A very valid point. End of the day, Engineers get data, they work with data, understand data, Design new parts based on that data, that's all they can do. It's up to the drivers to translate data into meaningful figures on the track so that all that data means something, if what the engineers get back from the drivers isn't accurate, then how the hell are they supposed to figure out what the car is doing when data says one thing and a driver is saying or finding something different? I'm no Hamilton fan boy (and after all, McLaren also designed dogs of cars in a couple of his years there too, but they also developed them into half decent cars over the season), but so far with Button as their lead driver, they've had one complete dog of a car that just never really improved and one car that had a massive advantage with it's engine and who's performance has seemingly fallen off a cliff. Somewhere along the lines you have to say that maybe, Jenson just isn't that good a car development driver. I personally feel he's probably too sensitive to balance and focused on getting that to ever be a well rounded car developer, so if a car isn't bang on his liking, he seems to need to get it there before he can "feel" it.
It seems a bit unfair to suggest McLaren's woes could be down to Button. McLaren have been going from one calamity to the next in recent years. It may be partially down to his feedback, but in reality McLaren have been woeful in many areas. Give Big Ron time to sort it out, keep calm and blame Whitmarsh.
Not saying its just Button, but as the lead driver for the last 2 years he has to take some of the flack too. His set-up window is too narrow to make a car work, what they need is someone who can say what the problem is but also find a way to drive around it if necessary. McLaren are treading water. Maybe they need a new lead driver for 2015, after all, when Button last teamed up with Honda they sank to the bottom of the grid. McLaren are on their way there too unless they do something quick, I don't see keeping Button is the answer now as they may as well go all out for a new team, new drivers, new ideas.
Let's wait until after Barcelona and Monaco to judge Mclaren. They will bring a raft of upgrades to the car and could easily improve. If they get a podium in any of these two races then they will be back on the right path again, that's if the drivers don't hold up development because of set up issues. It's happened before.
We keep being told that feedback from drivers is not as important for car development as it used to be, because now it's all computer models, wind tunnels and simulators. Important for setup probably, but not overall car development. So from that point of view I'm not sure it's fair to blame Button for basic flaws in the design of the car, but when it comes to setup and to maximising performance and points I wonder how useful a driver is who can only be at their best when the car is totally to their liking.
The fact that Jenson has finished 1st (2009), 2nd (2011) and 3rd (2004) in the WDC on the 3 separate occasions sort of invalidates the argument that he can't make a car work. In fact, if one was to compare 2009 against 2011, the latter was technically a more successful year in terms of average finishing place in a race. However, it is evident that Button is less capable of driving around problems. So really, although it's fair to suggest that his set up is more narrow than say Hamilton, it can certainly work when his preferences are achieved. If a driver who has already driven for a team for 2 years gets his contract extended, as Button did with McLaren, it follows that the team know and are happy with what they're likely to get from him in terms of driving performance and technical feedback/input. Therefore, it's up to the team to provide him with the necessary tools for the job. I doubt that Button has gotten worse at giving feedback over the last couple of years and I doubt that the design team/engineers have forgotten how aero/engines work. I suspect the fault lies in the workings of the team and how it operates and how/why decisions are made. There's quite a revealing interview in F1 Magazine about how/why Ron Dennis took back control and how the job of "Team Principal" is not a viable option in modern day F1 as the job is too big for one man. That's why Jonathan Neale is in charge back at Woking and Eric Boullier is in charge of track side operations. This is essentially what Mercedes implemented a couple of seasons ago and a lot of people, myself included, thought it would be a case of "too many cooks..." etc. It seems to be working for them now though eh! I agree that Button doesn't make things easy for himself in terms of his set up preferences and not even the most ardent Button fan could convince themselves that he is consistently the best performer on the grid. But if F1 really is a "Team Sport", then it's unfair to lay the blame at any one persons feet, be they driver, designer or director. After all, like the cars themselves, a team is made up of many, many "cogs" working in harmony and it must take a lot to achieve that level of operation. It is very frustrating to have similar quotes coming from Mclaren over the years about how "we've got new upgrades coming" and "we need to understand the car to unlock its potential". However, I bet it's more frustrating for them than it is for us. Mclaren won nothing between 92 and 97, then nothing between 2000 and 2007. What goes around comes around, keep the faith.
