McLaren: The future [Archive] - Motorsport Forums

Sonic

16th November 2009, 17:07

I'm still in a slight state of shock regarding the whole McLaren, Brawn, Mercedes situation but I wanted to get a general feel for where everybody thinks McLaren will do next. Short term is clearly sorted - they are still 40% Merc for next year after all, but what about 4/5 years down the line?

Will history repeat itself? When Honda left McLaren suffered a big slump dealing with underpowered Fords and downright rubbish Pug's before signing with Merc.

Or will they look to the future and take the logical step and become a "works" team in their own right?

UltimateDanGTR

16th November 2009, 17:20

according to the beeb, they will have mercs until 2015.

after that, maybe their own engines? i wouldnt be surprised. i get the feeling this is a new era that mclaren find themselves in here. i hope less manurfacture backing wont hinder their performance either (they wont immediatly but im think a few years down the line)

the future of macca just got unpredictable IMO. I dont even know what livery they will have next year........

DexDexter

16th November 2009, 17:30

Great news for Mclaren and F1, this divorce ensures that the Mclaren name will remain in F1 for a long time and a car manufacturer cannot suddenly decide to pull them out of F1.

truefan72

16th November 2009, 17:49

mclaren will be fine, as to mercedes, its is a surprising turn of events and the poor excuse from the daimler chief for their sale of assets in Mclaren seems rather foolish.

Sonic

16th November 2009, 19:02

according to the beeb, they will have mercs until 2015.
.

At a price. Once the sale of stock back to McLaren is complete, McLaren will be a customer team and like any other customer team will need to pay.

I can't see McLaren becoming a customer team - they'll have something in place before 2015

K-Pu

16th November 2009, 19:56

McLaren being a full "works team", with McLaren chassis and McLaren engine, seems to be seems to be quite impossible but it´d look very nice.

They´ll surely find another strong partner, and yes, history always repeats itself no matter how had you try to avoid it, and this is more obvious when there is a lot of money involved :D

DazzlaF1

16th November 2009, 20:07

I have to agree, the future I think for McLaren is looking a lot rosier than people think, the freedom from the Merc shackles, free engines for 6 years and now a chance to put together a dream all-british driver lineup.

Also its nice to see Ross Brawn's hard work finally pay off in the form of a massive return on his gamble 9 months ago. All in all, Its the best for both worlds. McLaren get a good deal and Mercedes get the full manufacturer status they've craved.

Plus with merc now gone from the McLaren shareholding, could we see the return of the famous white and red livery with Vodafone instead of Marlboro? that would be awesome.

Rollo

16th November 2009, 20:19

McLaren Ford, McLaren TAG, McLaren Honda, McLaren Peugeot, McLaren Ford, McLaren Mercedes... I wager a guinea that in 2019, McLaren will still be in F1, and Brawn GP will have disappeared into the miasma of history.

ioan

16th November 2009, 20:20

Couldn't care any less about the future of a team of crooks.

Sonic

16th November 2009, 20:30

Q Will you continue to supply Mercedes engines next season to McLaren?
Yes, we will and not only next season but we agreed that we will do that ultimately - of course, for a price - to 2015

The way I read that statement is that free engines will be provided in 2010 but beyond that......

Wasted Talent

16th November 2009, 21:19

UltimateDanGTR

16th November 2009, 21:33

I can't see McLaren becoming a customer team - they'll have something in place before 2015

like their own engines

yodasarmpit

16th November 2009, 21:43

Couldn't care any less about the future of a team of crooks.

I assume that means you have no interest in the whole field, ohh well I'll be sad to see you go seeing as you no longer have an interest in the sport.

christophulus

16th November 2009, 22:45

Exciting times for McLaren. Another step towards true independence, and they've proved time and again they can build a decent car (not so much this year...). Plus they're moving into car manufacture with a new supercar and rumours of a small city car.

Mercedes have bankrolled the team for the past few years but I reckon McLaren can find sponsorship no problem, especially with Hamilton onboard long term. Add this to the budget cap or whatever it's called, and there's no reason they can't become a successful manufacturer in their own right.

gloomyDAY

16th November 2009, 22:53

McLaren chassis and engine. Music to my ears!

Couldn't care any less about the future of a team of crooks.Watch your step everyone. Try not to step on the little troll.

CNR

16th November 2009, 23:43

will the mclaren look something like this

http://i36.tinypic.com/o52jk4.jpg

Rollo

16th November 2009, 23:47

will the mclaren look something like this

I doubt it.

Vodafone although they do have a tendancy to redden their cars ala their DTM effort, they're quite happy if the need exists to leave the silver on there. Maybe something closer to the 888 Vodafone Hogster / Commodores will be in order for them.

Valve Bounce

17th November 2009, 00:28

raikk

17th November 2009, 01:14

Great news for Mclaren and F1, this divorce ensures that the Mclaren name will remain in F1 for a long time and a car manufacturer cannot suddenly decide to pull them out of F1.

This

Saint Devote

17th November 2009, 02:34

It is a wonderful opportunity for Mclaren.

The top constructor story of 2009 is not about Brawn GP. It is the incredible turnaround that occurred, with Mclaren engineering a car from being zero to absolute hero.

The logical step for Mclaren IS to manufavture their own racing engine. The company has become a brand and in order to leverage that it HAS to design and manufacture its own engines.

Regardless of Mercedes-Benz, the Mclaren formula one engine is inevitable.

Rollo

17th November 2009, 03:57

The logical step for Mclaren IS to manufavture their own racing engine. The company has become a brand and in order to leverage that it HAS to design and manufacture its own engines.

Why?

Of the 51 Constructor's Championships, only 20 of them were won by constructors building the chassis and engine, and of those 16 of those were Ferrari. The other blips were Renault, BRM and Vanwall.
Of the 60 Driver's Championships, only 23 of them were won by constructors building the chassis and engine.

That means that for 31 Constructor's Championships and 37 Driver's Championships, the constructor was either buying engines or had them provided to them by a third party.

McLaren does not need to start building its own engines necessarily, when the vast majority of entrants in F1 haven't done in the past and McLaren themselves have done perfectly well since 1966 thank you very much, with third party engines.

Valve Bounce

17th November 2009, 04:18

Why?

.

Why not!! Cooper did, Lotus did, Brabham did, Walter Wolf did, McLaren did, Williams did, Tyrrel did, so why can't .................who are we talking about anyway?? :confused:

Saint Devote

17th November 2009, 04:31

Why?

Of the 51 Constructor's Championships, only 20 of them were won by constructors building the chassis and engine, and of those 16 of those were Ferrari. The other blips were Renault, BRM and Vanwall.
Of the 60 Driver's Championships, only 23 of them were won by constructors building the chassis and engine.

That means that for 31 Constructor's Championships and 37 Driver's Championships, the constructor was either buying engines or had them provided to them by a third party.

McLaren does not need to start building its own engines necessarily, when the vast majority of entrants in F1 haven't done in the past and McLaren themselves have done perfectly well since 1966 thank you very much, with third party engines.

Mclaren is an organization that are ambitious. They are in process of building their own road cars and have a technology center that is first class.

They are innovative and able to turn projects around incredibly quickly.

But the question is why not, as well.

Rollo

17th November 2009, 04:42

But the question is why not, as well.

Why Not? Because they've won 12 Drivers' Championships and 8 Constructors' Championships without producing their own engine. Their own history suggests that it's not imperative to produce their own engine. McLaren appear to have been pretty successful thus far; the game hasn't really changed.

aryan

17th November 2009, 08:17

About the livery, stop the speculation! Nothing will change. Dennis has said that the "Vodafone Maclaren Mercedes" livery will remain the same for 2010.

McLaren had an agreement with Mercedes that they would be their "works" team until the end of 2011. I guess, by giving up that right, they got themselves a few more years of free engines instead. I knew they were quite keen on extending the deal for at least 2012. By 2013, the engine freeze will be removed and a new set of engines, limited by fuel not by volume, will replace them. Perfect time to start from scratch and build your own engine.

Anyone who looked at the MP4-12C knew that this divorce was coming. Dennis's vision for McLaren is to be a Ferrari competitor in everything, not just on the track. He has big plans for McLaren's road car division, and the MP4-12C is just the first of 3 completely new cars to be launched in the next 6 years. McLaren could have done a 'Pagani' and chuck a huge AMG engine in there, but they decided to build the engine themselves. I can't see why they can't do the same for their F1 team. Once money from road cars starts rolling in, McLaren will be a much bigger manufacturer with a large-enough balance sheet to be able to build its own engines. Until then, they have supply of very competitive engines for free. If you ask me, it's a very good position to be in.

aryan

17th November 2009, 08:20

McLaren appear to have been pretty successful thus far; the game hasn't really changed.

The game has changed. Effective 2011, they will be a road car manufacturer, and the MP4-12C will have McLaren's own engine. As a manufacturer, you don't want someone else's engine (a competitor at that) in your own cars.

Rollo

17th November 2009, 09:27

The game has changed. Effective 2011, they will be a road car manufacturer, and the MP4-12C will have McLaren's own engine. As a manufacturer, you don't want someone else's engine (a competitor at that) in your own cars.

And the McLaren F1 produced between 1992–1998 had a BMW S70/2 V12 in it. At no stage have McLaren ever used BMW engines in their race cars.

McLaren's own engine?

The M838T that is in the MP4-12C is an internal Mercedes-Benz nonclameture developed specifically for the car. If anything this hasn't proved a thing, merely that McLaren are building their engine in house... which they're not doing either since the engines come from Mercedes-Benz High Performance Engines Ltd. in Brixworth, Northamptonshire.

christophulus

17th November 2009, 10:00

It depends partly on whether F1 is getting new engine regulations in 2012-ish. Bear in mind that McLaren have far and away the best KERS system, so the next generation of engines could incorporate this.

It gives them the option to build their own engine in a couple of years if they want, and as has been mentioned, they're now not dependent on manufacturers continuing to back the team. It's win-win.

Mark

17th November 2009, 10:32

What's Ilmor doing these days? They used to make Mercedes engines then I think Honda engines for IndyCar?

Mark

17th November 2009, 10:34

It gives them the option to build their own engine in a couple of years if they want, and as has been mentioned, they're now not dependent on manufacturers continuing to back the team. It's win-win.

Absolutely. McLaren themselves know first hand how their fortunes have ebbed and flowed on the whim of engine manufacturers and as Mercedes have shown just this week, things can change very quickly. So if they want long term stability the best thing for them is to produce their own engine.

They also have the option then of selling the engine to other F1 teams and making a bit of money out of it!

Somebody

17th November 2009, 10:40

Merc bought them after the death of one of the partners, IIRC.

DexDexter

17th November 2009, 10:59

jens

17th November 2009, 12:31

So McLaren wants to replicate Ferrari by becoming their rival in the car industry? Well, it's not an easy task, but they have quite a significant fanbase and a reasonably famous name already, so why not give it a try. Surely they are still a long way behind Ferrari in both mentioned departments, but this is something that can be built only throughout many years.

Ferrari's clear advantage over McLaren is that they have very a distinctive livery and image - red and emotional. McLaren should try to create their very own image too, at the moment they seem a bit "ordinary" (meh, another British F1 team, who keeps changing colours based on sponsors' needs).

