Rubbish, innit?

        So, Dan Thorn, take your conditionals out of here!

        • DanThorn said on 4th June 2010, 14:36

          I hate ‘what ifs’ too, particularly when it applies to unique scenarios. This is different however – Hamilton had no hesitation in passing Button at Melbourne, and I’m sure that at Shanghai he’d have had a go if (yep there’s that dreaded word again) there were 10 laps to go and not 2 when he caught him. In the future there may well be a reversed scenario to Turkey and as long as there isn’t a definate “hold position) call going out to boths drivers the I’m 100 certain Lewis would try to pass Jenson. The greatest racing drivers don’t get anywhere by bending over for team mates!

    • Kanyima said on 4th June 2010, 14:22

      Untitled258, and how about ‘people are always way too Happy/Quick to have a go at Hamilton when it comes to anything he’s done’.

    • Bernard said on 4th June 2010, 15:18

      I agree, Jenson stated afterwards that he “had to have a go”. Although Lewis was rightly surprised, the team did not lie.

    • BeenDun said on 4th June 2010, 15:30

      Spot on. Jenson stuck Lewis with a solid move and Lewis had no answer. Lewis gave it back to JB immediately. Exciting racing from both of them. Jenson was fine and happy on the podium while Lewis looked miserable.

      • DeenDun. Lewis was miserable because he was specifically told Jenson wouldn’t try and pass him, an then he did.

        He must have felt lied too, he must have felt like his beloved McLaren team who he’s been with since the age of 13 were slipping away from him, he must have been really quite angry.

        Why is it weird that people say Lewis was hard done by, we’re not saying it was malicious but clearly something went badly wrong within McLaren, an it nearly robbed Lewis of his third big points haul of the year at the hands of his team, due to operational error, again!

        • BeenDun said on 5th June 2010, 1:11

          Scribe, Lewis got one upped by his teammate. He may have taken the victory, but Jenson had the final word. Lewis was supposed to crush Jenson this season. The crush never came.

          • S Hughes said on 5th June 2010, 1:57

            You’re just a complete and utter idiot.

          • BeenDun said on 5th June 2010, 5:17

            S Hughes. The truth hurts mate. Reality seems to be the thing Hamilton fans hate the most. Keep talking and thinking your right. Lol.

          • Simon said on 5th June 2010, 10:54

            Possibly one-upped if the move had stuck, but Jenson was re-overtaken almost immediately.

            You’re also extrapolating fan predictions (Lewis crushing Jenson) and pinning it on the drivers themselves. I’m sure Lewis always thought he could beat Jenson (vice versa as well), but one driver “crushing” another is fan talk.

          • BeenDun said on 5th June 2010, 16:01

            Simon, the move stuck. Were you watching the race? Lewis had to follow Jenson down the main straight. The Lewis made his move and took the place back. The message was sent regardless of whether or not Lewis won or not. All a thinking fan had to do was look at Lewis’s face on the podium. Jenson was hopping around like a kid at Christmas. Lewis won the race but Jenson communicated his point.

          • BeenDun, you’ve got a biased perspective on truth mate. Button probably received the message, even with his teamate unsuspecting and and due to a team assurance not deffending. He still couldn’t make a move stick for more than a mile. Were you watching the race?

            An Hamilton had every right to be annoyed, his team had told him exactly the opposite of what was true, regarding his teamate.

            You clearly can’t be argued with, your points are illogical an your language insulting.

          • kbdavies said on 5th June 2010, 22:54

            Err, in what exactly did Jenson have the final word????
            He overtook Hamilton due to Hamilton slowing down as per team orders, and managed to lose the place!

            Crush or no crush, apart from points haul, Lewis has beaten Jenson this year by every other parameter – and we are not even halwfay through the season yet!

          • Simon said on 5th June 2010, 23:08

            @BeenDun – you’re arguing semantics here. By “not sticking”, I was referring to the fact that Jenson was almost immediately overtaken again.

            What I’m saying is that it’s hard to put a convincing case together for Jenson having one-upped his team-mate in such circumstances, unless you want to argue that Lewis only managed the subsequent overtake because Jenson backed off and let him through again.

