I agree with you. I don't hold with team orders at all and neither does Hamilton. I just think if it is mathematically impossible for Button to win, but Hamilton still could, say in the final race and Button was just in front, I don't think it would be really awful if Button didn't defend to the last breath by his own decision.

Am I wrong? Maybe I am, but I think that would be fair enough.

I agree with you. I don't hold with team orders at all and neither does Hamilton. I just think if it is mathematically impossible for Button to win, but Hamilton still could, say in the final race and Button was just in front, I don't think it would be really awful if Button didn't defend to the last breath by his own decision.

Am I wrong? Maybe I am, but I think that would be fair enough.

That's already accepted practice though. Ferrari are being hauled up in front of the WMSC because what they did the other day neither falls into the last couple of races precedent that we have seen them use in 2007 (successfully) and 2008 (unsuccessfully), nor can it be explained as team strategy - maximizing team points - like BMW in Montreal 2008 or McLaren in Hockenheim 2008. Glad to see that you're all for Hamilton winning in an unhonourable way. To me there is nothing more despicable than what Schumacher did at times in his career and - it's sad to say this because he was an absolutely phenomenal driver - his reputation will definitely suffer as a result. I fear that in the fullness of time he will not be mentioned in the same breath as guys like Clark and Senna* alongside whom he belongs in terms of sheer talent.

*Yes, I accept he was no angel.

But racing is not about racing one other driver, it's about racing all the other drivers and trying to win, or failing that finish as high as possible.

So unless you're insinuating that button deliberately finishes further down the order than hamilton I don't understand what lack of understanding I'm displaying?

I dont think your post really makes sense and I seriously doubt Jenson could win the WDC, if he loses 15-2 against Lewis

Trouble is, I don't see this happening. I personally think this should only happen once it is mathematically impossible for Button to win the title, while it is possible for Hamilton to, as far as strategies and team orders go. I do think that they ought to start gearing the car around Lewis more already though.

Button has already made it quite clear that he will "leave the sport" if there are team orders - an ultimatum if ever I heard one. Whitmarsh seems in such thrall to the guy, that I think any preference towards Hamilton will be steadfastly resisted. I could be wrong, but that is my guess at the moment.

what you are saying is perfectly understandable except the Turkey parts. lol, first Jenson did everything he could other than a Schumi-esque squeeze to defend that first corner... it was just that Lewis was on 'red mist' mode and was gonna pass one way or another. 2ndly, are you really still trying to insist LH didnt deserve to finish ahead of Button in that race? We've discussed that extensively b4, not sure what leg you are trying to stand on there, but Lewis outqualified and outraced him until the team radio mixup, promptly salvaged the situation n went on his way.
How you can try to construct that race weekend as some sort of Button win or draw is contradictory to the rest of your sentence....its a limp biased assessment.


As for Button winning the WDC, at the moment... I'm not seeing it. With the speed of the RBs n Ferrari, even Lewis has a mighty challenge going forward (except the new front-wing tests changes things dramatically).

A superb all conquering performance from Button at Spa isnt impossible either...but just wishful thinking at the moment, nothing suggests the current trend will be reversed.

He would... if he could I seriously doubt Jenson could win the WDC, if he loses 15-2 races against Lewis.

Kindly tell me when Kovalainen handed a race win to Hamilton? Or gave him a position he was not fast enough to take anyway? Re. Hockenheim 2008, if you think Heikki was being paid millions of dollars by McLaren to make it difficult for a teammate, who was over a second a lap quicker and chasing two other guys ahead on track on whom Heikki was making no impression to overtake, then you're absolutely smoking something.

McLaren maximized their result on that day, just as BMW did in Montreal 2008 when Heidfeld waved Kubica by. By doing so they got p1 and p4 rather than p3 and p4. Such "help", as you call it, has always been a part of the sport, and, unlike Hockenheim 2010 or Austria 2002, can be easily be explained by the team's need to maximize its total points on the day rather than any desire to favour one driver over the other; which is why Ferrari did not utter a word of complaint that day and nor did BMW's competitors protest the Heidfeld / Kubica move at Montreal.