Sonic

17th November 2009, 12:40

Indeed. McLaren are going to find it very difficult (read impossible) to take on Ferrari at their own game. As Jens says McLaren are too bland and does not stir the soul in the same way Ferrari does - also naming the car the MP4/12-C is hardly going to catch the imagination.

I am evil Homer

17th November 2009, 12:45

If the car is good, it will sell and the McLaren brand will strengthen. Further, if they make more road cars that's a route in the LMS series that helps to strengthen it as a performance car marque.

McLaren is playing a long-term game here, so to judge on the basis of an announcement is premature.

As for the F1 side of things - they're in a better poistion today than ever. They have the technology centre and there's t leats one engine facility out there that they could purchase.

N. Jones

17th November 2009, 14:19

The McLaren Group as a company has been around for a long time and while we all know them as being tight with Mercedes things don't last forever.

Maybe in 2015 everyone will be using Cosworth? Or, maybe BMW will come pack and partner McLaren? Or Honda, they had a good working relationship with McLaren back in the late 80's, if I am not mistaken. :)

Mark

17th November 2009, 16:28

Maybe in 2015 everyone will be using Cosworth? Or, maybe BMW will come pack and partner McLaren? Or Honda, they had a good working relationship with McLaren back in the late 80's, if I am not mistaken. :)

1966-1983 Ford (no surprise as just about everyone except Ferrari used it)
1983-1987 Porsche (branded as TAG)
1988-1992 Honda (champions every year except '92 when they were 2nd)
1993 Ford
1994 Peugeot
1995-Present Mercedes

Apart from when they used Ford, but then didn't everybody. Mercedes is by far their longest engine partnership, 15 years and will likely be 20 years before it comes to an end.

Rollo

17th November 2009, 20:15

What's Ilmor doing these days? They used to make Mercedes engines then I think Honda engines for IndyCar?

Ilmor Engineering Ltd gets it's name from its founders Mario Illien and Paul Morgan who started the company in 1984. When Paul Morgan died in a plane crash in 2001, Daimler AG (Mercedes-Benz parent company) bought out the rest of Illien's share and renamed it Mercedes-Benz High Performance Engines Ltd.

... who are the same people who build engines for McLaren. And to tie this back as a circular are the same people building the engine for the MP4-12C.

The M838T that is in the MP4-12C is an internal Mercedes-Benz nonclameture developed specifically for the car. If anything this hasn't proved a thing, merely that McLaren are building their engine in house... which they're not doing either since the engines come from Mercedes-Benz High Performance Engines Ltd. in Brixworth, Northamptonshire.

N. Jones

18th November 2009, 00:24

1966-1983 Ford (no surprise as just about everyone except Ferrari used it)
1983-1987 Porsche (branded as TAG)
1988-1992 Honda (champions every year except '92 when they were 2nd)
1993 Ford
1994 Peugeot
1995-Present Mercedes

Apart from when they used Ford, but then didn't everybody. Mercedes is by far their longest engine partnership, 15 years and will likely be 20 years before it comes to an end.

Thanks for that. My point is I don't think doom will fall on McLaren if they are no longer supplied by Mercedes. In five years who knows what they lay of the F1 land will be!

Saint Devote

18th November 2009, 01:54

Why Not? Because they've won 12 Drivers' Championships and 8 Constructors' Championships without producing their own engine. Their own history suggests that it's not imperative to produce their own engine. McLaren appear to have been pretty successful thus far; the game hasn't really changed.

Thats the past.

No its not imperative, but the Mclaren organization are moving into road cars and building their own engine is a logical progression for a company that is both technologically the most advanced, is excellent at recovery and is superbly ambitious.

Would'nt it be great to see and hear a Mclaren - Mclaren v8? I think so and I'd wager Bruce Mclaren would've agreed!!!!

ioan

18th November 2009, 19:19

I assume that means you have no interest in the whole field, ohh well I'll be sad to see you go seeing as you no longer have an interest in the sport.

You're free to assume that, however I have an interest in the new Mercedes GP, Sauber (or whatever they will be called), Force India and certainly Ferrari teams.

I say it's enough teams to support. :D

ioan

18th November 2009, 19:21

Would'nt it be great to see and hear a Mclaren - Mclaren v8?

It will most likely sound like the other V8's on the grid and no one will make the difference. :\

Rollo

18th November 2009, 20:23

Somebody

18th November 2009, 21:31

Here's the thing about that - if you read the Mercedes press release, they talk about "Mercedes-Benz and McLaren will continue to co-operate with each other and the supply of engines could continue until 2015.".

Note the important word "could" in the latter part concerning engines, that the co-operation "will continue" for an unspecified period, and the lack of any hint about the "partnership" continuing beyond 2015 in any form. In addition, McLaren don't currently pay for their engines, but in an interview at Autosport.com, the MB people pointedly say how the engine supply will be "of course, for a price"

Rollo

18th November 2009, 22:36

"Could" is the operative word.

Why would McLaren develop their own engines at great expense to them when they could just as easily source them from someone else... like they themselves and the vast majority of teams have done in the past?

If a Perodua engine magically became the best for season 2013, you can bet that McLaren like most other teams would be clamoring to get it. I suppose the point that I'm trying to get at here, is that despite claims that McLaren could develop their own engine, as yet they've made no attempt to do so, and don't look like doing so in the foreseeable future.

ioan

18th November 2009, 23:33

It's the future as well:
http://www.mclaren.com/latestnews/mclaren-news.php?article=380

Mercedes-Benz: to power McLaren’s Formula 1 cars until 2015

Having begun in 1995, the McLaren/Mercedes-Benz partnership is already one of the longest engine-supply associations in Formula 1 history; 2009 was its 15th consecutive year and 2015 will be its 21st consecutive year, by which time it will have become by some margin the longest such association in Formula 1 history. Both the McLaren Group and Daimler AG were therefore committed to securing its continuation as part of a realigned long-term strategic alliance, and to have provided mechanisms whereby the partnership may continue beyond 2015. The team will continue to be known as Vodafone McLaren Mercedes, its distinctive silver-with-red livery will remain unchanged, and Mercedes-Benz will continue as both an engine supplier and a partner.

There is only two sets of logical progressions in F1 - win or die. I don't see how you see the logic in diverting millions of dollarpounds from trying to achieve the former, when the latter is utter oblivion.

That's what McLaren say but Mercedes wants to sell the 40% they own in McLaren, so they do not want to be partners with them anymore, only engine suppliers.

ioan

18th November 2009, 23:34

Rollo

19th November 2009, 00:43

Ask Ron Dennis cause he said that this exactly what McLaren will do, emulate Ferrari.

In the words of the great Valve Bounce:
LINK PLEASE!! :D

LINK PLEASE!! :p :

Valve Bounce

19th November 2009, 01:20

Ask Ron Dennis cause he said that this exactly what McLaren will do, emulate Ferrari.

Was that just after they got the plans? :p : :D :rotflmao:

F1boat

19th November 2009, 07:28

Was that just after they got the plans? :p : :D :rotflmao:

ROFL!

tec4

19th November 2009, 20:14

http://www.mclaren.co.uk/
Checkout the McLaren 3.6L V8 Sportscar engine, carbon composite chassis. etc. if there are any questions about McLaren/Mercedes future, even after 2015.

If the previous McLarenF1 or the 2010 McLaren MP4-12C Sportscar is any indication, McLaren/Mercedes designers will make Ferrari look like relics of the Schumi era.

Kimi actually won a race in a 2009 Ferrari, yet they want Alonso as second driver?

If 2009 is an indication of the NEW non-Schumi-Brawn-Todt Ferrari excellence, we should worry more about Ferrari? Why did Ferrari excellence: Ross Brawn and Jean Todt quit Ferrari, with Schumacher?

ioan

19th November 2009, 20:31

In the words of the great Valve Bounce:
LINK PLEASE!! :D

It was in one of the many articles about the new McLaren automotive business that Ron is heading.

tec4

19th November 2009, 20:37

http://www.mclaren.co.uk/
more like this, if you could see beyond ex-Schumi-Brawn-Todt Ferrari worry?

tec4

19th November 2009, 21:02

I would guess that McLaren, maker of MP4-12C Sportcars, like Mercedes or more like Ferrari, may benefit from 20+ year partnership with Mercedes?

McLaren is one of very few teams, started by F1 driver, that today is automaker, more than competitive with Ferarri Sportscars, in past 20? years.

ioan

19th November 2009, 22:58

I don't remember Ron using the words "Emulate Ferrari".. I can't imagine him ever saying that... :confused:
Ferrari are not the pioneer's of motorsport regarding building their own engines in any case. Many have done it, and just because a team decides to do it, it does not mean they are trying to emulate anybody. Its like saying that teams who copy elements of other teams aero packages, are simply trying to emulate the original system :p

Try searching around before talking nonsense.

Rollo

19th November 2009, 23:40

It was in one of the many articles about the new McLaren automotive business that Ron is heading.

Prove it. You made the claim.

LINK PLEASE!!! :D

Try searching around before talking nonsense.

Malbec

20th November 2009, 16:45

Thats the past.

No its not imperative, but the Mclaren organization are moving into road cars and building their own engine is a logical progression for a company that is both technologically the most advanced, is excellent at recovery and is superbly ambitious.

Would'nt it be great to see and hear a Mclaren - Mclaren v8? I think so and I'd wager Bruce Mclaren would've agreed!!!!

It does not make financial sense for McLaren to expand into engine building and it exposes them to significant financial risks.

Take the last few years for example. With Mercedes as the engine supplier and partner, McLaren could forget about the costs of the engine regulations changes and merely worry about how to build the car around the engine.

Now lets imagine McLaren built their own V10 back in the early 2000s and went racing. Back in 2004 they'd have heard that from 2006 onwards they'd have had to have a V8 so they'd have had to invest in a totally new engine design (lets say $100 million). Then they'd have had to cover for the fact that the new engine regs may not actually have materialised so they'd have had to also develop a V10 alongside the V8 at additional cost. Then they'd have had to go through the process of reducing the size of their engine department due to the restricted development regulations put in, having to pay redundancy costs and decommisioning some of their engine dept. The cost of KERS would be additional to that.

Thats a financial headache that McLaren simply doesn't need and couldn't afford to shoulder anyway.

Of course McLaren would then have to be directly involved in the many conflicts with the FIA about proposed engine reg changes unlike the old days when they could largely leave that to their parent company. Yet another headache.

Its simpler and cheaper to leave the engine building to someone else.

As for McLaren and Mercedes, I don't think there's much love lost there with Woking having poached Brackley's best driver asset. I'd say that the partnership would be lucky to reach 2015.

ioan

20th November 2009, 22:03

Prove it. You made the claim.

LINK PLEASE!!! :D

Try searching around before talking nonsense.

Apparently you know how to write, maybe you can also learn to read and use Google.

Rollo

20th November 2009, 22:07

Apparently you know how to write, maybe you can also learn to read and use Google.

Google can not find things that do not exist; therefore since you can not prove your claim... it never happened.

Your claim like "the cake" is a lie.

Valve Bounce

20th November 2009, 22:10

Now we have a Sainted one who can communicate with the departed. :eek:

ioan

20th November 2009, 22:13

Google can not find things that do not exist; therefore since you can not prove your claim... it never happened.

