planetf1.com

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:25 pm**

Johnston wrote:Thats because I am still waiting on your good self answering mine.

what are you, 5 years old?

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:27 pm**

Johnston wrote:
Zoue wrote: I'm hoping the final comment is tongue in cheek as it took me god knows how many requests before you answered my question.

But I'll give it a shot.

I'm assuming you are not concerned with the (illegal) discriminatory factor when considering one candidate's dyslexia?

the information you have provided isn't enough to provide the answers to your questions. For instance, are you looking for a welder with stores experience, or vice versa? Which part of the job is more demanding and requires more expertise? What kind of welding would have to be done and how good a job (i.e. is it for "behind the scenes" stuff or will the results be in plain view? What assistance will be provided for the potential applicant's dyslexia? Etc etc.

I know you've weighted this (highly improbable) job advert to make out that time spent on one aspect means that that particular aspect is more important, but that's not always the case. Let me give you a counter argument:

I need a salesman for my company, to develop new business for the company. He/she will be spending most of the time initially on the telephone trying to drum up business and make appointments and sales, with a further chunk of the day involved in the inevitable admin and computer skills to record all his/her interactions. On average the day breaks down into 55% phone calls, 35% admin / computer work and 10% visiting clients. Now what would you consider the prime factor of the job, and should I be looking for a telephonist, administrator or salesperson?
One it's not illegal. It's not discrimination.

But no you haven't answered the questions.

It's easy, the options are

Part a) Which is the primary factor?

Welding 1 day a week

Or

Stores 4 days a week

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part b) Who gets the job?

The guy who is better at stores and a satisfactory welder for the job.

OR

The guy who is a better welder but totally useless at stores.

----------------------------------------------------------

As for Welding and

What kind of welding would have to be done and how good a job (i.e. is it for "behind the scenes" stuff or will the results be in plain view?

There is only one type of good weld. Whether it's in view or not. A peaky looking weld is a peaky weld. However a good looking one doesn't always stick. You need both to do a good weld.

so if there's only one type, what's the difference between satisfactory and world class?

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:37 pm**

consistency, speed of work. Many other things.

You were talking about type of Weld not type of Welder.

Edit I'll give you an example to clarify.

I can weld, I can do a good weld. But if I go from 3mm to half inch plate I need a few practice runs to get it right. If I haven't done it in a while I need to do a bit of practice.

I've seen some really good welders who can go from one to the other without batting an eyelid and put out perfect welds without effort. Take months off, comeback and do a perfect weld first time.

My welding was satisfactory for the job I was in as welding wasn't done constantly. If I turnipped up it was small enough to be ground down and re-done with big loss.

If I changed departments and went into the factory I wouldn't stand a chance because they welded constantly and every weld had to be perfect first time. Because if they mess up it slows down the whole production line.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:49 pm**

Johnston wrote:consistency, speed of work. Many other things.

You were talking about type of Weld not type of Welder.

well then it depends on what weighting you would give the welding, doesn't it? On the basis that it only happens once a week that suggests that there is some kind of time constraint on the welding that needed to be done, which would favour the world class welder, and given that welding requires a greater skillset than stock control, I would say that welding is the primary factor, with the world class welder getting the job (with the risk that he might be totally bored four days a week of course). On the other hand, if time wasn't an issue and speed and consistency was less of a factor, that would favour the satisfactory welder with the store pedigree, given that he can perform both jobs adequately

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:55 pm**

Zoue wrote:
Johnston wrote:consistency, speed of work. Many other things.

You were talking about type of Weld not type of Welder.
well then it depends on what weighting you would give the welding, doesn't it? On the basis that it only happens once a week that suggests that there is some kind of time constraint on the welding that needed to be done, which would favour the world class welder, and given that welding requires a greater skillset than stock control, I would say that welding is the primary factor, with the world class welder getting the job (with the risk that he might be totally bored four days a week of course). On the other hand, if time wasn't an issue and speed and consistency was less of a factor, that would favour the satisfactory welder with the store pedigree, given that he can perform both jobs adequately

So is that your final answer in bold?

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:57 pm**

Johnston wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Johnston wrote:consistency, speed of work. Many other things.