You either misunderstood or are deliberately misrepresenting my post, because I was obviously not referring to such universally accepted "team strategy" expedients - which are a necessary evil that will always be accepted because of such factors as Safety Car interventions and drivers being on different strategies - but responding to some who want Hamilton to be ensconced as de facto number 1. What I was arguing was that Hamilton does not need to be made an official number 1 and have Button giving him positions he hasn't earned on track as happened the other day between Massa and Alonso. As we have already seen so far this season, it is very unlikely that a Massa / Alonso situation will ever arise because Hamilton is pretty much always quicker and virtually always ahead on track. When he has been behind, he has already overtaken Button on three occasions without the need of team orders. However the vicissitudes of the ever increasing Safety Car interventions are such that strategy might sooner or later be called into play to benefit the man most likely, and I have no objections to that and find it very disingenuous to imply that behaving in such a way would constitute making Hamilton McLaren's number 1 driver.

I wasn't aware that the rules of this forum were that if you discuss something with bauss, the agreement is that bauss is right? Sure we have discussed Turkey but I clearly have very different views to you. Hamilton was held up by the Red Bulls, Button was clearly consistently following just behind, saving fuel and had Button and Hamilton not raced for the same team, I beleive from the evidence I have heard that Button had a fuel account advantage for the remainder of the race. Could have been a strategic win rather than a pace win, but If Bolton beat Man Utd with tactical football rather than skillful football its still a win.

I agree with you. I don't hold with team orders at all and neither does Hamilton. I just think if it is mathematically impossible for Button to win, but Hamilton still could, say in the final race and Button was just in front, I don't think it would be really awful if Button didn't defend to the last breath by his own decision.

Am I wrong? Maybe I am, but I think that would be fair enough.

If the car remains to be a bit tricky to drive, no chance for Button
I saw at some pages a new team-ranking after Hungary GP

1. RedBull
2. Ferrari
3. Lewis
4. Renault
5. McLaren

He would... if he could I seriously doubt Jenson could win the WDC, if he loses 15-2 races against Lewis.

In Turkey, Lewis was doing 1:30.5's and Jense couldn't get near him, until lap48 and the slowdown After lap 48 Lewis did 30.5's again to the end of the race.

Without the mixup there's no way Jense would ever have challenged.

For the past few months you've consistently been arguing that the "make believe" scorecard or whatever you call it is irrelevant - simply because it tells a story you don't want to hear. So open your own thread where you and like minds can comfort yourselves with the points proximity - whilst insulating yourselves from the reality that it is almost entirely explicable by two mechanical errors without which Hamilton would be out of sight - while leaving us in peace to discuss Jenson's and Lewis' actual performances - as opposed to points tallied - on a race by race basis.

As to your other point, I wasn't aware that the number of replies received was any sort of indicator of post quality. No doubt you've worked up some handy formula to show that posts like the one in which you accused McLaren of screwing Button of a race win by ordering him to give the place back to Hamilton in Turkey - and which generated two pages of replies in less than thirty minutes - prove that you are the most valuable contributor on this entire BB.

In Turkey, Lewis was doing 1:30.5's and Jense couldn't get near him, until lap48 and the slowdown After lap 48 Lewis did 30.5's again to the end of the race.

Without the mixup there's no way Jense would ever have challenged.

I wasn't aware that the rules of this forum were that if you discuss something with bauss, the agreement is that bauss is right? Sure we have discussed Turkey but I clearly have very different views to you. Hamilton was held up by the Red Bulls, Button was clearly consistently following just behind, saving fuel and had Button and Hamilton not raced for the same team, I beleive from the evidence I have heard that Button had a fuel account advantage for the remainder of the race. Could have been a strategic win rather than a pace win, but If Bolton beat Man Utd with tactical football rather than skillful football its still a win.