Your claim like "the cake" is a lie.

Trust me, Google can find it if you know how to use it. ;)

And before you call me a liar you might want to inform yourself, so that you don't look like a clown if I ever decide to give you the link you are begging for. :p :

Sonic

20th November 2009, 22:28

I thought you always tried to to back up your opinions Ioan? Not trying very hard are we?

ioan

20th November 2009, 22:32

I thought you always tried to to back up your opinions Ioan? Not trying very hard are we?

This is not about opinions, it's about facts. Facts need not be backed up.
I have lots of other things to do than search for 3 months old news, not to mention that Google is free to use.

Sonic

20th November 2009, 22:40

Plenty of time to post back to me though :D ;)

Hey I've got all night - what am I looking for again?

20th November 2009, 23:05

Prove it. You made the claim.

LINK PLEASE!!! :D

Try searching around before talking nonsense.

"Daimler chairman Dieter Zetsche, whose company owns Mercedes, told reporters that the relationship with McLaren had been tested by the Woking company's determination to emulate Ferrari as a maker of road cars.

"That was not the interests of Daimler and Mercedes-Benz," he said"

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/mercedes-exit-is-good-for-mclaren-insists-dennis-1821583.html

Now, who is going to man up and aplogise to my fellow tifoso?

Sonic

20th November 2009, 23:17

Thanks Tamb.

Ioan - Peace and Love man.

Rollo

21st November 2009, 00:39

Has Ron Dennis changed his name to Dieter Zetsche now?

Valve Bounce

21st November 2009, 01:35

"Daimler chairman Dieter Zetsche, whose company owns Mercedes, told reporters that the relationship with McLaren had been tested by the Woking company's determination to emulate Ferrari as a maker of road cars.

"That was not the interests of Daimler and Mercedes-Benz," he said"

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/mercedes-exit-is-good-for-mclaren-insists-dennis-1821583.html

Now, who is going to man up and aplogise to my fellow tifoso?

Hey! we all knew that when Coghlan's plans were revealed. Rollo and Sonic, where have you been? :eek:
Sorry about the spelling, I don't know if it should be Coughlan - havn't time to google. :p :

Valve Bounce

21st November 2009, 01:37

Has Ron Dennis changed his name to Dieter Zetsche now?

Did you find that in Google? :D

Saint Devote

21st November 2009, 02:07

It does not make financial sense for McLaren to expand into engine building and it exposes them to significant financial risks.

Take the last few years for example. With Mercedes as the engine supplier and partner, McLaren could forget about the costs of the engine regulations changes and merely worry about how to build the car around the engine.

Now lets imagine McLaren built their own V10 back in the early 2000s and went racing. Back in 2004 they'd have heard that from 2006 onwards they'd have had to have a V8 so they'd have had to invest in a totally new engine design (lets say $100 million). Then they'd have had to cover for the fact that the new engine regs may not actually have materialised so they'd have had to also develop a V10 alongside the V8 at additional cost. Then they'd have had to go through the process of reducing the size of their engine department due to the restricted development regulations put in, having to pay redundancy costs and decommisioning some of their engine dept. The cost of KERS would be additional to that.

Thats a financial headache that McLaren simply doesn't need and couldn't afford to shoulder anyway.

Of course McLaren would then have to be directly involved in the many conflicts with the FIA about proposed engine reg changes unlike the old days when they could largely leave that to their parent company. Yet another headache.

Its simpler and cheaper to leave the engine building to someone else.

As for McLaren and Mercedes, I don't think there's much love lost there with Woking having poached Brackley's best driver asset. I'd say that the partnership would be lucky to reach 2015.

If finance is a retarding factor there is an answer for that too. If Mclaren were serious about creating another branch and investing in engine manufacture, they could actually raise finance by listing the company on the stock exchange.

The advantage there is that they could raise the money required in a business plan and investors would have a way of exiting by selling to others.

It is a step that in my view is a logical progression for a company like that although they may assess it and decide not too.

It is excitiing to think and of seeing Mclaren engine versus Ferrari engine versus Mercedes engine and would be a great championship fight :D

Saint Devote

21st November 2009, 02:13

It will most likely sound like the other V8's on the grid and no one will make the difference. :\

Not so - all the different engines sound different because of the exhaust structure.

When last did you attend a motor race - or ever for that matter?!

ioan

21st November 2009, 10:41

21st November 2009, 18:30

Has Ron Dennis changed his name to Dieter Zetsche now?

No, but the chairman of Mercedes-Benz, who own a 40% stake in Mclaren, has a much better idea of Mr Dennis and his plans for the future of Mclaren than you do.

Furthermore....from 1996...

"The Italian marque has a charisma McLaren's roadcar and land-speed record projects have been unable to match, even if the desire to emulate Enzo Ferrari did earn Dennis the sobriquet "Ronzo"

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/dennis-ready-for-life-after-his-divorce-1361269.html

ioan

21st November 2009, 22:02

I think instead of trying to join in the squabble by trying to prove whether Mclaren are trying to emulate Ferrari or not, I'll just leave Ferrari well out of this. Mclaren have spent many years in collaboration with Mercedes-Benz enjoying success with one of the oldest car companies in the world. Maybe this inspiration has rubbed off and they are trying to emulate the original Silver Arrows of Mercedes-Benz. The original racing machines that everyone tried to emulate in the first place. I know its hard to believe that a single decision in F1 has no parallel with the Scuderia, but maybe just maybe this is a rare moment.

First of all Ron wants the McLaren road going cars to be as prestigious a brand as Ferrari and also he wants McLaren to manufacture both chassis and engine in order to further mirror Ferrari.

Second, the original Silver arrows were not F1 cars but pre-war GP cars, so no McLaren isn't trying to emulated Mercedes and their silver arrows but Ferrari. :D

Big Ben

21st November 2009, 22:33

First of all Ron wants the McLaren road going cars to be as prestigious a brand as Ferrari and also he wants McLaren to manufacture both chassis and engine in order to further mirror Ferrari.

Second, the original Silver arrows were not F1 cars but pre-war GP cars, so no McLaren isn't trying to emulated Mercedes and their silver arrows but Ferrari. :D

I find it strange how you talk about what people want, think or feel... how do you even know? especially with this guy... you can hardly say he´s an open book.... he actually spent most of his life focused on f1. As far as I know McLaren´s road cars (I don´t even know if there´s more than the one I know) were sort of very limited editions.

Maybe it´s just RD´s newest hobby. Trying to paint it like it´s someone´s frustrated attempt to do something the Chinese way it´s silly.

I also think that Karl Maria von Webber or what´s his name was just giving an example. I doubt it very much that at McLaren they actually talk about these plans (if they actually exist) in those terms.

aryan

21st November 2009, 22:43

Furthermore....from 1996...

"The Italian marque has a charisma McLaren's roadcar and land-speed record projects have been unable to match, even if the desire to emulate Enzo Ferrari did earn Dennis the sobriquet "Ronzo"

Have to give it to McLaren though for the McLaren F1. It was, and still is, and awesome car. Looking at it today, 16-17 years after it was designed, it's still a piece of beauty. Of course, that car was all Gordon Murray. But the F1 and the Ferrari F40 are probably the most memorable supercars of the 20th century. Not bad for a first try for McLaren.

ioan

22nd November 2009, 00:51

As far as I know McLaren´s road cars (I don´t even know if there´s more than the one I know) were sort of very limited editions.

There is one more than what you know, one that is going to be produced in numbers similar to the Run of the mill Ferraris.

You obviously need to catch up with what McLaren are doing, so please do not lecture to me while you don't know the facts. Thank you.

PS: Here's a link so that you can catch up faster http://www.seriouswheels.com/cars/2011/top-2011-McLaren-MP4-12C.htm

ioan

22nd November 2009, 00:52

Precisely :up: ...Ferrari was probably given because its a very good example, but not the only one.

Yeah, Ron could have given Toyota or Renault for an example too, or maybe NOT. :\

Rollo

23rd November 2009, 02:47

Secretly we all know that McLaren have an ace up their sleeve:
http://i945.photobucket.com/albums/ad297/rollo75/MP4-V2.jpg

It features "guaranteed to start" technology but I suspect that the FIA might want to look into it's so-called "movable aerodynamic device"

Roamy

23rd November 2009, 06:18

what a great idea Rollo! I think I will start a company making "Nascar" lawnmowers !!

Big Ben

23rd November 2009, 11:18

There is one more than what you know, one that is going to be produced in numbers similar to the Run of the mill Ferraris.

You obviously need to catch up with what McLaren are doing, so please do not lecture to me while you don't know the facts. Thank you.

PS: Here's a link so that you can catch up faster http://www.seriouswheels.com/cars/2011/top-2011-McLaren-MP4-12C.htm

I thought I would read about how Ioan can read mind but I enjoyed it anyway. Nice car. I would buy one but I like mine better.

Thank you for showing me the light.

Valve Bounce

23rd November 2009, 12:52

I thought I would read about how Ioan can read mind but I enjoyed it anyway. Nice car. I would buy one but I like mine better.

Thank you for showing me the lightburn.

Yeah! eu, your wheels are pretty neat! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v283/king-david/lightburn-zeta-1964-1.jpg

Big Ben

23rd November 2009, 14:03

Yeah! eu, your wheels are pretty neat! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v283/king-david/lightburn-zeta-1964-1.jpg

You only missed by one wheel
http://microcarmuseum.com/tour/isetta-3wheel-special.html

Roamy

23rd November 2009, 16:44

Good idea Fousto but then again your market would be a little narrow IMO. Not everybody owns an oval shaped lawn... ;)

By the time I've finished mowing mine, it usually looks like I've been dreaming about the Nurburgring.. :p

yea but I have twice the grid :p

ioan

7th December 2009, 23:16

"When I look at the achievements of Ferrari and what we intend for McLaren, it is absolutely categorically the right thing for us to plough our own furrow. It is a win-win situation for everyone.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80472

Valve Bounce

7th December 2009, 23:57

I would still prefer to have a bright red Ferrari. Always have, always will. :(

ioan

8th December 2009, 00:42

I would still prefer to have a bright red Ferrari. Always have, always will. :(

The color is less important (it could be Giallo Modena or TdF Blue too), the prancing horse's pedigree makes the difference for me.

8th December 2009, 18:20

"When I look at the achievements of Ferrari and what we intend for McLaren, it is absolutely categorically the right thing for us to plough our own furrow"

Now, who on here was daft enough to claim that Ron Dennis didn't want to emulate Ferrari?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80472

Because those are Ron's words.

Robinho

8th December 2009, 18:30

ioan

8th December 2009, 19:24

But Ron is a liar and a cheat and you don't beleive anything he says, or is that a different Ron Dennis?

Everyone deserves a chance to redeem himself, even Ronnie boy! :D

Robinho

8th December 2009, 19:30

Everyone deserves a chance to redeem himself, even Ronnie boy! :D

christ, i never thought i'd see the day!

8th December 2009, 20:29

I shall not point out the irony here of how you told me to get out of the Ferrari thread. I hadn't realised you were a closet Mclaren fan afterall :p

And where does it specify that this is a Mclaren fans only thread?