You were talking about type of Weld not type of Welder.
well then it depends on what weighting you would give the welding, doesn't it? On the basis that it only happens once a week that suggests that there is some kind of time constraint on the welding that needed to be done, which would favour the world class welder, and given that welding requires a greater skillset than stock control, I would say that welding is the primary factor, with the world class welder getting the job (with the risk that he might be totally bored four days a week of course). On the other hand, if time wasn't an issue and speed and consistency was less of a factor, that would favour the satisfactory welder with the store pedigree, given that he can perform both jobs adequately

So is that your final answer in bold?

with the provisos I've put in place, yes

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:00 pm**

Nope no provisos.

Lay your hat.

The work ratio is 4:1 in the stores favour.

One can do both the job requirements. One can do only one.

who gets the job?

Welder who can't do stores or storeman who can weld .

One or the other. a or B black or White. No ifs and or buts. Red head or Brunette. Ashleigh or Laura. Xbox or Ps3 .

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:06 pm**

Johnston wrote:Nope no provisos.

Lay your hat.

The work ratio is 4:1 in the stores favour.

One can do both the job requirements. One can do only one.

who gets the job?

Welder or storeman who can weld .

One or the other. a or B black or White. No ifs and or buts.

er, what? You're asking me to make a call based on almost zero information. How is that relevant to anything? Assuming you want to somehow tie this back to F1 (at least, I hope so), how does making a choice in the dark have any bearing on what we have been discussing? Who hires someone blind? Any answer I'd give would be meaningless because it would basically be flipping a coin.

I've given my answer as best I could based on the limited information to hand. If what I've said doesn't fit neatly into whatever trap you were hoping to spring then I can't help that. Can't really change the answer sensibly without knowing more.

Now your turn

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:13 pm**

I have given you the information.

In it's simplest form. Stores is 4x the welding.

One guy can do both to satisfaction one can only do 1/5th of the work load.

It's anything but blind.

You can only hire one.

It can't be made any simpler. No other factors involved.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:20 pm**

Johnston wrote:I have given you the information.

In it's simplest form. Stores is 4x the welding.

One guy can do both to satisfaction one can only do 1/5th of the work load.

It's anything but blind.

You can only hire one.

It can't be made any simpler. No other factors involved.

Hire the guy who can do both satisfactory. There, that wasn't so hard was it.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:21 pm**

Johnston wrote:I have given you the information.

In it's simplest form. Stores is 4x the welding.

One guy can do both to satisfaction one can only do 1/5th of the work load.

It's anything but blind.

You can only hire one.

It can't be made any simpler. No other factors involved.

OK, but you do understand I'm sticking the pin in the donkey just to see what the point of all this is, right? Eeenie, meenie, I'll pick satisfactory guy

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:28 pm**

Johnston wrote:
I'll asky you this.

A job comes up in the motorsport news. .

Job entails.

On average 4 days a week PR duty, 1 day racing.

Which is the primary factor of the job?

Who is going to get the job?

The world class racer who is socially inept and can't talk in public Or the Satisfactory racer exemplary in front of an audience and after dinner speeches ?

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:31 pm**

Johnston wrote:
Johnston wrote:
I'll asky you this.

A job comes up in the motorsport news. .

Job entails.

On average 4 days a week PR duty, 1 day racing.

Which is the primary factor of the job?

Who is going to get the job?

The world class racer who is socially inept and can't talk in public Or the Satisfactory racer exemplary in front of an audience and after dinner speeches ?

ah, I see where you're going with this. World class racer, every time

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:34 pm**

Zoue wrote: ah, I see where you're going with this. World class racer, every time

Really?

so when it's welders and storemen you take the one that can do both jobs.

when it's racing you take the one that does the minority.

With someone poor with sponsors where do you get the money to fund the team? They pay for more than a fast moving bill board.

When he doesn't do the Press commitments what do you tell the FIA?

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:57 pm**

Johnston wrote:
Zoue wrote: ah, I see where you're going with this. World class racer, every time

Really?

so when it's welders and storemen you take the one that can do both jobs.

when it's racing you take the one that does the minority.

With someone poor with sponsors where do you get the money to fund the team? They pay for more than a fast moving bill board.

When he doesn't do the Press commitments what do you tell the FIA?

Unless I'm missing something from the world of welding it's not a competitive sport, which racing is. There's a lot of PR value in sticking your car ahead of where it should be in races, and there's a lot of negative PR value in having your car trundling around at the back of the grid or not being driven to it's full potential. i feel compelled to use Heikki as my go to example here - he's just as capable as Button with his PR duties, but his racing skills were underwhelming, at least during his time at McLaren, which is why he had to go.