            Sure, you could also argue that Jenson might have passed again had he not been told fuel was critical (ie. back off). On the flip side, Lewis said “if I back off, will he pass me” just before the dual took place – so it’s a circular argument. If neither one backs off, there is little chance of an overtake.

            As for why Lewis looked the way he did on the podium, I don’t think you’ll find that every thinking fan came to the same conclusion as you did.

  6. xabregas said on 4th June 2010, 13:45

    There are 3 things we can take from this:
    1- After the pits, it seems no one can overtake his team mate. It happened with RBR and Mclaren even in Ferrari, only Alonso overtook Massa in China because Massa and Ferrari were took by surprise. It was a gusty move by Alonso.
    2- It will allways have orders from the teams to the drivers.
    3- The most important one is that, if fights like turkey will hapen again, we will see 1 or 2 F1 cars not finishing the race because of fuel issues.
    So one one, even Renaut engine can´t go the distance at full speed till the end of the race.
    This brings something more to the race we weren´t expecting.

    • DanThorn said on 4th June 2010, 13:47

      The fuel issue is more of a case of teams seeing where the absolute limit is in terms of fuel consumption. In future I think the teams will probably put a bit more fuel in just to be on the safe side.

    • Nick F said on 5th June 2010, 0:35

      Teams have to use multiple parts across several races so there is always going to be the incentive to slow the cars down near the end of the race. Also there will be an incentive to run the least amount of fuel possible and fuel save near the end of the race. I think these are just inevitable consequences of the current rules in F1. If you wanted to change it then I guess you would have to mandate the amount of fuel they started the race with and allow them to run a new engine each race. That’s not going to happen though for obvious reasons.

    • kbdavies said on 5th June 2010, 22:51

      “You’re just a complete and utter idiot.”

      Totally agree! BeenDun…..what are you on mate?

  7. BBQ2 said on 4th June 2010, 13:46

    I am very disappointed this was the case :-(

    Although I thought at time this could not have been so amicable as was portrayed by both drivers.

    In all my comments this week, I had always advised LH to watch his back! And the voice that told him JB will not overtake him was that of Whitmarsh …… very worrying I must say. If Martin Whitmarsh continues this way, he will not stay long in that position.

    • bosyber said on 4th June 2010, 14:03

      Martin probably thought that he had made sure to both drivers that they were to save fuel (regardless of if that meant “stay put” or save fuel). Hamilton seemingly has been a good boy about listening to the pits (not always to his advantage). I guess they need to get used to Button having more of a mind of his own.

      • Probably get slated for saying this but…

        I think Lewis was Ron’s “special one” now he’s gone I don’t think Lewis gets the same treatment as he did when Ron was in charge.

        I personally think Whitmarsh is in favour of Jenson a bit more now, probably after his two wins (and as Whitmarsh bought him to the team) I think he’d have felt like Jenson had done him well. I don’t think it’s favouritism in the fact they’d let him win over Lewis though.

        • DanThorn said on 4th June 2010, 14:40

          Lewis and Ron definately had a special relationship – Ron did tend to favour one driver over another and even though they were both given equal treatment, it tended to alienate their team-mate.

          In light of that, and the way that Heikki felt very much a Number 2 to Lewis, I think Whitmarsh is trying to prove that McLaren isn’t all about Lewis, but he’s overcompensating a bit too much.

        • PatrickL said on 4th June 2010, 15:08

          Exactly. Whitmarsh favours Button although they give the drivers the same material and the same opportunities.

        • SoLiD said on 4th June 2010, 15:35

          Withmarsh might favour Jenson as a person or whatever… but they got the numbers and they know Lewis is the fastest of the 2 this year.
          I that’s what you will see when you look at laptimes and not just the end result!

          • BeenDun said on 5th June 2010, 1:12

            The end result is all that matters. Fastest lap times are meaningless if you can’t win.

        • No Tommy I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. Whitmarsh cried when Jenson won, man is clearly a fan. Still I think he has noticed he’s overcompensating an I don’t think he wants to loose Lewis.

          Who would?

          • bosyber said on 4th June 2010, 17:22

            I think McLaren have been impressed with maturity of Button. Hamilton has been caught out now several times by just trusting his team instead of doing like Button and trusting his instincts with strategy, gaining them two wins, while Hamilton has been impressively busy, but with less to show in points.