8th December 2009, 20:30

But Ron is a liar and a cheat and you don't beleive anything he says, or is that a different Ron Dennis?

The question wasn't if it was true, but if it was what he had said.

8th December 2009, 21:14

But Ron is a liar and a cheat and you don't beleive anything he says, or is that a different Ron Dennis?

"I accept that being the boss you have to take the responsibility sometimes for things that are not always in your own mind your responsibility"

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80472

Now, although Ron's relationship with the English language is akin to Amanda Knox's relationship with Meredith Kercher, that certainly sounds like the same Ron Dennis.

DexDexter

9th December 2009, 08:29

Everyone deserves a chance to redeem himself, even Ronnie boy! :D

:up:

Big Ben

9th December 2009, 15:07

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80472

I don't even know why I bother, that moron always makes me look like a fool.

harsha

9th December 2009, 15:11

Couldn't care any less about the future of a team of crooks.

ferrari :?:

harsha

9th December 2009, 15:13

Couldn't care any less about the future of a team of crooks.

and i fail to see why you need to try and start something up in a thread wherein you obv have no interest in posting anything worthwhile...

this for a guy who tells people to back off from the ferrari thread cause they aren't ferrari fans :rolleyes:

20th December 2009, 20:34

so I am able to admit to being a Ferrari fan at some point in my life.

Either you aren't or you are.

ioan

20th December 2009, 22:59

I think I've answered that on another thread. Plus the answer is in the statement.

Wake up, you're no Ferrari fan. All you are is a troll who likes to stir some $hit when no one plays with him.

garyshell

20th December 2009, 23:38

Wake up, you're no Ferrari fan. All you are is a troll who likes to stir some $hit when no one plays with him.

Quick, grab a mirror when you read that last sentence.

Gary

gloomyDAY

21st December 2009, 04:37

Bunsen's ready to eat Hammy....

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80630

McLaren is going to interesting to follow in 2010.

DexDexter

21st December 2009, 09:05

Bunsen's ready to eat Hammy....

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80630

McLaren is going to interesting to follow in 2010.

Button can dream all he wants but the will wake up to the reality pretty soon, and IMO it's not going to be that pleasant for him.

F1boat

21st December 2009, 09:06

Well, I keep my fingers crossed for Jenson! Go Jenson!

Garry Walker

21st December 2009, 13:57

Either you aren't or you are.

When you have a team that is being lead by an obvious a$$hole like LDM, it is very easy to stop being a fan of that team.

Saint Devote

22nd December 2009, 03:50

Bunsen's ready to eat Hammy....

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80630

McLaren is going to interesting to follow in 2010.

Jenson has always remarked that the reason he joined Mclaren was the challenge it represented as well as that it is MCLAREN.

Whitmarsh has stated that they wanted Jenson because he and Lewis compliment each other. That at certain circuits each driver will race better than the other.

To put it the way you have is misleading and ridiculous.

Saint Devote

22nd December 2009, 04:00

Button can dream all he wants but the will wake up to the reality pretty soon, and IMO it's not going to be that pleasant for him.

This sort of Jenson-hate rant is really tiresome.

The reality IS that the Finnish drivers have crashed their careers - Raikkonen is in WRC hell while Kovaleinen has been banished to the outer regions of f1.

While Jenson? Well, he is world champion and has signed a three year contract with the best team in f1. Thats reality, Dex! old boy.

F1boat

22nd December 2009, 08:26

I dunno why suddenly fans of Jenson and Kimi are hissing at each other. I like both of them...

garyshell

22nd December 2009, 20:09

I dunno why suddenly fans of Jenson and Kimi are hissing at each other. I like both of them...

It's the off season. What else is there to do?

Gary

ioan

22nd December 2009, 22:35

I dunno why suddenly fans of Jenson and Kimi are hissing at each other. I like both of them...

They don't! ;)

Mia 01

23rd December 2009, 10:23

Are Maclaren gonna win one race next year?

MS and Mercedes will wipe all out next year.

Garry Walker

23rd December 2009, 18:03

F1boat

23rd December 2009, 18:32

They don't! ;)

:) :) :)

Mia 01

23rd December 2009, 18:44

With LH and JB it will be another FA and LH misery again.

Sorry, MacLaren are lost for next year.

gloomyDAY

23rd December 2009, 18:49

With LH and JB it will be another FA and LH misery again.

Sorry, MacLaren are lost for next year.I hope that doesn't happen, but there's a high probability it will occur. Both drivers have big egos, want to attain another crown, and will speak out about their qualms if necessary.

It will be a mess if one of them gets bent out of shape.

Mia 01

23rd December 2009, 19:13

F1boat

23rd December 2009, 19:14

I hope that doesn't happen, but there's a high probability it will occur. Both drivers have big egos, want to attain another crown, and will speak out about their qualms if necessary.

It will be a mess if one of them gets bent out of shape.

I hope that everything will be clean the team and all will be fair. IMO Lewis has matured now, McLaren too and Jenson is patient and can take pain. So I hope that there will be no problems like this. Especially as it seems that MW will stay on top, while Ron will concentrate on road cars.

gloomyDAY

23rd December 2009, 19:16

I hope that everything will be clean the team and all will be fair. IMO Lewis has matured now, McLaren too and Jenson is patient and can take pain. So I hope that there will be no problems like this. Especially as it seems that MW will stay on top, while Ron will concentrate on road cars.I agree.

No Ron, no problems.

Mia 01

23rd December 2009, 19:17

I agree.

No Ron, no problems.

LH is still there.

ioan

23rd December 2009, 19:59

DexDexter

24th December 2009, 10:01

This sort of Jenson-hate rant is really tiresome.

The reality IS that the Finnish drivers have crashed their careers - Raikkonen is in WRC hell while Kovaleinen has been banished to the outer regions of f1.

While Jenson? Well, he is world champion and has signed a three year contract with the best team in f1. Thats reality, Dex! old boy.

You misunderstood me, It's got nothing to do with being Finnish, it's about me thinking Lewis is the fastest thing (ok before Michael's announcement) out there. Button on the other hand has had trouble with many of his teammates, many of whom have not been Fernando Alonsos or Kimi Räikkönens of this world. It's quite logical to think that a driver who matched his WDC teammate in his rookie season will destroy a driver whose been beaten many times by teammates who were not the calibre of Alonso.

F1boat

24th December 2009, 13:40

teammates who were not the calibre of Alonso.

I think that he was beaten as a kid by RS and Fisichella. He has beaten JV, Trulli and Barrichello. IMO he has good record in the teammate wars.

DexDexter

25th December 2009, 09:36

I think that he was beaten as a kid by RS and Fisichella. He has beaten JV, Trulli and Barrichello. IMO he has good record in the teammate wars.

Pretty good record, but the fact that he was beaten by Fisi doesn't sound too promising since Kovalainen showed in his Renault-season that he was a better driver than Fisi and we all know what happened to Heikki at Mclaren. Anyway it will be interesting to follow that next year. And let's make one thing clear, I'm not a Button-hater, I just think that there are better drivers out there.

F1boat

25th December 2009, 10:57

Pretty good record, but the fact that he was beaten by Fisi doesn't sound too promising since Kovalainen showed in his Renault-season that he was a better driver than Fisi and we all know what happened to Heikki at Mclaren. Anyway it will be interesting to follow that next year. And let's make one thing clear, I'm not a Button-hater, I just think that there are better drivers out there.

Apples to oranges. Heikki was better prepared than Jenson, when he entered F1. I also think that there are better drivers than JB, but they are few and on his day he is a menace for everyone IMO.

ioan

25th December 2009, 18:53

Apples to oranges.

Rubbish.
He was making a valid comparison using drivers whom both of them drove alongside.

F1boat

26th December 2009, 10:26

Rubbish.
He was making a valid comparison using drivers whom both of them drove alongside.

IMO it is well known that Jenson arrived in F1 very young and without experience in some very strong preparation series. Even BMW's Theissen said so in mid-season, when comparing Button and Vettel. Some drivers arrive very disciplined, like Lewis Hamilton, who was considered very, very well prepared and some arrive very early and develop with time, like Jenson or Felipe. Even Kimi lost his first two seasons against NH and DC, but IMO time has shown that he was one of the most talented drivers of his generation. I personally can say the same about JB.

ioan

26th December 2009, 12:19

IMO it is well known that Jenson arrived in F1 very young and without experience in some very strong preparation series.

So did Kimi and MS, to name a few. Still they managed to impress straight away.

Malbec

26th December 2009, 13:03

So did Kimi and MS, to name a few. Still they managed to impress straight away.

MS had more experience than Jenson when they entered F1, Kimi had comparable experience.

Jenson wasn't half bad when he entered F1, he often embarrassed his teammate Ralf at Williams. He had an awful time at Renault but then again look at Massa, he was often shocking while at Sauber in his first stint there. I wouldn't want to argue now that Massa is rubbish, and Jenson has developed into a pretty decent driver too, if not quite at Hamilton's level.

DexDexter

26th December 2009, 23:06

MS had more experience than Jenson when they entered F1, Kimi had comparable experience.

Jenson wasn't half bad when he entered F1, he often embarrassed his teammate Ralf at Williams. He had an awful time at Renault but then again look at Massa, he was often shocking while at Sauber in his first stint there. I wouldn't want to argue now that Massa is rubbish, and Jenson has developed into a pretty decent driver too, if not quite at Hamilton's level.

Even if we take all this into account, Hamilton's resume is far more impressive which was my original point. Therefore I predict that Hamilton will beat Button.

ioan

26th December 2009, 23:52

Even if we take all this into account, Hamilton's resume is far more impressive which was my original point. Therefore I predict that Hamilton will beat Button.

There is no question about this.

McLaren hired Button for 2 reasons,the number one car will be a McLaren (this means a lot in terms of sponsorship given that they only managed 3rd this season) and they needed a better lapdog than Kovy.

Saint Devote

27th December 2009, 00:43

There is no question about this.

McLaren hired Button for 2 reasons,the number one car will be a McLaren (this means a lot in terms of sponsorship given that they only managed 3rd this season) and they needed a better lapdog than Kovy.

Thats your slanted opinion only.

Mclaren think differently - Whitmarsh stated that he wants two drivers that compliment each other [at different circuits] and that can win.

Next season will show - and as you never thought that Jenson could be world champion and I did, the weight of history is on my side, not yours.

Saint Devote

27th December 2009, 00:54

So did Kimi and MS, to name a few. Still they managed to impress straight away.

Jenson went from karts to f1 in less than two years while Schumacher had four years of racing cars. Raikkonen had a similar amount of car races that Jenson had, and Schumacher entered f1 in a far easier era as well - there was no outstanding driver because they had all retired other than in Senna's case - and he would have beaten Schumacher that year anyway.

The past is irelevant now. The great pity is that Raikkonen will not be in a competitive f1 car in 2010. But Jenson will and so will Schumacher and both have a longtime experience in f1 now and both are world champions.

Lets see how good Schumacher is, in an era that is far more difficult to race in than anytime he has before. No tyres designed specially for the car, no teammate taking orders to slow down and his status being equal.