In sport competitiveness has a higher value than, say, in Accounting (and, dare I say it, stores and welding). You can structure PR events so the chimp doesn't have to speak much and maybe just smile and nod his head with a little coaching, but there's little you can do if he's being constantly beaten by other drivers on track. Kimi is arguably a PR nightmare as getting him to talk is probably slightly harder than getting an audience with the Pope, but his driving skills are the reason Lotus extended him for 2013.

Finally, if you remember from my first reply regarding the welder I said that if speed and consistency were a factor then the world class welder would have to be the first choice, as I would then give much more weighting to the welding part of his job. Well, with a racing driver my position has always been that the racing element is the number one part of the job, so all things being equal I would always choose a better racer over a better public speaker.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:29 pm**

Saying something is "utter garbage" doesn't make it untrue. And just because you would always choose a better racer over a PR superstar doesn't mean that's what teams do, as we've shown you many times. So some of us have chosen to look at what the sport has dictated as the prime roles of Formula 1 drivers, and you have chosen what YOU think it is, based on...who knows what? Idealism maybe. And one thing I have learned about reality and idealism is never the twain shall meet.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:43 pm**

ashley313 wrote:

Saying something is "utter garbage" doesn't make it untrue. And just because you would always choose a better racer over a PR superstar doesn't mean that's what teams do, as we've shown you many times. So some of us have chosen to look at what the sport has dictated as the prime roles of Formula 1 drivers, and you have chosen what YOU think it is, based on...who knows what? Idealism maybe. And one thing I have learned about reality and idealism is never the twain shall meet.

ah, the baton has been passed again, I see.

You're right, utter garbage isn't always untrue, but in your case it is. You are saying a secondary consideration is more important than a primary one, which just isn't true.

As for the rest of your quote, oh dear. Essentially because you have said it, it's what the sport has dictated, whereas if I have said it, it's something I've made up on my own. Little bit presumptuous don't you think?

And sorry to disabuse you of your own self importance but you haven't proven a thing. In fact, as pointed out earlier Johnston agreed with me that driving ability determined whether a driver stayed or went, so you're on your own there.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:00 pm**

There is a lot more to F1 than being a competitive sport. It's been a very long time since you could say it was mainly a sport. If it was all about being competitive as we pointed out there are drivers higher up the queue than the rookies getting their first seat next year.

The top 3 teams would have the top 6 drivers.

It's a business. The teams treat it like a businesses. The teams have shareholders who want profits. Just like any other businesses.

If it was about being the most competitive PR wouldn't even come into as the best drivers would be on the grid regardless. Not the 3rd, 4th or 6th before 1 and 2 of the feeder series.

As for racing being the number one part of the job. As I pointed out using the timeline of events from the OP the driving takes up a relatively small part of their job.

As for

You can structure PR events so the chimp doesn't have to speak much and maybe just smile and nod his head with a little coaching,

No you can't. Sponsors have distinct wants from the people they sponsor. If you don't fulfil those wants they go elsewhere. Just like any other business where one end does not do what is required.

Even at lower levels drivers despite not being known are expected to meet certain criteria. I know drivers who have had to go shake hands with folk at trade events. Thats trade only, no members of the public . Take time off work and stand there like a pleb making small talk with people enquiring about a product they know nothing about.

If the driver didn't turn up or nodded like a chimp. Sponsorship not paid.

It's not the teams that structure the PR events it's the sponsors and they want the chimp to perform how they want it to perform. No point sending a Chimp that only knows the Tango when they want a waltz. They won't be happy.

We went chasing some sponsorship. Of course pocket change compared to F1 levels. Even there the hoops that needed jumped through was mind boggling. Most of which we had to walk away from because for us there was no way to run a car, do the PR and actually stay employed. In all my time of competing not once did I ever hear a sponsor mention anything to do with results. It was all what could be done for them at PR level. That includes guys at international level. The only motorsport criteria we ever had (and bare in mind this was multi class rallying) Was at what class and level we raced in. So we couldn't take the money and rock up in a MK2 escort at the local club championship. It had to Be WRC at international. Everything else was How many corporate days we had to run, which was basically hire a track big gazebo hire a caterer and bring some booze (Think the street runs on a smaller level) . Supplying food for so many people in a hospitality tent at event , be at trade shows. Driver had to go to so many of their public events, stand look pretty, smile for the cameras and make small talk to who ever was there on business.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 4:09 pm**

Johnston,

first off, you seem to be taking a literal and extreme view of every circumstance. I answered your questions, but it's highly unlikely that any driver would be as extremely PR illiterate as the example you gave. Nevertheless, given the choices I had I still believe that's the best outcome for a racing team.