            For the team it is great to have this combination of drivers, and I think this is what they sorely missed. Whitmarsh may have been so happy because it showed they do need a mix of experience and young talent.

            But they also need to change the way they deal with driver rivalry, now both can fight for a win on merit. With Kovalainen that wasn’t an issue.

  8. George said on 4th June 2010, 13:49

    So much for McLarens “our drivers are free to race policy”.

    When are we going to get rid of the stupid “team orders” rule in F1 anyways. Anyone with half a brain can see it’s still happening but no-one is getting punished for it, so why have the rule?

    • You seem to have missed the point. No team orders is exactly what did happen at McLaren.

      Team orders is what was attempted at Redbull. The driver given the order wasn’t having any of it and forced the issue.

  9. PJA said on 4th June 2010, 13:50

    I suppose this explains Hamilton’s subdued reaction when he got out of the car after the race.

    He was told to ease up to look after the car and wanted to check Button would be doing the same thing and so that it was safe to slow a bit.

    I am sure it would be a surprise to anyone if after being told that both cars were being ordered to slow to suddenly have your teammate pass you.

    At least he didn’t mention it after the race in public and waited until he could talk privately with the team.

    Also it is a shame McLaren don’t include all their radio communications on their commentary log, as the one for Turkey doesn’t seem to have the exchange mentioned in the article or the bits broadcast to the world during the race.

    http://mclaren.com/2010/turkish-gp/post-race

    • PatrickL said on 4th June 2010, 15:10

      Yeah I was wondering what the point of that site was. I was watching it for radio traffic, but not even all the messages on TV appear on that site.

      Utterly useless unfortunately.

      And what’s the point of hiding it? Of course all the teams are listening in to their competitors radio transmissions.

      • BasCB said on 4th June 2010, 15:39

        I had a look at those messages as well. A shame they only play to be open, not showing everything. Lewis commenting in Melbourne was also not shown, that’s a shame, because it might have been a great feature on their website.

        On the other point – the teams are not listening into their radio, as those are encrypted. The teams only have the FIA listening in on everything (FOM as well, judging from this video).

  10. bosyber said on 4th June 2010, 13:52

    After witnessing Vettel/Webber, I guess Lewis thought: hang on, won’t that happen to us too if I stop pushing.

    Also explains why Button thought Lewis was meaning him when hearing “did that to me too” pre-podium – someone felt a bit guilty it seems (but not sorry, I think).

    • BasCB said on 4th June 2010, 15:40

      I do think Button told him he was sorry for catchin Lewis suprised by it, not by doing the move as such.

      • bosyber said on 4th June 2010, 17:24

        yes, that was what I meant, he wasn’t sorry for making a move, but for the circumstances. And Hamilton seemed relieved to know it was not staged but just a chance taken by Button, in combination with unclear communication by the team.

  11. Lewis should have never asked the question “is Jenson going to overtake me”. As that would imply team orders from the resulting “no”. I think Lewis should never assume Jenson is going to stop racing him and instead asked for information on how close Jenson was to him sector by sector/lap by lap if necessary.
    This is what Jenson did in China when Lewis was closing in on him.

    BTW, the idea that McLaren are trying to fix it so Lewis is disadvantaged is silly. The fact is one driver uses his brain a little more than the other when he goes racing. The other takes everything from the pitwall as gospel.

    • BBQ2 said on 4th June 2010, 14:09

      I would rather obey team order than go against it LJ. And by “using of brain” does that mean an incapacity to think? Or just bigotry on your part?

  12. rampante said on 4th June 2010, 14:00

    Can I remind people on this site of all the claims that racing would be better without fuel stops? Drivers are protecting tyres after 2 laps and with 25 laps to go they are on fuel saving mode. When I said pre season that I did not want to see cars running out of fuel during a race it was because I’d seen it all before. The key difference is drivers raced then and hoped they had the fuel to finish. With the info they have now even that has gone. We have had some good races so far but Turkey has been the only real race on the track without outside influence.
    Team bosses know how much fuel a car needs and if with 20 odd laps to go a driver is told to save gas he is being told don’t pass your team mate. Are we to believe car are not filled to the end with the hope of SC’s and weather to help them get there?