Schumacher's reputation is either going to be maintained or enhanced or destroyed. Upon Jenson beating both Lewis and Schumacher will anger many people and enhance his standing - but of course the detractors will find a reason to hate.

Saint Devote

27th December 2009, 01:06

What you are forgetting is that if Kimi had wanted, he would have signed with McLaren and you can bet that McLaren would have preferred him over Button too.

I disagree. When Kimi was negotiating nobody even contemplated his leaving Brawn - and Ross has said that they only contacted Schumacher when it became clear that Jenson decided he want to leave.

Saint Devote

27th December 2009, 01:12

I dunno why suddenly fans of Jenson and Kimi are hissing at each other. I like both of them...

I did'nt start it gov'nor, e' did, honest!!!

The rules in f1 are too rigid. It is the greatest pity that a third Ferrari or Mclaren cannot be available for Kimi to race at chosen events such as Spa.

Along with this ridiculous ban on testing - imagine olympic runners being limited in their training - its laughable and so is the ban.

It doesn't have to be all out but I think that the day after a grand prix would be good.

Without Raikkonen 2010 is not going to be at the peak it could have been.

ioan

27th December 2009, 10:29

...and Schumacher entered f1 in a far easier era as well ...

:laugh:

Yep he only had Senna, Prost, Mansell, to name just a few, to race against.

Sometimes I think that you started watching F1 yesterday, otherwise I can't see how you can post such rubbish.

F1boat

27th December 2009, 10:40

So did Kimi and MS, to name a few. Still they managed to impress straight away.

Kimi, like Jenson, has one championship, although I admit that in my opinion he is better. Michael is special, he is probably the best ever.

Saint Devote

27th December 2009, 14:28

:laugh:

Yep he only had Senna, Prost, Mansell, to name just a few, to race against.

Sometimes I think that you started watching F1 yesterday, otherwise I can't see how you can post such rubbish.

When did Schumacher have to beat those drivers in his championship year? He entered f1 in 1991 and by 1993 Mansell was gone, in 1994 both Senna and Prost were gone.

In 1992 Mansell gave a racing lesson to the whole field, Prost was absent but then returned and drove away and was champion in 1993 and left and in 1994 Senna would have beaten Schumacher - which is what Schumacher said at the time and dedicated his championship to the Brazilian. Not to forget that Mansell returned for four races in 1994 and when he got into his stride beat everyone including Schumacher with a pole [Schumacher was 2nd on the grid] and a win in Australia.

Besides Hakkinen and Alonso, who BOTH beat Schuamcher when they had good cars, Damon Hill was Schumachers only competitor in an era where tyres for example were boutique and not control.

Oh yes, Schumacher had it easy. Lets see what he can do facing a real competitive situation for the first time, in 2010.

It is you that continues on the delusional path that permits a view of f1 in a world of subjective reality.

Saint Devote

27th December 2009, 14:34

Kimi, like Jenson, has one championship, although I admit that in my opinion he is better. Michael is special, he is probably the best ever.

I rate Michael Schumacher equal to Niki Lauda.

Lauda pioneered the approach that Schumacher has and was principally as successful. If he had not had his accident he would have won the championships in 1975, 1976 and 1977. Then he returned and won in 1984.

Saint Devote

27th December 2009, 14:42

Even if we take all this into account, Hamilton's resume is far more impressive which was my original point. Therefore I predict that Hamilton will beat Button.

It all depends on the car. If Mclaren produce a neutral car as is their stated objective, then it is a competition between the two sides of the garage.

Jenson is far more sensitive to negative changes than Lewis. Their styles are different too.

Whitmarsh recognizes this which is why he has said he expects the two drivers to compliment each other and benefit the team - each should be stronger at circuits the other is weaker. He has said that he expects Jenson to be better at the quick tracks.

The reason Jenson went to Mclaren, besides his desire to always wanting to race for the team, is that he has confidence that he WILL always have a car that suits him - and as Mclaren is the best racing team in the world, he made the best decision as world champion. It is his best place for a successful defense.

F1boat

27th December 2009, 15:20

When did Schumacher have to beat those drivers in his championship year? He entered f1 in 1991 and by 1993 Mansell was gone, in 1994 both Senna and Prost were gone.

In 1992 Mansell gave a racing lesson to the whole field, Prost was absent but then returned and drove away and was champion in 1993 and left and in 1994 Senna would have beaten Schumacher - which is what Schumacher said at the time and dedicated his championship to the Brazilian. Not to forget that Mansell returned for four races in 1994 and when he got into his stride beat everyone including Schumacher with a pole [Schumacher was 2nd on the grid] and a win in Australia.

Besides Hakkinen and Alonso, who BOTH beat Schuamcher when they had good cars, Damon Hill was Schumachers only competitor in an era where tyres for example were boutique and not control.

Oh yes, Schumacher had it easy. Lets see what he can do facing a real competitive situation for the first time, in 2010.

It is you that continues on the delusional path that permits a view of f1 in a world of subjective reality.

Hakkinen beat Michael in a superior McLaren in 1998. In 1999 Michael was injured. Besides Mika, Damon and Fred were not the only competitors of Mike. He raced and beated Kimi, Montoya, DC, his bro...

ioan

27th December 2009, 20:46

When did Schumacher have to beat those drivers in his championship year? He entered f1 in 1991 and by 1993 Mansell was gone, in 1994 both Senna and Prost were gone.

In 1992 Mansell gave a racing lesson to the whole field, Prost was absent but then returned and drove away and was champion in 1993 and left and in 1994 Senna would have beaten Schumacher - which is what Schumacher said at the time and dedicated his championship to the Brazilian. Not to forget that Mansell returned for four races in 1994 and when he got into his stride beat everyone including Schumacher with a pole [Schumacher was 2nd on the grid] and a win in Australia.

Besides Hakkinen and Alonso, who BOTH beat Schuamcher when they had good cars, Damon Hill was Schumachers only competitor in an era where tyres for example were boutique and not control.

Oh yes, Schumacher had it easy. Lets see what he can do facing a real competitive situation for the first time, in 2010.

It is you that continues on the delusional path that permits a view of f1 in a world of subjective reality.

:eek: Wow what a load of biased views seasoned with lots of manure. You couldn't recognize reality even if it hit you in the face.

Ranger

28th December 2009, 00:39

wedge

28th December 2009, 01:47

The reason Jenson went to Mclaren, besides his desire to always wanting to race for the team, is that he has confidence that he WILL always have a car that suits him

Depends if Lewis wants to share his own data.

Saint Devote

28th December 2009, 02:10

Depends if Lewis wants to share his own data.

To some extent it will depend on each driver, but these days especially the teams make the data from each car available, but each side of the garage compete and are the ones that have to try and engineer it.

Do not make the mistake to assume that Lewis will be the one only.

Next year without refuelling, given Jenson's ability to look after tyres according to Bridgestone, he will not exactly be dependent.

Mclaren have a great team with the two Brits and I do not expect at all the rancour of the past or the underperformance by one Mclaren driver to be present.

Saint Devote

28th December 2009, 02:22

:eek: Wow what a load of biased views seasoned with lots of manure. You couldn't recognize reality even if it hit you in the face.

Yet is it I, that produces the facts and not you. You merely bluster.

Anyone can look it up and see that I produced the truth.

Schumacher hit a sweet spot that saw unusual technical conditions exist in f1 and, coinciding with a period of time when the aces were not consistently present.

But when the new aces appeared, Hakkinen and Alonso, they beat him when they had good cars.

I expect that Alonso, given a good Ferrari, with the team in support, will continue to be Schumacher's nemesis.

airshifter

28th December 2009, 04:59

Oh yes, Schumacher had it easy.

This is destined to become a signature quote.

Of course MS had it easy. He just lucked his way into all of those titles! :laugh:

DexDexter

28th December 2009, 09:12

Hakkinen beat Michael in a superior McLaren in 1998. In 1999 Michael was injured. Besides Mika, Damon and Fred were not the only competitors of Mike. He raced and beated Kimi, Montoya, DC, his bro...

Add to that in 2000 Hakkinen and Michael fought closely for the title, and engine failure for Mika while leading the USGP was the end of that. IMO (obviously totally subjective) Häkkinen was his greatest rival, the one Michael respected the most, he's said it himself on a many occasion. IMO on his day Mika was a better driver but couldn't do it every day like Michael and wasn't as committed outside the car.

ShiftingGears

28th December 2009, 09:41

Schumacher hit a sweet spot that saw unusual technical conditions exist in f1

You mean like Button at the start of 2009?

Saint Devote

28th December 2009, 11:32

You mean like Button at the start of 2009?

Exactly :D

And it was there until Bahrain. All drivers that are good take that advantage and run with it. It wins grands prix and titles.

Schumacher however had it good for a VERY long time.

ShiftingGears

28th December 2009, 11:38

Exactly :D

And it was there until Bahrain. All drivers that are good take that advantage and run with it. It wins grands prix and titles.

Schumacher however had it good for a VERY long time.

What I want to know is what unusual technical conditions in F1 there were that had Schumacher winning from 1992 to 2006. I also want to know how he had it easy.

There is a good reason he was the best driver on the grid for arguably his entire career. And it wasn't because he had it easy.

Saint Devote

28th December 2009, 11:43

This is destined to become a signature quote.

Of course MS had it easy. He just lucked his way into all of those titles! :laugh:

Do you read English?

You may wish to believe that he would have won ALL those titles in an era where he had drivers like Senna and Prost and Mansell in competitive cars - I do not.

He hit a sweet spot because they had retired or in Senna's case killed. He ran with it and that IS to his credit. But making Schumacher into something that is so very unusual is not on.

I rate him alongside Niki Lauda which is very high praise indeed.

jens

28th December 2009, 14:02

Poor McLaren and their sudden unpopularity - even in their own thread it is filled with discussions about Schumacher. :D

wedge

28th December 2009, 15:19

To some extent it will depend on each driver, but these days especially the teams make the data from each car available, but each side of the garage compete and are the ones that have to try and engineer it.

Depends on the car.

Rubens didn't to share his data mid season.

After the debacle in Hungary, Alonso and Hamilton had little data that could be shared for the rest of 2007.

wedge

28th December 2009, 15:29

Yet is it I, that produces the facts and not you. You merely bluster.

Anyone can look it up and see that I produced the truth.

Schumacher hit a sweet spot that saw unusual technical conditions exist in f1 and, coinciding with a period of time when the aces were not consistently present.

But when the new aces appeared, Hakkinen and Alonso, they beat him when they had good cars.

I expect that Alonso, given a good Ferrari, with the team in support, will continue to be Schumacher's nemesis.

It goes to show that to beat Schumacher you had to have the better car but that was never the case entirely.

Alonso beat Schumi at 2005 San Marino GP and 2006 Turkish GP with inferior car.

ioan

28th December 2009, 19:25

Yet is it I, that produces the facts and not you.

Calling your dreams facts is a bit rich, but hey I won't stay in the way of a 'dreamer' like you.

ioan

28th December 2009, 19:26

What I want to know is what unusual technical conditions in F1 there were that had Schumacher winning from 1992 to 2006. I also want to know how he had it easy.

Obviously you got no answers from mister self canonized 'I tell facts' Devote. I wonder why is that he claims a lot of 'facts' but never answers when asked for proof. :\

ioan

28th December 2009, 19:28

Do you read English?

