Fact or fiction? Mclaren is impartial.

[ttc]

David's not getting a raw deal ¨C Dennis

Ron Dennis has fired-down speculation following the Scot's mediocre pace at Silverstone that David Coulthard is no longer getting a fair deal at McLaren.

Ron said McLaren has 'never' given preferential treatment to one driver.

Is it true?

[Adam43]

Yes it true.

Although here we go again...

[NiceGuyEddie]

I think it is. I think there is no such thing as a team deliberatly holding one of their drivers back. Not even Ferrari.

[ttc]

Adam, perhaps I should have elaborate more...

Is it really BAD to give preferential treatment to one driver in the first place? Morally wrong or something?

Is it bad to have a #1 and #2 driver? Bad for who? Team, driver or fans?

Bottom line, is giving preferential treatment to one the equivalent of "deliberately holding back" the other?

[garcon]

Absolutely true. In fact I think it has been true of both McLaren and Williams almost without exception. The one clarification that certainly Ron Dennis would give is (in RD speak ), "until one or the other driver has, as a result of points scored during the season thus far, an overwhelmingly better opportunity of securing the WDC".

And then, this will be in terms of team orders (to the extent they are allowed) and possibly ensuring that if there are differences in tolerances etc in components (which there are from time to time, an entirely unintentional side-effect of high quality low volume manufacture) then the potential WDC will get the best.

It makes no sense for any team to deliberately "hold one of their drivers back". After all, it is manufacturers' points that add up to prize money for the teams. However, it is sometimes inevitable that some components are better than others, in which case the clear lead driver (if there is one) is bound to get them.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by ttc
Adam, perhaps I should have elaborate more...

Nothing wrong, I was (unfairly?) anticipating some of the responses!

[f1manoz]

Kimi is a better driver than DC. He's proved it time and again.

[EERO]

I might suggest that "favoritism" per se, can be a somewhat intangible concept. it is very likely that DC has received equipment as good as Mika's or Kimi's, and that the skills of the wrenches on his car have been every bit as good as those of the Finns', but one cannot discount the very real close friendship between Ron and Mika and the assumed friendship with Kimi. DC is I am sure the perfect employee, and McLaren, if the stories are true is a great place to work, but a "mere Employee" will never enjoy the advantages of a friend.

Edited for typically appalling spelling

[Adam43]

Which is hardly something you can complain about. IMHO. Should McLaren ban friendships? Of course not. Was the Clark and Chapman relationship outrageous? No.

Despite the friendships that exist. McLaren give both their drivers the best chance they can (within practicalities).

[mp356a]

What Adam said.
Mike

[Kicking-back]

Yep. McLaren is one of the fairest teams to both drivers.

[Bononi]

Today maybe... but not historically correct.

[Irv the Swerve]

Impartial? - depends how you view it. If you view it as 'having equal machinery', I reckon you'd be right, they are impartial. If you view it as 'having equal opportunity to win the race', then that's a different matter.

[EERO]

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
Which is hardly something you can complain about. IMHO. Should McLaren ban friendships? Of course not. Was the Clark and Chapman relationship outrageous? No.

Despite the friendships that exist. McLaren give both their drivers the best chance they can (within practicalities).

Hardly complaining, merely making an observation that there is more at work than hardware.

How can we know the level to which it has affected the relative performances of the the drivers concerned?

[Kicking-back]

We never will.

[Teretonga]

EERO and Irv are right.
McLaren in one sense have given DC equal equipement but you could not call asking DC to move over for Mika at Jerez 'equal opportunity' within the practicalities.
The emotional support of the Dennis-Hakkinen relationship would not only have enhanced Mika's performance but would have played around with DC's mental approach.

Thats a huge barrier to overcome and it is noteworthy that during DC's first season with the team and during 97 he had the upper hand for at least 50% of the time.
It was only after Jerez in 97 and Adelaide in 98 that Mika gained an ascendancy in performances and results.

I'm not judging anything here, one way or the other, simply making an observation.

[Kicking-back]

Ron having emotional support for Mika is perfectly understandable after what they went through at Adelaide in 1995

[Gt_R]

I would think that DC currently enjoy similar equipment as Kimi, and the treatment of DC compared to Kimi/Mika is consistent as ever.