As I've stated before. "primary" is not interchangeable with "exclusively," yet you seem to imply that if a driver's primary function is driving then he can't possibly handle any PR or other related work. That's just not true. And just because they spend the most man-hours doing one activity that doesn't make that activity their primary role. It just means that it takes a lot of their time.

F1 drivers are hired primarily to race cars. Not exclusively. Primarily. They will have other duties, including of course PR, but the reason for getting them on board is to race the team's car and get it as high up the points as possible. If they can't do that, then they won't be around long enough to do much in the way of PR for the team, either. Sorry to use the same old example but McLaren didn't get rid of Heikki because he didn't smile enough for the camera; it was because he didn't perform on track. And as pointed out earlier in this thread, PR takes a lot of the McLaren boys' time so that's as good an example as any.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 4:18 pm**

Zoue wrote:
ashley313 wrote:

Saying something is "utter garbage" doesn't make it untrue. And just because you would always choose a better racer over a PR superstar doesn't mean that's what teams do, as we've shown you many times. So some of us have chosen to look at what the sport has dictated as the prime roles of Formula 1 drivers, and you have chosen what YOU think it is, based on...who knows what? Idealism maybe. And one thing I have learned about reality and idealism is never the twain shall meet.
ah, the baton has been passed again, I see.

You're right, utter garbage isn't always untrue, but in your case it is. You are saying a secondary consideration is more important than a primary one, which just isn't true.

As for the rest of your quote, oh dear. Essentially because you have said it, it's what the sport has dictated, whereas if I have said it, it's something I've made up on my own. Little bit presumptuous don't you think?

And sorry to disabuse you of your own self importance but you haven't proven a thing. In fact, as pointed out earlier Johnston agreed with me that driving ability determined whether a driver stayed or went, so you're on your own there.

Its what the sport has dictated because....its what happens in the sport. Drivers are hired for reasons beyond their driving capabilities. That is a fact, supported by evidence. You have even agreed to that. I don't understand why you're so stuck on the idea that the primary role of an employee can be multifaceted. There aren't many jobs with a singular primary role. Assembly line jobs maybe, where all you are responsible for is stamping a logo into a piece of metal or something. If multiple parts of a job have equal importance, then they are all part of the primary role.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 4:23 pm**

Zoue wrote:Johnston,

first off, you seem to be taking a literal and extreme view of every circumstance. I answered your questions, but it's highly unlikely that any driver would be as extremely PR illiterate as the example you gave. Nevertheless, given the choices I had I still believe that's the best outcome for a racing team.

As I've stated before. "primary" is not interchangeable with "exclusively," yet you seem to imply that if a driver's primary function is driving then he can't possibly handle any PR or other related work. That's just not true. And just because they spend the most man-hours doing one activity that doesn't make that activity their primary role. It just means that it takes a lot of their time.

F1 drivers are hired primarily to race cars. Not exclusively. Primarily. They will have other duties, including of course PR, but the reason for getting them on board is to race the team's car and get it as high up the points as possible. If they can't do that, then they won't be around long enough to do much in the way of PR for the team, either. Sorry to use the same old example but McLaren didn't get rid of Heikki because he didn't smile enough for the camera; it was because he didn't perform on track. And as pointed out earlier in this thread, PR takes a lot of the McLaren boys' time so that's as good an example as any.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 4:29 pm**

I have yet to say if his primary function is racing he can't do PR work. I'm saying other things are more important than the driving. Some teams it's the PR as I have shown examples, some it's the Money they bring . I'm saying if the best driver in the world is a tool head that gets on with no one annoys the sponsors, no one will touch him.

Take a look through the grid, how many got their starts through driving? If more drivers get into F1 through things like bringing money or Sponsors than natural given driving talent, how can Driving be the primary function of a driver?

If teams turn down some of the supposedly best drivers on the grid in favour of "Journey men" how can driving be the primary function?

If the likes of McLaren are willing to lose the likes of Lewis and Kimi over PR days how can driving be the primary function. If driving came first wouldn't they dump the PR to keep the drivers?

