- 31 Oct 07, 05:16#21721
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point. 
Symonds told the Renault podcast that the Enstone based team has always offered driver equality, even when Alonso won his titles alongside Giancarlo Fisichella in 2005 and 2006.
"Even when we had Fernando winning championships, there were occasions when we had only one wing, so we wouldn't take it to the race," said Symonds.
"We weren't going to favour one driver over the other and I have been very, very strong about that in the past.
"But I have to say I am changing my view," he added.
"Motor racing is a team sport and I think you have really got to do what is best for the team and I think these days it is better to go all out behind one car."
Renault's engineering director Pat Symonds, also thinks poor management played a role in McLaren's defeat to Ferrari and Raikkonen.
"There was the allowance maybe to let the drivers forget that they were employees so there was a certain amount of mismanagement there," he told the French team's official podcast.
The publication also probed Coulthard about where he thought McLaren, for whom he raced for nine years until 2004, went wrong in 2007, including the alienation of Fernando Alonso.
"Ron Dennis can sometimes have problems with communication, which can de-motivate the drivers. Alonso felt unwanted by his team, which should not have happened."
"We are talking about a double world champion.
Instead the title fell to Ferrari by one point," Coulthard added.
I'm torn here: on one hand, I agree with PS that F1 is and has always been and will continue to be a team sport and thus, the team should have a leader and a water carrier to help the team secure BOTH titles. Else why run two cars in a 'Team' and not simply run individual cars, one per team?
On the other hand, I really don't want to go back to seeing stuff like RB making way for MS in such a blatant manner, just meters before the finish line. Or maybe I could accept it if it's clear from the onset and it's the official position of F1 like it used to be in the olden days - isn't it very similar in bicycling and everybody accepts it there, much less gets all huffy about it?
If in such a scenario a team decides to not have a number one driver (or only later in the season when it's clear that one of the drivers can't clinch the title - at the disadvantage of the two drivers 'stealing' points from each other), then chapeau, but don't expect extra credit for that policy. They have a pair of such good drivers in the team that it's difficult for them to make up their mind who's to win the championship, so they're already in an enviable position. Plus it's kinda chicken: they wait and see who's doing better and then, only then they go for the one who's in the lead.
Another team might go a different route and hire a top driver plus an underling/young driver (cheaper plus can be nursed and molded for future higher goals) and they focus on the top driver, which makes it a bit easier on them - however, the disadvantage would be if that top driver DNF's a lot for whatever reasons or gets injured, then that team has nobody to fall back to and their season is done and over - basically they've put all their eggs in one basket and made an omelet (see EI). Either route is valid - a matter of choice.
Thoughts?
"Even when we had Fernando winning championships, there were occasions when we had only one wing, so we wouldn't take it to the race," said Symonds.
"We weren't going to favour one driver over the other and I have been very, very strong about that in the past.
"But I have to say I am changing my view," he added.
"Motor racing is a team sport and I think you have really got to do what is best for the team and I think these days it is better to go all out behind one car."
Renault's engineering director Pat Symonds, also thinks poor management played a role in McLaren's defeat to Ferrari and Raikkonen.
"There was the allowance maybe to let the drivers forget that they were employees so there was a certain amount of mismanagement there," he told the French team's official podcast.
The publication also probed Coulthard about where he thought McLaren, for whom he raced for nine years until 2004, went wrong in 2007, including the alienation of Fernando Alonso.
"Ron Dennis can sometimes have problems with communication, which can de-motivate the drivers. Alonso felt unwanted by his team, which should not have happened."
"We are talking about a double world champion.
Instead the title fell to Ferrari by one point," Coulthard added.
I'm torn here: on one hand, I agree with PS that F1 is and has always been and will continue to be a team sport and thus, the team should have a leader and a water carrier to help the team secure BOTH titles. Else why run two cars in a 'Team' and not simply run individual cars, one per team?
On the other hand, I really don't want to go back to seeing stuff like RB making way for MS in such a blatant manner, just meters before the finish line. Or maybe I could accept it if it's clear from the onset and it's the official position of F1 like it used to be in the olden days - isn't it very similar in bicycling and everybody accepts it there, much less gets all huffy about it?
If in such a scenario a team decides to not have a number one driver (or only later in the season when it's clear that one of the drivers can't clinch the title - at the disadvantage of the two drivers 'stealing' points from each other), then chapeau, but don't expect extra credit for that policy. They have a pair of such good drivers in the team that it's difficult for them to make up their mind who's to win the championship, so they're already in an enviable position. Plus it's kinda chicken: they wait and see who's doing better and then, only then they go for the one who's in the lead.
Another team might go a different route and hire a top driver plus an underling/young driver (cheaper plus can be nursed and molded for future higher goals) and they focus on the top driver, which makes it a bit easier on them - however, the disadvantage would be if that top driver DNF's a lot for whatever reasons or gets injured, then that team has nobody to fall back to and their season is done and over - basically they've put all their eggs in one basket and made an omelet (see EI). Either route is valid - a matter of choice.
Thoughts?
Last edited by darwin dali on 31 Oct 07, 11:52, edited 1 time in total.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point. 