    • Thats not true is it? In the refueling era, would we have had four cars racing within 3 seconds of each other flat out for 40 laps?

      Putting less fuel in is an interesting risk an further element into the equation. All in the name of performance. Whats really wrong is the quali tyre rule, it just means races follow the same pattern.

      • DaveW said on 4th June 2010, 18:23

        Well that’s rampante’s point isn’t it? There were not going to be racing flat out for the duration. There were going to be sort of creeping around possibly waiting to see whose fuel math was fuzzy and whether the tires would truly last for 2/3rds of the race. If there were stops, we would in fact have seen the cars going full out the whole race trying to create pace, and we would have had the drama of the overlaps and the test of skill of cold tire out laps. The refueling ban is a failure.

        Lets not forget that Turkey is relatively unique in fuel consumption. Turkey and Malaysia use a lot of fuel and the cars are designed to carry only the amount of fuel needed for the highest-consumption track—minus some margin in favor of the other tracks, knowing some measures are possible at those two tracks to finish the race. Anyway, we won’t see this fuel drama at Canada.

        • Refueling ban is not a faliure. Managing fuel and tyre ware adds a further element of skill for the drivers and another layer of intrigue for the veiwers. We wouldn’t have got close racing like we saw in Turkey during the refuling era because it would have been all about fuel strategy decided on computers in Woking and Milton Keynes.

          Drivers at the front could control a race from the front much easier during the refueling era, squables over position are ten times more tense and exciting now refulings been banned because it means something.

          Turkeys fuel isn’t unique either, Barcelona, Bahrain and as you said Malaysia all require simular loads.

          The drama of overlaps was rubbish, much better force it onto the track. An tyre skill, meh, there under blankets, it rarley comes to anything on track.

          Refueling era F1 was just a series of sprints between stops. Now F1 has become much more difficult for both driver and team, an as the teams have now cut out the endurance mentality seen in Bahrain, F1 is becoming far more exciting as the teams cut it finer an finer. Turkey was a marvelous race that we almost certainly couldn’t of seen during the refueling era.

  13. LeRoy said on 4th June 2010, 14:05

    We all knew when the team said, “save fuel,” that they were really saying back off and dont pass. It took the media how many years to realize and complain about Ferrari’s Marlboro subliminal advertising.. how long is it going to take them to realize that “save fuel” is really a team order not to pass!

    You don’t calculate fuel saving into your race strategy. What if the McLarens had to fight the Red Bulls to the end with no chance to save fuel.. would they have run out of gas? Not likely.

    • Dipak T said on 4th June 2010, 16:38

      LeRoy, both cars had barely enough fuel at the end to provide a sample at the end for the FIA. All teams are trying to find the limit for fuel, McLaren have definitely found theirs.

      But yeah, in most case save fuel is usually hold position.

      • Not anymore, with refuelling gone, the teams are cutting it so marginal it’s funny. Read James Allens section on strategy, it’s facinaiting.

  14. ajokay said on 4th June 2010, 14:13

    So McLaren did deny us a thrilling end to the grand prix with both drivers fighting tooth and nail until the flag.

    Thought so… great, just want we want to see; follow-the-leader until the chequers. Cheers guys.

    • You would probably have to go back to the 80’s to find a case where two teammates have been allowed to fight “tooth and nail” right up to the flag.

      …and I’ve no problem with this, Formula 1 is a team sport… with teams of hundreds of players.

      • ps. I think for the drivers within a team the fight is in Qualy mostly, and in the race up to a point, thereafter it is about bringing it home, especially if gaining positions over other teams is not a possibility.

    • BasCB said on 4th June 2010, 15:07

      Or maybe just fighting on track to within a few yards of the finish line, continuing the fight right next to the track! :o

    • PatrickL said on 4th June 2010, 15:12

      Yeah because with a 30 to 40 second lead it makes sense for a team to risk losing a 1-2 finish just because someone wants to see some action.

      It’s a (team) sport, not a circus.

  15. Daniel said on 4th June 2010, 14:14

    Just Remember When They Say Back Off They Mean By A Few Tenths, And It Will Still Be Full Throttle On The Straights… Just Go Bit Slower Through This Corner, Brake Earlier Here Etc.

Add your comment

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

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.