For driving to be the primary function. Then it has to be the decider not the tie break.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 4:45 pm**

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:04 pm**

Mclaren weren't willing to lose Hamilton though were they, that's why they offered him more then any other driver.

Johnston wrote:I have yet to say if his primary function is racing he can't do PR work. I'm saying other things are more important than the driving. Some teams it's the PR as I have shown examples, some it's the Money they bring . I'm saying if the best driver in the world is a tool head that gets on with no one annoys the sponsors, no one will touch him.

Take a look through the grid, how many got their starts through driving? If more drivers get into F1 through things like bringing money or Sponsors than natural given driving talent, how can Driving be the primary function of a driver?

If teams turn down some of the supposedly best drivers on the grid in favour of "Journey men" how can driving be the primary function?

If the likes of McLaren are willing to lose the likes of Lewis and Kimi over PR days how can driving be the primary function. If driving came first wouldn't they dump the PR to keep the drivers?

For driving to be the primary function. Then it has to be the decider not the tie break.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:21 pm**

Obviously they were willing too they didn't bow to his demands .

If driving is the primary factor they would drop everything to keep him. Unless of course they think Perez is the better driver.

Or other factors were more important.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:34 pm**

Hmm, so it wasn't the other party not accepting the offer then, it was Mclaren not bowing to his demands of what ?

Johnston wrote:Obviously they were willing too they didn't bow to his demands .

If driving is the primary factor they would drop everything to keep him. Unless of course they think Perez is the better driver.

Or other factors were more important.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:36 pm**

Johnston wrote:Obviously they were willing too they didn't bow to his demands .

If driving is the primary factor they would drop everything to keep him. Unless of course they think Perez is the better driver.

Or other factors were more important.

it was not a case of McLaren not offering him enough, it was a case of Lewis not wanted to drive for McLaren anymore

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:42 pm**

Johnston wrote:Obviously they were willing too they didn't bow to his demands .

If driving is the primary factor they would drop everything to keep him. Unless of course they think Perez is the better driver.

Or other factors were more important.

well no, not really. They tried but they're not a bottomless pit of funds. Everybody has his price and every company has a limit somewhere. And besides, the fact that they did offer him more than anyone else shows they wanted him. He just didn't want them.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:47 pm**

They offered him more money, supposedly more than Merc. However it appears they didn't change on things like PR and the trophies did they?

So in that case what was more important to Macca than the driving ability?

But wait isn't driving ability most important so why didn't they relax on the PR and trophies?

Nice of you to admit to the money thing too.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:59 pm**

ashley313 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
ashley313 wrote:

Saying something is "utter garbage" doesn't make it untrue. And just because you would always choose a better racer over a PR superstar doesn't mean that's what teams do, as we've shown you many times. So some of us have chosen to look at what the sport has dictated as the prime roles of Formula 1 drivers, and you have chosen what YOU think it is, based on...who knows what? Idealism maybe. And one thing I have learned about reality and idealism is never the twain shall meet.
ah, the baton has been passed again, I see.

You're right, utter garbage isn't always untrue, but in your case it is. You are saying a secondary consideration is more important than a primary one, which just isn't true.

As for the rest of your quote, oh dear. Essentially because you have said it, it's what the sport has dictated, whereas if I have said it, it's something I've made up on my own. Little bit presumptuous don't you think?

And sorry to disabuse you of your own self importance but you haven't proven a thing. In fact, as pointed out earlier Johnston agreed with me that driving ability determined whether a driver stayed or went, so you're on your own there.
Its what the sport has dictated because....its what happens in the sport. Drivers are hired for reasons beyond their driving capabilities. That is a fact, supported by evidence. You have even agreed to that. I don't understand why you're so stuck on the idea that the primary role of an employee can be multifaceted. There aren't many jobs with a singular primary role. Assembly line jobs maybe, where all you are responsible for is stamping a logo into a piece of metal or something. If multiple parts of a job have equal importance, then they are all part of the primary role.

I could equally say that I don't understand why you insist that everything a driver does has equal merit, when it clearly doesn't. I don't understand why you feel that a driver's primary role is to race the car, when to me its's as clear as day. At the end of a season no-one talks about how good they were at their PR duties or whether they were nice to women and children. It's the driving that is the focus of attention and the reason these guys even exist.