He obviously does, just like the rest of us who don't agree with you.

28th December 2009, 22:21

Alonso beat Schumi at 2005 San Marino GP and 2006 Turkish GP with inferior car.

Imola 05? No way was the R25 inferior to the F2005. Besides which, Imola is a relatively easy place to defend your lead, as Michael showed in 2006.

In Turkey 06, Fernando beat Schumacher due to the safety car being deployed and Michael having to sit behind Massa in the pit-lane at the first stops. Before the safety car deployment, Michael was in front.

No idea what this has to do with the future of Mclaren though.

ioan

28th December 2009, 22:26

Imola 05? No way was the R25 inferior to the F2005.

Agree. Funny how people can think that the champion car was worse than the F2005 which was a flop and only MS' talent kept it on the podium.

jens

28th December 2009, 22:56

ioan

28th December 2009, 23:03

At Imola 2005 F2005 was lapping by some 2 seconds faster than the R25, so unless you think Alonso is 2+ seconds p/lap slower than Schumacher as a driver, Ferrari was the superior car on that particular circuit in those conditions on that day. Schumacher lost the win with a driver error in Sunday morning's qualifying.

Sure MS lost because of his own fault while the F2005 was 2 seconds per lap faster than the R25 and how as Rubens doing meanwhile? Was he also 2 seconds per lap faster than the R25?

jens

28th December 2009, 23:08

Sure MS lost because of his own fault while the F2005 was 2 seconds per lap faster than the R25 and how as Rubens doing meanwhile? Was he also 2 seconds per lap faster than the R25?

IIRC Rubens retired early in the race, so we didn't get much of a comparison from him.

ioan

28th December 2009, 23:09

IIRC Rubens retired early in the race, so we didn't get much of a comparison from him.

18 laps is long enough to make a comparison IMO. Was he 2 seconds per lap faster too?

jens

28th December 2009, 23:17

18 laps is long enough to make a comparison IMO. Was he 2 seconds per lap faster too?

I don't remember his exact track position that precisely any more, but I suspect he might have been stuck in traffic like Schumacher was during the first stint.

ioan

28th December 2009, 23:25

I don't remember his exact track position that precisely any more, but I suspect he might have been stuck in traffic like Schumacher was during the first stint.

A car 2 seconds/lap faster was stuck in traffic?! You might be confusing MS with Button.

Valve Bounce

29th December 2009, 00:11

A car 2 seconds/lap faster was stuck in traffic?! You might be confusing MS with Button.

Common!! we better stop teasing about Bunsen. Somebody might take us seriously. :p :

ioan

29th December 2009, 00:17

Common!! we better stop teasing about Bunsen. Somebody might take us seriously. :p :

:D You're right! ;)

wedge

29th December 2009, 01:21

Imola 05? No way was the R25 inferior to the F2005. Besides which, Imola is a relatively easy place to defend your lead, as Michael showed in 2006.

Tell that to Jenson Button!

In Turkey 06, Fernando beat Schumacher due to the safety car being deployed and Michael having to sit behind Massa in the pit-lane at the first stops. Before the safety car deployment, Michael was in front.

Alonso defended his second place in the last couple of laps. Schumi had his front wing just behind Alonso's gearbox

Garry Walker

29th December 2009, 12:00

Imola 05? No way was the R25 inferior to the F2005. Besides which, Imola is a relatively easy place to defend your lead, as Michael showed in 2006.
.

Sorry, lets be realistic. I am a schumacher fan, but Imola was the only GP that year where the Ferrari really shone for whatever reason. He was lapping 2 seconds per lap faster than Alonso and as much as I hate alonso, that gap was not due to driver talent.

A car 2 seconds/lap faster was stuck in traffic?! You might be confusing MS with Button.

How fast Barrichello could have gone, we dont know, but both he and Schumi were stuck in traffic for the first stint and RB was actually ahead of MS. Neither could do anything about the traffic.

It is a shame that the performance of the car+tyres at Imola did not last into the next GPs.

Saint Devote

30th December 2009, 02:08

As a Jenson supporter I cant think of anything better than our fav driver being a Mclaren driver. All the years we had endure the frustration of Jenson not having a good car and then the came the winter of 2008!!!

Of course Spring in the form of Brawn GP came along and now its just amazing.

Jenson Button - Mclaren :-]]

30th December 2009, 12:00

Sorry, lets be realistic. I am a schumacher fan, but Imola was the only GP that year where the Ferrari really shone for whatever reason. He was lapping 2 seconds per lap faster than Alonso and as much as I hate alonso, that gap was not due to driver talent.

How fast Barrichello could have gone, we dont know, but both he and Schumi were stuck in traffic for the first stint and RB was actually ahead of MS. Neither could do anything about the traffic.

It is a shame that the performance of the car+tyres at Imola did not last into the next GPs.

I take your point, but if Michael was "stuck in traffic" early in the race, that traffic must have done just as good a job as Fernando did later keeping the Ferrari behind them, which means that defending a lead at Imola isn't a big task.

Unless you're name is Jenson.

motetarip

31st December 2009, 01:33

f1indiablog

31st December 2009, 08:08

Happy new year Guys..

My wish:

Schumacher wins again in 2010. ;)

Garry Walker

2nd January 2010, 08:46

I take your point, but if Michael was "stuck in traffic" early in the race, that traffic must have done just as good a job as Fernando did later keeping the Ferrari behind them, which means that defending a lead at Imola isn't a big task.

Unless you're name is Jenson.

Absolutely. Holding up others at Imola is much easier than at other tracks.

The performance of Jenson button that day against Schumi was a joke, as it often tends to be when those two are fighting on race track (canada 2005 another good example, jenson puts it in the wall the moment Schumi appears behind him)

motetarip

2nd January 2010, 22:27

The performance of Jenson button that day against Schumi was a joke, as it often tends to be when those two are fighting on race track (canada 2005 another good example, jenson puts it in the wall the moment Schumi appears behind him)

Yawn :o

Saint Devote

3rd January 2010, 01:15

Yawn :o

You DO have a way with words!! I think I'll second that :o
:D

ioan

3rd January 2010, 19:49

Saint Devote

3rd January 2010, 22:57

Absolutely. Holding up others at Imola is much easier than at other tracks.

The performance of Jenson button that day against Schumi was a joke, as it often tends to be when those two are fighting on race track (canada 2005 another good example, jenson puts it in the wall the moment Schumi appears behind him)

Jenson beat Schumacher to pole position in 2005 at Ile Notre Dame :D didnt start too well and then allowed himself onto the marbles and into the wall area crashed. He made an error and was the first to admit it - I recall the great Senna did the same while under NO pressure at Monte Carlo. Going to rubbish Ayrton as well?

You are just sore about Jenson winning the world title in 2009 and seek to rubbish him because there is nothing you can do about it :s mokin:

ioan

3rd January 2010, 23:30

Valve Bounce

4th January 2010, 00:01

Next you will be comparing Jensy to Fangio, Lauda, Prost and so on...

Please don't, ioan!! I beg you not to!!

By the way, how were the slopes?

ioan

4th January 2010, 00:07

Please don't, ioan!! I beg you not to!!

By the way, how were the slopes?

Slopes were OK, would have been great with some more snow, but nowadays we can't have that too often.

Saint Devote

4th January 2010, 02:04

Next you will be comparing Jensy to Fangio, Lauda, Prost and so on...

He does not need my help.
As a world champion he is already in THAT club.

Comparing him top Senna? No.

Perhaps English is not you're first langauage but I used Senna as an example: the double standard of castigating Jenson for crashing at Ile Notre Dame - I was asking whether he would deride Senna for crashing while in the lead at Monte Carlo?

Similarly the dishonest attack on Jenson for not keeping the lead from pole at Imola in 2004. Jenson with much less experience than the seven times world champion in a 2004 Ferrari, driving the BAR, was passed in pit stops and finished second.

And in 2004 Jenson finished third in the championship only one point behind Barrichello. That year was a great year for Jenson and demonstrated his ability in far lesser car than the all conquering Ferrari which made Schumacher's job so easy.

Valve Bounce

4th January 2010, 05:00

He does not need my help.
As a world champion he is already in THAT club.

For once, you are absolutely correct.

You are a Nobody Pom who jumped onto the Bunsen Bandwagon after he started to string quite a few races together. In fact, you have contributed nothing, nada, zilch, moyeh, upseo to Bunsen's championship win, not even a wimpish cheer.

But once he won, you are gloating as if you are part of his pit crew. Basically, you cannot even claim that you contributed hot air to his WDC win.

Most of us here support drivers and teams through thick and thin, some who have never even won a race; but YOU - you are just a Nobody Pom jumping onto Bunsen's Bandwagon after he won a string of races.

You claim you have followed F1 for so many years; well show me where you cheered for Bunsen before he looked like winning his championship last year.

Until then, S.T.F.U.

F1boat

4th January 2010, 07:31

For once, you are absolutely correct.

You are a Nobody Pom who jumped onto the Bunsen Bandwagon after he started to string quite a few races together. In fact, you have contributed nothing, nada, zilch, moyeh, upseo to Bunsen's championship win, not even a wimpish cheer.

But once he won, you are gloating as if you are part of his pit crew. Basically, you cannot even claim that you contributed hot air to his WDC win.

Most of us here support drivers and teams through thick and thin, some who have never even won a race; but YOU - you are just a Nobody Pom jumping onto Bunsen's Bandwagon after he won a string of races.

You claim you have followed F1 for so many years; well show me where you cheered for Bunsen before he looked like winning his championship last year.

Until then, S.T.F.U.

Not fair, Valve. Many fans appear after a driver starts winning. I personally like several drivers and support the one who wins at the moment, although I might start to dislike some driver when he becomes stronger and more unpleasant (for me).
From what I know Devote registered after mid-season and always supported Jenson, even in most difficult times.

Valve Bounce

4th January 2010, 08:50

Not fair, Valve. Many fans appear after a driver starts winning. I personally like several drivers and support the one who wins at the moment, although I might start to dislike some driver when he becomes stronger and more unpleasant (for me).
From what I know Devote registered after mid-season and always supported Jenson, even in most difficult times.

Exactly my point!! so where was this guy, who claims to have been knowledgeably following F1 since the days of Jimmy Clark, hiding when Bunsen was copping a hiding from Sato and Ant in second hand Hondas? The guys who stood by Bunsen in those dark days are the true supporters, not some Jumped Up Nobody Pom who just joined this forum to jump onto the Bunsen wagon after : like how many races had Bunsen won last year when he joined ??

Give us a break. Not fair?? his gloating is only worthy if he can prove he was a Bunsen supporter from the darker Bunsen years when Bunsen was racing for Renault.

My point here is that if anyone wanted to discuss F1 in a forum and looked up "Motorsport Forum" in google, our forum pops up right away.

ShiftingGears

4th January 2010, 11:39

Exactly my point!! so where was this guy, who claims to have been knowledgeably following F1 since the days of Jimmy Clark, hiding when Bunsen was copping a hiding from Sato and Ant in second hand Hondas? The guys who stood by Bunsen in those dark days are the true supporters, not some Jumped Up Nobody Pom who just joined this forum to jump onto the Bunsen wagon after : like how many races had Bunsen won last year when he joined ??