Nonsense Jenson was right with him all the way.
I agree about the challenge though, even had a little more fuel/pace, overtaking would have been very tricky.
On the other hand, Lewis should not have slowed as much as he did, he knows team orders are illegal and that the team can not tell Jenson not to pass.

hahahaha.... from the evidence lol...what evidence?....that at the end of the race both were almost on empty and Button had a little more? You accuse people of limp assessment, but thats pretty damn limp also... even if Button had more fuel, what makes you think he would have been able to pull a move on an alert Lewis again.... It is already clear to all and sundry, why he caught Lewis napping the first time.

At Hockenheim, where Button has looked his most competitive pacewise vs Lewis so far, even outqualifying him, he was unable to get any proper look in to overtake all race.

I only assumed that, especially after the team radio revelations... any rational fan understood perfectly what happened in Turkey and that case is closed. That you are still holding on to whatever it is you are holding on to, as evidence of Jenson matching or performing better than Lewis in that race weekend makes you unqualified IMO to call another person out for limp assessment.

Matter of fact, upon knowing the full details of why they had the ontrack squabble in that race, those few corners pretty much put Lewis in a stronger light.

Jenson got close bcos of the pitradio mix-up, pulled out a brilliant overtaking move, but Lewis now awake, took the position back immediately....

Jense was never within a second.

And the point I was challenging was the idea that Jense might have won without the mixup, which he obviously wouldn't.

Surely we don't need to revisit the whole episode? Especially with the argument that Lewis was wrong to obey the team and wrong to believe a categorical answer to his question...

Don't remember Lewis handling back his title in 2008 after help from Kovalinen!

After 2 giant posts of yours claiming Button fans will stop at nothing to promote their driver, you're sure showing us how its done!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow.

Any driver will accept help, get real.

In Turkey, Lewis was doing 1:30.5's and Jense couldn't get near him, until lap48 and the slowdown

Jense was never within a second.

Firstly Jenson hardly runs closer than 2 secs behind to save tyres etc.

The fact is they were given a delta that Jenson was sticking to and Lewis was slower than, this is where the mix up was. If Lewis was expecting the team to order Jenson not to overtake him, ie team orders, then he was clearly mistaken. Unless you are now arguing that team orders are now acceptable, a view that most of the posters in this thread, including you i believe, argue strongly against. Especially as, i believe, Jenson was leading the championship at the time.
Edit: Again, i agree that he would have been highly unlikely to win without the mixup.

Lap 40: 1.7
Lap 41: 1.7
Lap 42: 1.4
Lap 43: 1.0
Lap 44: 1.2
Lap 45: 0.7
Lap 46: 0.8
Lap 47: 1.0
Lap 48 they had the fight.

OK we agree on the original issue.

On team orders, "hold station" is not a team order as defined by the FIA.

Hmm, i'm dubious about that. I think the definition is that they are not allowed to influence the race result, which that clearly would.

Hmm, i'm dubious about that. I think the definition is that they are not allowed to influence the race result, which that clearly would.

Jenson effectively losing the last 8 races, has left some people apparently blinkered, and immune to logic. My only question is, "when does the obvious, become the obvious?"

Hmm, i'm dubious about that. I think the definition is that they are not allowed to influence the race result, which that clearly would.

A Championship, over a season, involves consistency and risk management too, yes? Example. IF the WDC was decided by the race in Turkey alone, would Hamilton have been 'suprised' to see Button overtake and would Button have been so magnanimous in 'giving his teammate space' in return? and would Hamilton have settled for 2nd in China?Nope, obviously not. However, because that race was one part of a Championship season, where the object is to accumilate somewhere in the region of 250 points over 18 races, not 25 points in 1, you can expect discretion is to be the better part of valour in cirtain instances such as those.

I'm not quite sure how you don't understand that or that I'm claiming that Button deliberately finishes behind Hamilton or vice versa. I'm saying that their strategy to win the Championship influences their decisions on track, which then effects the race-score-table on here, rendering it utterly flawed.

I don't think keeping the result the same counts as interfering with the race result.
To me 'interfering' means changing the result to one that it wouldn't otherwise be and nobody could ever say that a car would definitely get past another without a hold station order. It's also thought of as pragmatic as the FIA said after monaco 2007 I believe.

