planetf1.com

Hakkinen and Coulthard made the agreement that who ever got to the first corner first would win the race. Now Hakkinen screwed up and Coulthard let him go by into the lead.

Would you have made that agreement with your team-mate?

Nope. I'd have made an agreement that I wouldn't take any unnecessary risks to overtake my team mate, but if he had done what Hakkinen did and made a mistake by coming into the pits when he didn't have to and that gave me the lead then I'd have kept it. Because the team 1-2 would still have been safe and it was his mistake.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

I'd have made it, weather or not I kept it after Hakks cock up would have been a different matter

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

If Coulthard qualified 2nd it's difficult to see why he made the agreement. Isn't it almost a given the pole-sitter is more likely to make it to the first corner?

_________________
We want heroes, but there are few, mainly it's cars - Pedro De La Rosa

Mark Webber would love to believe so.

_________________

I also have one of these.

As if you could be bothered moving over for your team mate, takes too much effort. I'd much rather stay on the racing line and drink powerthirst from my hydro tank.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
Best Round Result: 1st (Monaco 2012)
Podiums: 4
2013 Championship Standing: 78th

What was the situation behind this though? I'm just curious what provoked them to make the agreement.

Sadly Webber is the exception rather than the rule (FU RB! )

It just doesn't seem like a particularly sensible agreement for Coulthard to make as a second placed driver. In fact if I didn't view DC as a fairly honest bloke I might see it a story concocted by McLaren in order to calm the media by bringing some semblance of honour to a team orders controversy.

Perhaps someone on here knows a bit more about it.

_________________
We want heroes, but there are few, mainly it's cars - Pedro De La Rosa

Webber was an inconsistent starter before he went to Red Bull, I remember a few times when he put in a stunning lap in qualifying at Jaguar only to lose 5 or 6 places because of a poor launch. I really, really don't want to derail this thread into yet another Webber #2 vs Red Bull equality back and forth, but you need to put his starts at Red Bull into context by looking at the rest of his career.

With respect, I think you need to look into the technical aspects of what goes into an F1 start. No one ever seems to bother and just assume it must be the driver. It actually goes well beyond the driver into complex issues of setup and given Webber has 196 Grand Prix starts, a few poor starts at Jaguar does not warrant the tag of his being a poor starter. If he genuinely was a poor starter then he simply wouldn't be in F1, let alone at the best team in the competition. If starts were all on the driver I'd be with you on your assessment, but they aren't, far from it.





For anyone interested I have links to lengthy technical discussions of F1 starts (I won't post them on this thread as they belong to another forum).

_________________
We want heroes, but there are few, mainly it's cars - Pedro De La Rosa

I know it's a combination of car and driver. I view him as a mediocre starter relative to others on the grid, for the 30-40% he is responsible for but an otherwise fine driver. I was only using the Jaguar starts to put into context the comments about Red Bull, add that to his Red Bull period and it's more than a few...it's not a Red Bull phenomenon that Webber is not getting good starts, what you and I disagree on is the cause.

I won't write any more than that because I think you just misunderstood what I was trying to put across earlier, which was my fault because of my choice of words and I don't want to derail the thread further. I'd be happy to have a debate about the starts in the in depth forum though, I think it could be a good one if, fingers crossed, it doesn't degenerate into a conspiracy thread of drivers vs teams like most of the threads on this forum.

The truth was probably that there were no agreement like that. That was said to media to avoid discussions. It was a clear team order for DC to let Mika past.

_________________
..

Minds are like parachutes, they work best when they are open

I've often wondered about 'starts' too. Whilst once they get going it makes sense that some drivers may perform better than others, it makes no sense at all to me that some drivers are just slow off the grid nearly all of the time.

I thought about starting a thread about it, but realised I wouldn't understand the explanations .

Getting back on topic - sorry! A first corner agreement is v odd.

I gather that Ferrari (during the Schumi years) had a 'last pit stop' agreement - whereby the driver in front would retain the lead, but first corner?!

I'm not sure all the poeple saying they would not have made the deal remember all the whole situation.

The Mclaren was about a second faster that the competition so there was no danger from behind and no reason to risk going fast
In 1997 the Mclaren was fast and unreliable, it retired from the lead four times that I can think off so I can understand why they would not want to push hard in the first race
Coulthard had a much better reputation at starts (just watch the 97 season) and he would have thought even starting second he would have got the jump into the first corner.

So Yes I would have made the deal because at worst I would be guaranteed a second place in the first race in the tittle.

Now what I would not have done was give back the lead after Hakkinen lost it with a mishap.

An agreement that who's leading into the first corner stays ahead yes, to win from that no.

As for better starters, clutch control is a major factor as well as mapping.

_________________
"We can not drive slower, just to make the races more exciting." Alain Prost

Me personally? No.

For me a race has a start, a middle and an end. Like a good movie or book.
Not just one turn.

I can see why they did it though. McLaren were genuinely back at the top. Completing that domination of the opening weekend could allow them breathe a bit, relax a little going to the next race in Brazil and play the game on an even footing for the rest of the season. They just wanted to get that first win in the bag without any drama to prove McLaren were back with a bang.

Nobody could have predicted the Hakkinen pit incident and I think in the interests of fairness they gave it back to the winner of the original agreement.

_________________
"I am a believer, but I start each Grand Prix with 195 liters of fuel behind me," he explains. "I don't rely entirely on God, I rely on Prost."

Was the impromptu pit lane Hakk's fault? I've heard that someone tapped into his radio (*cough* Ferrari *cough* ) and instructed him to come in. I think it was the honourable thing to do for DC to let him past, I like to think I'd do the same.

_________________
"Where are all the good men dead, in the heart or in the head?"

Give 'em hell Dani!

British Driver Supporter (and Daniel Ricciardo)