The fall of McLaren

[CaptainRaiden]

I have been saying this since last year right from the time Hamilton signed the contract with Mercedes. I said right then and there Mclaren were gonna struggle with Button as their number one driver. Even made a bet with F1boat that Lewis will finish higher than Button in the points table in 2013, whereas he was quite adamant it would be the other way around. I hope everything is alright with F1boat, as he's disappeared from the forum.

Of course Mclaren need to produce a good car, at least an equal or a competitive car, but at the moment they don't have a top tier driver to take it to the top step. Sorry Button or Perez fans, they are not top tier drivers. We will wait and see on Perez, as he has started to outqualify Button (something I again expected) but at this point he's not got the X factor. Sure, if you have a freakishly dominant car, any half decent driver can win the WDC, but that's not what Mclaren is producing now, is it?

Mclaren desperately NEED a top tier driver, plain and simple. Someone who can get the job done even if the car is not quite there, or someone who can hit the sweet spot with the setup more often than not. People always keep throwing the 2011 points table stat to put Button in a positive light, which is getting quite annoying now, and forget that there were plenty of races in 2010 and 2012 where Lewis was winning races or in a race winning position and Button was NOWHERE, not even in the top 5. It's like they weren't even watching the races. Yes, 2011 was a bad year for Lewis, and Button finished 2nd, BUT Button's 2nd was further from Vettel in terms of points than Hamilton's 4th was in 2012.

If we're really talking about stats, then they should look at these stats too:

Hamilton and Button

Hamilton v Button stats compared (highest respective tally in bold)

Qualifying

Faster qualifying time: Hamilton 44 / Button 14
Poles: Hamilton 9 / Button 1
Front rows: Hamilton: 23 / Button 9

Races

Wins: Hamilton 10 / Button 8
Podiums: Hamilton 22 / Button 25
Points finishes: Hamilton 45 / Button 47
DNFs: Hamilton 13!! / Button 8
Best race result (inc DNFs): Hamilton 32 / Button 26
Ahead in two-car finish: Hamilton 24 / Button 13

Championship

Overall points: Hamilton 657 / Button 672 (Hamilton has had 5 more DNFs, 3 mechanical failures while leading a race)
Seasons finished higher in standings: Hamilton 2 / Button 1
Highest championship placing: Hamilton 4th (2010, 2012) / Button 2nd (2011)

Very easy to quote total points without looking at DNFs.

As a team, you cannot expect your top driver to be a fair weather driver, only capable of winning when he has the perfect car under him. The rest of the time it's annoying whinge galore, whether it's no grip, no heat in tyres, understeer, oversteer or telling on his faster, more aggressive teammate to Uncle Titmarsh. This isn't a video game, this is real racing. You want an Alonso, Kimi, Lewis or a Vettel in your car to drag it to the top or squeeze performance out of it, not Button.

[ioan]

Thoughts on the struggles of McLaren? Do you still view them as a genuine top team, a match to RBR/Ferrari over a full season? What about the rise of Mercedes/Lotus? If you were a driver, would you now consider these two teams as a better long-term prospect in getting a drive if you had a choice?

Tires.

[faster69]

You're not gonna win a championship unless you produce a car superior to the opposition.

Not necessarily. Look at Vettel right now in the third best car and he's leading the championship. You give Vettel a car as good as the Ferrari or Lotus and he wins the championship if luck and reliability are equal. Button needs a car far superior to the Red Bull to have a hope of winning the championship.

[faster69]

Fair enough. However, back in 1993 Benetton supposedly had an exclusive works agreement with Ford that prevented customer engines from having the latest technology in them. Based on one source, I heard that the customer Ford engine was 1 year old. From other source, just a few months old, not a huge deal. Anyways, that didn't seem to hurt McLaren-Ford a lot, as Senna ended up beating both Damon Hill and Schumacher, who was driving the Benetton. No one knows what the current agreements are. Granted, in the wicked world of F1 competition such agreements can not be enforced 100%.

Senna was triple world champion in the prime of his career, Schumacher was in his third full season (car didn't have active suspension, a semi-automatic gearbox and traction control until the middle of the season unlike the McLaren) and Hill was in his first season. Hardly a fair comparison. Schumacher was generally more impressive that year though people only remember Donnington.