Give us a break. Not fair?? his gloating is only worthy if he can prove he was a Bunsen supporter from the darker Bunsen years when Bunsen was racing for Renault.

My point here is that if anyone wanted to discuss F1 in a forum and looked up "Motorsport Forum" in google, our forum pops up right away.

Many people support sportsmen, sportswomen and sports teams without ever venturing onto internet forums and engaging in the inevitable pissing contests. Your idea that someone isn't a real fan because someone didn't join a forum at the start of someones premier class career is utterly ridiculous.

Valve Bounce

4th January 2010, 11:45

Many people support sportsmen, sportswomen and sports teams without ever venturing onto internet forums and engaging in the inevitable pissing contests. Your idea that someone isn't a real fan because someone didn't join a forum at the start of someones premier class career is utterly ridiculous.

OK! tell me where he'd been hiding until Bunsen started winning last year then! Is it a coincidence that by June, Bunsen had won six of the seven GP's already? So when did joining the pissing contest here come about? :rolleyes:

ShiftingGears

4th January 2010, 11:55

OK! tell me where he'd been hiding until Bunsen started winning last year then! Is it a coincidence that by June, Bunsen had won six of the seven GP's already? So when did joining the pissing contest here come about? :rolleyes:

Who cares? It doesn't prove anything.

Valve Bounce

4th January 2010, 12:24

Who cares? It doesn't prove anything.

It proves that he is just jumping on the bandwagon, man!! Telling everybody he's been following Bunsen for years. But you can believe all that BS if you want to, nobody's stopping you. Maybe you can even cheer while he gloats. Like:"You da man!!"

ShiftingGears

4th January 2010, 12:45

It proves that he is just jumping on the bandwagon, man!!

No it doesn't. Being a fan does not require the validation of being on an internet forum.

I fully expect McLaren to win races next year, and at worst, be the 3rd best team.

Valve Bounce

4th January 2010, 12:50

No it doesn't. Being a fan does not require the validation of being on an internet forum.

No! quite true. But joining an Internet Forum to jump on the bandwagon to gloat after the driver has won 6 out of the first seven races shows him up for what he is.

F1boat

4th January 2010, 13:04

No! quite true. But joining an Internet Forum to jump on the bandwagon to gloat after the driver has won 6 out of the first seven races shows him up for what he is.
I disagree. More likely he felt that he need to share his enthusiasm. Nothing wrong with this. The only wrong is when he bashes Michael or Kimi and then calls everyone who criticizes Jenson a hater.
But for me he is a great JB fan.

motetarip

4th January 2010, 21:57

Count me in as a Button fan - for many years now waiting for him to get a decent drive. Immensely talented driver, and importantly not one to drive into his championship rivals on purpose. Oh my bad..

ioan

4th January 2010, 22:50

Perhaps English is not you're first langauage ...

Looks like it isn't your first language either, so cut the crap...

ioan

4th January 2010, 22:53

Not fair, Valve. Many fans appear after a driver starts winning.

And disappear after the driver is beaten (like Jenson will be in 2010), they are called fair weather 'fans'.

motetarip

4th January 2010, 23:14

And disappear after the driver is beaten (like Jenson will be in 2010), they are called fair weather 'fans'.

Ah, thats who had my crystal ball. Must be broken now though

ioan

4th January 2010, 23:32

Ah, thats who had my crystal ball. Must be broken now though

:confused:

Valve Bounce

4th January 2010, 23:44

I disagree. More likely he felt that he need to share his enthusiasm. Nothing wrong with this. The only wrong is when he bashes Michael or Kimi and then calls everyone who criticizes Jenson a hater.
But for me he is a great JB fan.

Look, nobody hates Bunsen. He had difficult times and then he lucked into a good car last year and had a great season. Good for him. Everyone who supported him and stood by him through those difficult times have every right to jump up and down and cheer - they are the true supporters of Jenson Button.
I just hate the guy who hides when his favourite driver is not doing so good, but after the guy wins six out of seven races at the start of the season, the guy comes out from behind the bushes and starts to gloat. If he was a true supporter he would have been giving the racer every support when the guy was doing badly.

Saint Devote

5th January 2010, 01:50

I have only ever supported three drivers - Jody Scheckter, Nigel Mansell and Jenson Button.

Don't know how anyone can actually demonstrate their "required credentials" - after all how do we even know that anyone here is a man - they could be a woman!!!

Secondly what does it matter how long anyone supports a driver? On the forum we argue, declare and debate over current matters, sometimes raising the past.

I have now 36 years as a motor racing fan - since I was a kid. My favorite seasons are still 1974 - 1981, 1992 and now 2009 joins that list and I am a purist.

I always chose a driver in f3 although Jody was for personal reasons automatically from when he raced FF in South Africa.

Why Jenson? I just liked what racing people that knew him wrote about him as a driver - his smooth style reminded me of Alain Prost and I noted him as a driver that could win at my favorite track, Monte Carlo.

It took a while although I am convinced he would have won in 2005 if the start had gone better.

I hope his colours this year are mix of Mclaren with his usual red, white and blue.

F1boat

5th January 2010, 10:17

Look, nobody hates Bunsen. He had difficult times and then he lucked into a good car last year and had a great season. Good for him. Everyone who supported him and stood by him through those difficult times have every right to jump up and down and cheer - they are the true supporters of Jenson Button.
I just hate the guy who hides when his favourite driver is not doing so good, but after the guy wins six out of seven races at the start of the season, the guy comes out from behind the bushes and starts to gloat. If he was a true supporter he would have been giving the racer every support when the guy was doing badly.

He gave him full support in the not so amazing second part of the season.

5th January 2010, 11:13

I noted him as a driver that could win at my favorite track, Monte Carlo.

It took a while although I am convinced he would have won in 2005 if the start had gone better.

More like if his team weren't banned from competing.

Garry Walker

5th January 2010, 12:29

Jenson beat Schumacher to pole position in 2005 at Ile Notre Dame :D didnt start too well and then allowed himself onto the marbles and into the wall area crashed. He made an error and was the first to admit it - I recall the great Senna did the same while under NO pressure at Monte Carlo. Going to rubbish Ayrton as well?

Actually, McLaren mechanics have by now admitted that the reason he crashed at monaco from a 50 second lead was due to tyre failing. But dont compare Senna with Button.
In anycase, why is it that whenever Schumacher and Button met on track, Button made a mistake and let Schumi pass him?

You are just sore about Jenson winning the world title in 2009 and seek to rubbish him because there is nothing you can do about it :s mokin:Actually the success of Button (well, rather Brawn) earned me a very sizeable amount of money and I preferred Button winning the title over that D!ckhead Vettel everytime. But I consider him the most unworthy title winner I remember in a long time, simply because I dont rate him at all.

Similarly the dishonest attack on Jenson for not keeping the lead from pole at Imola in 2004. Jenson with much less experience than the seven times world champion in a 2004 Ferrari, driving the BAR, was passed in pit stops and finished second.
If you had changed the cars that day, Schumacher would probably have won also in the BAR against Button in the Ferrari.

And in 2004 Jenson finished third in the championship only one point behind Barrichello. That year was a great year for Jenson and demonstrated his ability in far lesser car than the all conquering Ferrari which made Schumacher's job so easy.
Actually Button finished 29 points behind Rubens, not 1.

BAR was a superb car and quite close to Ferrari many times and even better at quite a few times. It was such a great car that an idiot like Sato was able to get a podium in it (and would have gotten one many more times had his car not failed all the time). It is funny how drivers like Kimi, Trulli and JPM were able to take wins that year in lesser cars than BAR, yet Button didnt.

I have now 36 years as a motor racing fan - since I was a kid. My favorite seasons are still 1974 - 1981, 1992 and now 2009 joins that list and I am a purist.

You claim to be a purist and one of your favourite seasons is 1992? Yeah, a true purist racing fan, not a fanboy or anything.

jens

5th January 2010, 13:24

I must say I'm starting to like Saint Devote's immense enthusiasm and emotionality. There are not really many fans like him around here and that adds a different and a new colour to the debates regardless of the depth of argumentation. :)

F1boat

5th January 2010, 16:39

I disagree, Garry. The Ferrari was much superior than the BAR in 2004. In Imola particularly MS messed his qualy lap and that's why Jenson got the Pole. The crimson beast was invincible.

gloomyDAY

5th January 2010, 17:10

Actually the success of Button (well, rather Brawn) earned me a very sizeable amount of money and I preferred Button winning the title over that D!ckhead Vettel everytime. But I consider him the most unworthy title winner I remember in a long time, simply because I dont rate him at all.What do you have against Vettel?

This is ridiculous.

ioan

5th January 2010, 21:10

But I consider him the most unworthy title winner I remember in a long time, simply because I dont rate him at all.

:up:

ioan

5th January 2010, 22:20

I know this keeps doing the rounds but "unworthy" is probably the wrong word IMO. "Unconvincing" when the second half of the season is analysed, but the word unworthy suggests the title was gained using false pretenses and not awarded for the drivers ability. :)

And he isn't wrong, the title was awarded in a proportion of 99% for the car's and team manager's abilities.

motetarip

5th January 2010, 23:03

And he isn't wrong, the title was awarded in a proportion of 99% for the car's and team manager's abilities.

Which perfectly sums up quite a few of Schumacher's races and titles. That's the ones where him or the team weren't actually caught cheating. In fact, I'm not even going to admit the guy had an ounce of talent because that's how it's played on this forum apparently.

Valve Bounce

5th January 2010, 23:30

Every car needs a pilot ioan and its difficult to discredit Buttons first half performance, as you'd have to question nearly all the World Championships of the last 10 years on a performance basis. Credit should be given where it is due, rather than trying to devalue a WDC that has earnt enough points for such a prize. This has been extensively discussed and its up the viewer to apply whatever logic they feel is necessary IMO.

If the "wins is what counts" stance is applied to this arguement like it is in other threads, then its difficult to judge Button in any other way other than worthy IMHO. :)

Yeah! I remember this was discussed in great detail, and six guys even won holiday packages over it. :D

ioan

6th January 2010, 01:10

Yeah! I remember this was discussed in great detail, and six guys even won holiday packages over it. :D

It looks like henners wants a bis! :D

Saint Devote

6th January 2010, 04:16

Actually, McLaren mechanics have by now admitted that the reason he crashed at monaco from a 50 second lead was due to tyre failing. But dont compare Senna with Button.
In anycase, why is it that whenever Schumacher and Button met on track, Button made a mistake and let Schumi pass him?

Actually the success of Button (well, rather Brawn) earned me a very sizeable amount of money and I preferred Button winning the title over that D!ckhead Vettel everytime. But I consider him the most unworthy title winner I remember in a long time, simply because I dont rate him at all.

If you had changed the cars that day, Schumacher would probably have won also in the BAR against Button in the Ferrari.

Actually Button finished 29 points behind Rubens, not 1.

BAR was a superb car and quite close to Ferrari many times and even better at quite a few times. It was such a great car that an idiot like Sato was able to get a podium in it (and would have gotten one many more times had his car not failed all the time). It is funny how drivers like Kimi, Trulli and JPM were able to take wins that year in lesser cars than BAR, yet Button didnt.