Jenson effectively losing the last 8 races, has left some people apparently blinkered, and immune to logic. My only question is, "when does the obvious, become the obvious?"

Of course it's flawed, so is the points system (for evaluating driver performances), did you not read the rest of my post?

But your point seems to be that sometimes people will cruise for points rather than take risks and therefore that makes a huge difference to this fantasy scorecard when in fact hamilton would have finished ahead (in our fantasy scorecrd) and collected more points in 10 out of 12 races if it wasn't for the 2 mechanicals. The scorecard is translating to points too, that's got nothing to do with button choosing discretion over valour, unless you believe his strategy is to rely on hamilton having mechanical DNFs?

Hmm, i'm dubious about that. I think the definition is that they are not allowed to influence the race result, which that clearly would.

Jenson clearly doesn't see it that way I'm glad to see

When does what become obvious? What exactly do you want us to conceed?

Lewis is faster? Already agreed by me.
Lewis is miles better than Jenson in every department? No.
Jenson can't beat Lewis to the title? Looking increasingly unlikely, but not the no-chance situation some believe. Some races that could suit Jenson are coming his way, as is the pressure cooker environment of the business end of the championship.

Well that episode did Jense no favours did it?

Some people suspected he knew/half knew/suspected Lewis was trusting him not to, he immediately got re-passed, and he was caught lying about it (though possibly covering for the mysteriously absent Jakob).

The problem here seems to be defining driver performance. Any sport is defined by it's scoring system. In football it's decided by who scores most goals, you don't get extra marks for a 40yrd overhead volley with a 32 pass build up. In synchronised swimming, it's all about judges perception. In F1 it's scoring more points over a season, so by definition, the person with the most points has performed best, winning a procession from pole gives the same points as winning spectacularly starting from the pitlane. Therefore making a subjective argument about a drivers performance has little meaning apart from personal aesthetics, although it is fun.
But you can't really say my guy's performance is definitely better than your guy's performance based on your subjective assesment when the scoreboards says different.

Like where? There are no Button circuits. He couldn't beat Rubens around Monza and never been brilliant around Spa. Some said Turkey and Hockenheim were Button circuits, and he still lost there. Button is not delivering already. Why do you think when the pressure is even greater, he has the capacity to deliver more than he is doing now? This view is contrary to all the evidence to date.

Hmm, i'm dubious about that. I think the definition is that they are not allowed to influence the race result, which that clearly would.

When does what become obvious? What exactly do you want us to conceed?

Lewis is miles better than Jenson in every department? No.

The problem here seems to be defining driver performance. Any sport is defined by it's scoring system. In football it's decided by who scores most goals, you don't get extra marks for a 40yrd overhead volley with a 32 pass build up. In synchronised swimming, it's all about judges perception. In F1 it's scoring more points over a season, so by definition, the person with the most points has performed best, winning a procession from pole gives the same points as winning spectacularly starting from the pitlane. Therefore making a subjective argument about a drivers performance has little meaning apart from personal aesthetics, although it is fun.
But you can't really say my guy's performance is definitely better than your guy's performance based on your subjective assesment when the scoreboards says different.

But unlike football this sport isn't just about the player(s), it's also about the car and the team.

Jenson effectively losing the last 8 races, has left some people apparently blinkered, and immune to logic. My only question is, "when does the obvious, become the obvious?"

In football on any given day the best team doesnt always win, luck can play a part, clearly so far Jenson has been luckier than Lewis.

I think Jenson is doing a great job at McLaren and is a more than able back up to Lewis, something that Heikki wasnt

But unlike football this sport isn't just about the player(s), it's also about the car and the team.
Hence why there's so much emphasis on driver's beating their teammate.
Of course even in the same car one can have more reliability problems than the other.

By the way, I think Lewis is special too, probably a tad more special, but this has yet to be proved. I hope they both stay at McLaren and trounce the opposition for a few years.