2009 is a good year to pick Westy as it highlights exactly Button's flaws. At the start of the year the car was spot-on, but as the year went on he fell back much more than Barrichello did as he and the team lost their way. Why did he fall back more than Rubens, when all considered, Rubens was a bit of a journeyman? I just think McLaren need a more aggressive lead driver to drag them back to the front, rather than a perfectionist who can only operate when all the stars and moons are aligned correctly.
Something new for Spain for McLaren http://gptoday.com/full_story/view/486425/McLaren_set_to_try_Lotusstyle_double_nose_in_Spain/ Although I do shudder when Jenson's uses that word 'unlock' to describe a McLaren car, they used that a lot last year. What he means is the car is crap and clearly development is not going the way it should. What ever happened to the famous half a second McLaren were supposed to gain in Malaysia according to Ron?
Did he fall back more than Rubens? Rubens only finished ahead of him 4 times out of 9 (not including Spa when Grosjean took out Button). You are of course right Chris that 2009 did indeed highlight some of Button's flaws. But then one could argue that the added pressure of leading the Championship also contributed. Especially when the Red Bull got into it's stride come the middle of the season and not forgetting the resurgence of Hamilton. As I say, I'm aware that Button is well acknowledged as having a particular liking for his car. I'm just not sure he can be blamed for the team's current position in the pecking order. Addendum - I'm by no means well read on the subject. But I'd be interested to know what effect Mercedes leaving McLaren has had on their infrastructure and thus the cars they've produced since.
I do want to reiterate again that I am not blaming Button on his own, I just feel that the spotlight also needs to be put on him (along with the team as a whole), rather than just the designers & techy's.
Sorry Chris, I should have acknowledged that before. There's probably an element of pessimism that leaks into all the employees when things aren't going right, including the drivers. There's a fair chance that when set up does become more difficult the motivation of the driver to explore the issues wanes for fear of making it worse. On a separate note, I can't decide whether I think the two pronged nose would look any good on the McLaren. Having said that, the stupid dildo noses don't appeal to me much either.
Helmut Marko said the new chassis for Vettel is NOT because of the problems he has been experiencing.. Question: why didn't they provide Ricciardo with the same new chassis then? Just wondering...
Standard chassis change said by Marshall, doesn't mean it wasn't damaged though and I haven't seen a quote from Helmut confirm it wasn't damaged. It will entirely be the same as Daniel's so Vettel won't gain any form of advantage over Daniel what so ever. Helmut said there 'could' have been a crack in it for the reason of his poor stint in China and increased tyre wear so the debate still stands if there really was a crack or not. Marshall is saying Vettel wont have a performance increase, over Daniel's chassis or a fully fine chassis because they're the same. Is it a benefit? RM: It shouldn't be, as the idea is that they are all the same. Drivers don't always want to change them – they can get attached to a particular chassis and when they are on a good run they like to hang on to it for as long as possible! From our point of view we'd rather give them one or two new chassis during the season that we have been able to check out in the factory using various testing methods.
Isn't uncommon for a driver who is struggling for no apparent reason to have a new chassis when it's built. Makes sense for Vettel to get it as Ricciardo is seemingly doing okay. So many parameters that could go slightly wrong when they build up the cars that any slight defect can have a massive effect on the rigidity of the chassis, though these can normally be picked up on telemetry if it is obvious. Be interesting to see if Vettel's fortunes do change this weekend, or if the issues he has been having are more fundamental to him rather than the car.
Seb likes to damage his chassis anyway the only time he went through 1 in a season was 2011! other than that he could easily go through 3-4 like in 2010.