[Big Ben]

oh great... one more delusional fan

[faster69]

Which point did you disagree with? By the start of 1994 it was clear that Schumacher was better than Senna. In Brazil Schumacher got the lead after the first pit stop then never let go until Senna's engine blew up with 15 laps left. Senna was getting pole, but he had the fastest car on the grid.

Schumacher was amazing in 1993 considering he had poor reliability and what was a primitive car compared to the Williams and McLaren.

Senna should have been blowing Schumacher out of the water in Brazil with the car advantage he had in 1994.

[SGWilko]

Which point did you disagree with? By the start of 1994 it was clear that Schumacher was better than Senna. In Brazil Schumacher got the lead after the first pit stop then never let go until Senna's engine blew up with 15 laps left. Senna was getting pole, but he had the fastest car on the grid.

Schumacher was amazing in 1993 considering he had poor reliability and what was a primitive car compared to the Williams and McLaren.

Senna should have been blowing Schumacher out of the water in Brazil with the car advantage he had in 1994.

Are you sure the Benetton was the more primitive car in '93. Motorsport at the time were suggesting that their active ride was one of the best on the grid. They simply lacked the grunt from the powerplant.

As for the Williams being the better car at the start of the '94 season, I rather suspect it was 'fundamentally' a better car once it was developed, which was not until the were well into the European leg of the season.

Senna was in a different league to Hill, no doubts there, and if Hill 'nearly' won it in '94, had he survived I rather suspect Senna would have walked it.

[henners88]

Well this is the first time I've seen the claim Schumacher was better than Senna in 1994. I think even he would be embarrassed by such a claim even though he never got the chance to prove it.

[faster69]

Are you sure the Benetton was the more primitive car in '93. Motorsport at the time were suggesting that their active ride was one of the best on the grid. They simply lacked the grunt from the powerplant.

Nah, the McLaren was the better car. Benetton were about a year behind the curve compared to Williams.

As for the Williams being the better car at the start of the '94 season, I rather suspect it was 'fundamentally' a better car once it was developed, which was not until the were well into the European leg of the season.

Nah, it had great pace immediately. Senna stuck it on pole the first three races. Hill was easily outqualifying the other Benetton. You're drawing a long bow to suggest it wasn't the best car on the grid from that first race.

Senna was in a different league to Hill, no doubts there, and if Hill 'nearly' won it in '94, had he survived I rather suspect Senna would have walked it.

Hill only nearly won it because Schumacher was black flagged while leading the British Grand Prix for passing on the parade lap. He ended up finishing second, but was stripped of it. Stripped of another win because the plank under the car and then banned for two races for what happened in the British Grand Prix. Hill won both those races in Schumacher's absence.

That's a 40 point turnaround. Hill had no right to be in contention for the championship and it would have been a joke for Hill to have won since Schumacher had been by far the best driver of 1994 in the races before Senna died and after.

All evidence points to Schumacher having already surpassed Senna by early 1994. Schumacher was leading races with inferior machinery to the Williams.

[zako85]

There is no doubt in my mind that Benetton was the fastest car for much 1994. This is the first time I hear a claim to the contrary. The delta between Hill's and Schumacher's performance was huge. Schumacher cruised to victory even once handed a two race ban and disqualifications from two other races. You can still argue Hill may have been simply the worse driver, but I'd disagree. 1993 was Hill's first full time year in F1, and he quite impressed riding side by side with Prost, which was a very good yardstick for judging Hill. Also do not forget the massive allegations of cheating against Benetton, from launch control, engine maps to illegal refueling valves. Schumacher probably tried to forget 1994 as soon as possible as there will be forever the question mark about whether he won it in a cheater car. On the other hand, if Hill had won it, and Hill was close, I think he wouldn't have been proud of it either, having beaten the guy who was absent from championship scores for four races. It was kind of an ugly season for all parties involved.

I am not sure why this debate is being resurrected though. All I did at the start is claim that using the customer Ford engine which lagged behind Benetton in 1993 does not seem to have hurt McLaren a lot. Even the "works" Ford engine used by Benetton wasn't that special. This is why Benetton dumped it at the first opportunity.