Some drivers need personal sponsorship because that's the economical fact of life these days and teams need to supplement their income. Other drivers are more fortunate and don't need to worry about that at all ( I read somewhere else on this forum that Vettel apparently does barely any sponsorship as he doesn't enjoy it. He earns less than some, despite being WDC, but prefers it that way). The common denominator for all drivers, both those that need sponsors and those that don't, is driving. They all do that, irrespective of background and status, and they are all judged on how they perform in the car in Qualifying and on race day. It's a constant for all of them and indicates very strongly that driving is the main purpose of their role. To me that's black and white; to you clearly it isn't, for reasons that honestly escape me. Having spent several pages playing forum tennis over this I very much doubt that either of us will convince the other of our arguments, and all we seem to be doing is winding each other up about it. I know I'm guilty of that for which I apologise, but I don't see much point in carrying on when it doesn't look like it will end well at any point.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:01 pm**

Johnston wrote:They offered him more money, supposedly more than Merc. However it appears they didn't change on things like PR and the trophies did they?

So in that case what was more important to Macca than the driving ability?

But wait isn't driving ability most important so why didn't they relax on the PR and trophies?

Nice of you to admit to the money thing too.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Offering money in return for services is hardly unique to F1. What is there to admit to? (Note the question mark).

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:11 pm**

Zoue wrote:
Johnston wrote:They offered him more money, supposedly more than Merc. However it appears they didn't change on things like PR and the trophies did they?

So in that case what was more important to Macca than the driving ability?

But wait isn't driving ability most important so why didn't they relax on the PR and trophies?

Nice of you to admit to the money thing too.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Offering money in return for services is hardly unique to F1. What is there to admit to? (Note the question mark).

Well one way of looking at it is McLaren thought trophies PR etc etc were more important.

the other

They tried but they're not a bottomless pit of funds. Everybody has his price and every company has a limit somewhere.

So money was a prime factor above talent.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:15 pm**

Johnston wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Johnston wrote:They offered him more money, supposedly more than Merc. However it appears they didn't change on things like PR and the trophies did they?

So in that case what was more important to Macca than the driving ability?

But wait isn't driving ability most important so why didn't they relax on the PR and trophies?

Nice of you to admit to the money thing too.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Offering money in return for services is hardly unique to F1. What is there to admit to? (Note the question mark).
Well one way of looking at it is McLaren thought trophies PR etc etc were more important.

the other

They tried but they're not a bottomless pit of funds. Everybody has his price and every company has a limit somewhere.
So money was a prime factor above talent.

Sometimes I think you live in an alternate universe. They offered him money in order to keep his talent. If anything it demonstrates that his talent was the prime factor. What were they supposed to do? Offer him beans?

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:26 pm**

They could have offered more or relax on the terms he wanted.

so your options are.

They weren't willing to stop up the cash he wanted making the cash more important.

weren't willing to relax on the trophies making them more important

Weren't willing to relax on the PR days making that more important.

Weren't willing to give him the private camper van with pink velour interior making that more important.

Weren't willing to relax on any number of things making them more important

a combination of all or any of the above.

OR

Lewis was never going to sign and was only stringing them along.

Or it's truly about driving and they think Perez is better hence why they weren't willing to give lewis what he wanted.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:02 pm**

Johnston wrote:They could have offered more or relax on the terms he wanted.

so your options are.

They weren't willing to stop up the cash he wanted making the cash more important.

weren't willing to relax on the trophies making them more important

Weren't willing to relax on the PR days making that more important.

Weren't willing to give him the private camper van with pink velour interior making that more important.

Weren't willing to relax on any number of things making them more important

a combination of all or any of the above.

OR

Lewis was never going to sign and was only stringing them along.

Or it's truly about driving and they think Perez is better hence why they weren't willing to give lewis what he wanted.

OK, you're really getting confused about the whole thing now. For starters, you've mixed up what's important for the team (e.g. talent) with what's important for the driver (e.g.money). So your examples are always going to give a skewed result.

If the team bends over backwards to keep a driver and offer him anything including money, fewer PR days, trophies, camper vans and/or cuddly toys, it shows that they value his talent. Whatever they offer is simply the price they put on his talent. That's pretty much the only conclusion you can draw. If they don't offer him anything, then they don't value his talent. Again, that's pretty much the only conclusion you can draw. Whether the driver accepts it or not is a whole other ball game.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:42 pm**

Zoue wrote: OK, you're really getting confused about the whole thing now. For starters, you've mixed up what's important for the team (e.g. talent) with what's important for the driver (e.g.money). So your examples are always going to give a skewed result.