There's little doubt that Kimi/Mika share a closer relationship to Ron than the employer/employee r/s shared by Ron and DC. And invariably, occasionally you'd see instances where perhaps Kimi/Mika gets a better shot at things, which is only natural, not only because of the special relationship enjoyed by Kimi/Mika, but also for the logical reasons that they are a better bet on achieving higher success.

ttc questioned preferential treatment and #1/#2s... IMHO, i think every team does practice it and some instances, they are more acceptable/reasonable while others are less so.

For example, sometimes a backmarker team struggles to produce sufficient new parts to be used by both drivers, and hence, they give the improved parts to the #1 driver who has more "potential". In such instances, it is understandable due to circumstances and only logical that team maximise their chances.

But how about the years of Benetton/Fisi/Wurz? IIRC Wurz is departing the team soon and Benetton completely witheld all developements from him. In fact, Fisi had a updated car while Wurz's car is old. Only in one race in the 2nd half of the season is Wurz given a run (at Sepang) with the updated car, and immediately his performance improved. such preferential treatment is not really acceptable.

I believe Mclaren gives both guys the same car at this moment, and the gap in performance is simply because Kimi is performing better, more motivated and more secured while DC is still left wondering what his future would hold.

I think it'd be irresponsible for any critics/media to create false stories about teams. We won't know what goes on behind closed doors, but i don't expect top teams purposely compromising their 2nd driver without reason nor logic. On the otherhand, despite what a team wants us to believe, no team is completely impartial and there would be instances of favouritism in action. But i'm ok with it as long as it's reasonable/understandable.

[Snrub]

DC has been with the team longer. How do we know that Kimi isn't given the short end of the stick?

My point is there needs to be a shread of reason before proposing such things.

[fog_shadow]

during the Mika golden years, DC was to McLaren what RB is to Ferrari

now i'm not saying that there was preferential treatment and i'm not saying that there wasn't.

i will say that what goes around, comes around.

don't you just hate the irony of life?


lol,
fog_shadow

[HDTVKSS]

i think we will soon see how this works with Montoya going to Mac. i doubt that the columbian claymour would be too at ease with letting Kimmi get the upper hand like that.

[darcym]

This is interesting,

I think McLaren give the same equipment to the drivers and run the team as just that a team. But read Coulthards/Irvine/Louise Goodmans books and a few things come to light which appear different to the public currently.

1997 Mclaren Mercedes first win, they admit they bought it of Williams but agreeing not fight JV and maybe loose him the championship, what isn't known is that Coulthard was FORCED to slow down and let Mika take the win, even though Coulthard was ahead on track.

1998 the "gentlemens" agreement on first to the first corner was not that, it was imposed by Ron after seeing the Mclarens massivley superior pace. The deal was not "first to the corner will stay ahead" it was "after the first corner you may not push the other driver". After the pit stop mess up Coulthard was TOLD to move over, he didn't offer. Coulthard was also being told he was going in 1999 after daring to race Hakkienen at Spa (they touched) but they couldn't find a suitable replacment.

I think while they are treated the same Coulthard gets the rough end of the deal, eg: Coulthard would have been told to back off if he had been pushing Kimi, yet I can't see Kimi being told to back off. I think DC gets a pretty rough ride at Mclaren.

[Adam43]

but if you read other things then we dont' get that. Go figure. I hope who ever made it up sold enough books to justify it.

I can only assume that DC ignored the don't push Mika at Spa '99 or even Austria that year!

[Bononi]

Let's see if JPM can "build" the team around him... at least at the moment, Kimi has this power. I remember, I think it was back in 2002 in Austria, when Kimi retired, he and Ron talking in the pitlane, and the TV commentator was saying that Ron's attitude towards Kimi was very similar to Ayrton Senna. I have to give him some credit as he was Senna's best friend.

[ASCII Man]

Originally posted by darcym
1997 Mclaren Mercedes first win, they admit they bought it of Williams but agreeing not fight JV and maybe loose him the championship, what isn't known is that Coulthard was FORCED to slow down and let Mika take the win, even though Coulthard was ahead on track.

David had enough chances to lap Fisichella, lap after lap and he couldn't make even the slightest impression of gaining on Giancarlo. So it would only be normal for Mika to have a go and he didn't waste that much time in lapping Giancarlo!