You claim to be a purist and one of your favourite seasons is 1992? Yeah, a true purist racing fan, not a fanboy or anything.

Where did the Mclaren mechanics say that?

Ron Dennis said that he had just told Senna that Prost had eased back and lap times dropped by over 3 seconds - Senna slowed and went off.

You call drivers names - as you do Vettel - you really are an incipid individual.

ShiftingGears

6th January 2010, 04:23

Ron Dennis said that he had just told Senna that Prost had eased back and lap times dropped by over 3 seconds - Senna slowed and went off.

I have read in both Autosport and PlanetF1 that Senna had a slow puncture.

Jenson did and finished only one point adrift from Barrichello and the highest non-Ferrari car.

He finished 1 point behind Barrichello in 2005, when Button finished 96 points behind the highest non-Ferrari car.

Valve Bounce

6th January 2010, 08:47

F1boat

6th January 2010, 09:30

Is this the right time for me to say that Sato and Ant were thrashing Bunsen and his team mate a couple of years ago in second hand Hondas until Honda put a halt to the embarrassing situation by pulling the plug on these upstarts?

Perhaps not!!

The Aguri car was better than the 07 Honda, hence the difference in performance. Jenson handles Taku-san very well, when they raced together. I never understood your obsession with Ant, although he is good in the BBC.

Garry Walker

6th January 2010, 11:09

I disagree, Garry. The Ferrari was much superior than the BAR in 2004. In Imola particularly MS messed his qualy lap and that's why Jenson got the Pole. The crimson beast was invincible.

RB was much slower than MS that weekend, so sure, the Ferrari was a bit faster than BAR, but MS as a driver was much faster than JB as a driver.

What do you have against Vettel?

This is ridiculous.

I have explained it many times, do I have to go through it again?

And he isn't wrong, the title was awarded in a proportion of 99% for the car's and team manager's abilities.
What makes it all the more sad that places 2 and 3 overall were taken by drivers even less worthy than Button, who drove even at a lesser level.

I have no doubts that a top driver in the Red Bull (Massa, Kimi or Hamilton) would have taken the title in that car.

In fact, I'm not even going to admit the guy had an ounce of talent because that's how it's played on this forum apparently.

Your refusal to admit his talent only speaks volumes about how much his success has damaged you mentally.

Is this the right time for me to say that Sato and Ant were thrashing Bunsen and his team mate a couple of years ago in second hand Hondas until Honda put a halt to the embarrassing situation by pulling the plug on these upstarts?

Perhaps not!!

We have been through this many times, but you keep going on with the same BS as always.

Honda pulled the plug on Super Aguri, because those idiots were unable to find any sponsor money in the time they were supposed to find it and Honda got tired of wasting money.

Thankfully those two fools Sato and "ant" are now not in f1 anymore and hopefully never will be again.

Where did the Mclaren mechanics say that?

Ron Dennis said that he had just told Senna that Prost had eased back and lap times dropped by over 3 seconds - Senna slowed and went off.

You call drivers names - as you do Vettel - you really are an incipid individual.

As you can see, other posters are backing me up regarding that Senna thing.

Of course, you will be glad to know I exposed your lies again regarding Button and corrected your factual mistakes.

You can insult me however you like, but I will just point out that you are the one who goes around and keeps posting neverending stuff about how sore everyone is about button winning and how everyone hates him.

Valve Bounce

6th January 2010, 13:31

The Aguri car was better than the 07 Honda, hence the difference in performance. Jenson handles Taku-san very well, when they raced together. I never understood your obsession with Ant, although he is good in the BBC.

Perhaps I know a lot more than you do. I do have a great souvenir: the cap he wore just after he came within 0.2 seconds of SchM's all time record while testing at Monza, for a birthday present.

F1boat

6th January 2010, 20:41

Perhaps I know a lot more than you do. I do have a great souvenir: the cap he wore just after he came within 0.2 seconds of SchM's all time record while testing at Monza, for a birthday present.

OK, he is better than the World Champion and almost as fast as the World's Greatest Driver. Happy now?

F1boat

6th January 2010, 20:43

Garry, one thing I find difficult to get. I agree that Michael is better than Jenson, but how does this means that Jenson is not good? Michael is the best ever!

Valve Bounce

6th January 2010, 20:43

OK, he is better than the World Champion and almost as fast as the World's Greatest Driver. Happy now?

:rolleyes:

TMorel

6th January 2010, 21:02

almost as fast as the World's Greatest Driver. Happy now?

Shouldn't we qualify that by saying "The worlds greatest driver that was given the opportunity to demonstrate that fact in the Formula1 championship" as it's quite possible that the worlds greatest driver was never given the chance to be on a track and show that ability as she had to stay home and look after the kids.

6th January 2010, 21:20

Shouldn't we qualify that by saying "The worlds greatest driver that was given the opportunity to demonstrate that fact in the Formula1 championship" as it's quite possible that the worlds greatest driver was never given the chance to be on a track and show that ability as she had to stay home and look after the kids.

Or, alternatively, reject politically correct, non-competitive bollocks as just that.

Garry Walker

7th January 2010, 10:40

Perhaps I know a lot more than you do. I do have a great souvenir: the cap he wore just after he came within 0.2 seconds of SchM's all time record while testing at Monza, for a birthday present.

Yeah, that is his claim to fame. One quick laptime in testing which nobody cares about.

wedge

7th January 2010, 15:15

Perhaps I know a lot more than you do. I do have a great souvenir: the cap he wore just after he came within 0.2 seconds of SchM's all time record while testing at Monza, for a birthday present.

So then, Mr Know-it-all, how much fuel was he running compared to the others that day?

ioan

7th January 2010, 19:08

Yeah, that is his claim to fame. One quick laptime in testing which nobody cares about.

And let's not forget that during test sessions the cars are not scrutinized.

Mia 01

7th January 2010, 20:13

If MacLaren don`t build a good car, this debate is obsolete.

But ofcourse, still the inteam battle.

Saint Devote

8th January 2010, 02:12

If MacLaren don`t build a good car, this debate is obsolete.

But ofcourse, still the inteam battle.

I think the odds that Mclaren produce another problematic car is extremely low.

I expect Woking to produce a good car for an excellent pair of drivers that is a winner - a Mclaren wins at Sahkir - guess which one :D

Valve Bounce

8th January 2010, 03:02

So then, Mr Know-it-all, how much fuel was he running compared to the others that day?
The tank was empty - they had two rockets strapped to the back of the car. :eek:

Mia 01

8th January 2010, 10:18

I think the odds that Mclaren produce another problematic car is extremely low.

I expect Woking to produce a good car for an excellent pair of drivers that is a winner - a Mclaren wins at Sahkir - guess which one :D

The odds that Mercedes, Ferrari and RedBull will produce a bad car is low?

Valve Bounce

8th January 2010, 10:56

The odds that Mercedes, Ferrari and RedBull will produce a bad car is low?

I'm confused. I am not sure whether this implies the three are producing the one car which cannot be bad, or whether all three will produce three different good cars, or whether one of the three will not produce a bad car. :confused:

Mia 01

8th January 2010, 11:17

I'm confused. I am not sure whether this implies the three are producing the one car which cannot be bad, or whether all three will produce three different good cars, or whether one of the three will not produce a bad car. :confused:

Soon we get the answers, the testing begins.

But, perhaps unlike you, I don´t take anything for given.

MacLaren could be the new 2009 Brawn :D

Valve Bounce

8th January 2010, 11:36

I tried real hard, but I just can't see how the McLaren could be a new 2009 Brawn. Surely McLaren will have a new design for this year, won't they?

Saint Devote

8th January 2010, 12:02

The odds that Mercedes, Ferrari and RedBull will produce a bad car is low?

I was referring to Mclaren only - but I would say that Mclaren and Red Bull definitely because Woking has the organization and showed its immpresive recovery ability in 2009, Red Bull has Adrian Newey.

However Ferrari is the weakest - but with Alonso, the best driver in f1 today and being the Schumacher conqueror, he is their most important single asset.

Mia 01

8th January 2010, 12:44

I was referring to Mclaren only - but I would say that Mclaren and Red Bull definitely because Woking has the organization and showed its immpresive recovery ability in 2009, Red Bull has Adrian Newey.

However Ferrari is the weakest - but with Alonso, the best driver in f1 today and being the Schumacher conqueror, he is their most important single asset.
I agree for the first but partly to the last sentence. Ferrari wasn´t one of the better cars lat year, and probably they won´t be this year. but now, Where is Kimi?

F1boat

8th January 2010, 13:50

IMO Newey is a bit overestimated. He had some dreadful McLarens.

wedge

8th January 2010, 14:30

IMO Newey is a bit overestimated. He had some dreadful McLarens.

50-50

Mercedes had fragile engines

ioan

8th January 2010, 18:54

I think the odds that Mclaren produce another problematic car is extremely low.

Like 50%, exactly as much as the odds to produce a good car. :D

ioan

8th January 2010, 18:55

The odds that Mercedes, Ferrari and RedBull will produce a bad car is low?

About as low as McLaren's odds. ;)

F1boat

8th January 2010, 18:56

50-50

Mercedes had fragile engines

Although the design of Newey seems to be hard on engines. No problem for the Renaults in the factory teams for example and I remember some engine failures in the old Williams of Hill as well, although that was a long time ago and I might be wrong...

ioan

8th January 2010, 19:10

Although the design of Newey seems to be hard on engines. No problem for the Renaults in the factory teams for example and I remember some engine failures in the old Williams of Hill as well, although that was a long time ago and I might be wrong...

Newey is yet to learn that a F1 car's engine needs plenty of airflow for cooling. For some reason he still keeps designing F1 cars as if they were sailing boats.

Mia 01

8th January 2010, 19:19

Once moore perhaps Lewis will back as a part among the monkeys.

We will see soon.

garyshell

8th January 2010, 19:51

Once moore perhaps Lewis will back as a part among the monkeys.

We will see soon.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Gary

Mia 01

8th January 2010, 19:56

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Gary

"Monkeys": See Lewis for a translation.

garyshell

8th January 2010, 20:10

Once moore perhaps Lewis will back as a part among the monkeys.

We will see soon.

"Monkeys": See Lewis for a translation.

No, you wrote it (or attempted to write it), so YOU translate it. What the hell is that supposed to mean? (I have a feeling I know what you mean, but I want to give you the benefit of the doubt.)

Gary

ioan

8th January 2010, 20:29

God that guy is thick, you should send him some of your ideas.. ;) :s mokin:

Are you kidding? He's already making plenty of money already with those needles he is developing year after year, why should I help him? :p :

ioan

8th January 2010, 20:30

I don't think it was racist Gary, probably referring to the "monkeys at the back" comment... :)

Exactly.

garyshell

8th January 2010, 22:05

I don't think it was racist Gary, probably referring to the "monkeys at the back" comment... :)

I had not heard that comment before and had no context. Which is why I asked Mia 01 to translate. If indeed that was what Mia 01 was intending in that somewhat garbled post, then I profusely apologize for even thinking what I thought.

But I have to ask, how difficult would it have been for Mia 01 to just say that, rather than the terse reply: ""Monkeys": See Lewis for a translation"???

Gary