If the team bends over backwards to keep a driver and offer him anything including money, fewer PR days, trophies, camper vans and/or cuddly toys, it shows that they value his talent. Whatever they offer is simply the price they put on his talent. That's pretty much the only conclusion you can draw. If they don't offer him anything, then they don't value his talent. Again, that's pretty much the only conclusion you can draw. Whether the driver accepts it or not is a whole other ball game.

No I haven't.

In this case instead of receiving money it was keeping it. As the saying goes "Everyman has his price" . something was more important to McLaren than Lewis talent OR he was never going to sign.

The rest I have no quarrel with. But the fact the teams will only go so far shows there is something more important than the talent.

The fact there is a limit on the value of the talent shows that somethings > than talent. That is undeniable.

Otherwise they would give them what ever the hell the driver asked for.

Here's another way of looking at it. If driver talent is paramount. Why is Newey such a big deal? Why do team bosses like Williams think it's to do with the car more than the driver?

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:55 pm**

Johnston wrote:
Zoue wrote: OK, you're really getting confused about the whole thing now. For starters, you've mixed up what's important for the team (e.g. talent) with what's important for the driver (e.g.money). So your examples are always going to give a skewed result.

If the team bends over backwards to keep a driver and offer him anything including money, fewer PR days, trophies, camper vans and/or cuddly toys, it shows that they value his talent. Whatever they offer is simply the price they put on his talent. That's pretty much the only conclusion you can draw. If they don't offer him anything, then they don't value his talent. Again, that's pretty much the only conclusion you can draw. Whether the driver accepts it or not is a whole other ball game.

No I haven't.

In this case instead of receiving money it was keeping it. As the saying goes "Everyman has his price" . something was more important to McLaren than Lewis talent OR he was never going to sign.

The rest I have no quarrel with. But the fact the teams will only go so far shows there is something more important than the talent.

The fact their is a limit on the value of the talent shows that somethings > than talent. That is undeniable.

Otherwise they would give them what ever the hell the driver asked for.

Here's another way of looking at it. If driver talent is paramount. Why is Newey such a big deal? Why do team bosses like Williams think it's to do with the car more than the driver?

well, yes. There's bankruptcy, for a start. Nobody has bottomless funds, but that doesn't mean they don't value the talent, only that they might not be able to afford it. That doesn't lessen it's importance in any way.

If McLaren offered Lewis what was claimed to be the highest pay package of anyone on the grid and he still refused it then arguably it wouldn't have mattered what they offered him - he'd made up his mind to go anyway. It was his decision, not the team's, so you can't infer anything from the team's perspective from that. It has nothing to do with what was more important than his talent, since the decision was never theirs to make anyway.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:57 pm**

Zoue wrote: I could equally say that I don't understand why you insist that everything a driver does has equal merit, when it clearly doesn't.

I stopped reading after this point. You've already admitted that drivers are hired, or re-signed, for reasons other than their driving skill. If you can't understand that that logically makes those reasons as important, or in some cases more important, as driving skill...then there's something lacking from your learning of logic, and as I'm only paid to teach horsemanship I'm afraid I can't keep trying to give you free lessons.

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:01 pm**

ashley313 wrote:
Zoue wrote: I could equally say that I don't understand why you insist that everything a driver does has equal merit, when it clearly doesn't.
I stopped reading after this point. You've already admitted that drivers are hired, or re-signed, for reasons other than their driving skill. If you can't understand that that logically makes those reasons as important, or in some cases more important, as driving skill...then there's something lacking from your learning of logic, and as I'm only paid to teach horsemanship I'm afraid I can't keep trying to give you free lessons.

perhaps you can refresh my memory, as I don't recall saying that any reasons were more important than driving ability

Posted: **Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:16 pm**

Johnston wrote:They offered him more money, supposedly more than Merc. However it appears they didn't change on things like PR and the trophies did they?

So in that case what was more important to Macca than the driving ability?

But wait isn't driving ability most important so why didn't they relax on the PR and trophies?

Nice of you to admit to the money thing too.

Perhaps McLaren prioritizing PR over ability has something to do with their chronic incompetence and inability to win as many Championships as any of their closest rivals. There a racing team not a modeling agency

planetf1.com

Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..

Re: Mclaren Driver PR work..