planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Aug 22, 2017 9:05 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 2987
Pullrod wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

Full time Ferrari apologist Forghieri in it's not Ferrari's fault they built crap cars shocker. To be honest he seems to have the same trouble as you in appreciating the limited role a driver has in developing the car these days and seems stuck in the days you could bang around Fiorano at will. LdM had a similar problem which is why they lagged behind so badly in simulation tools post testing ban and they didn't notice their wind tunnel didn't work properly until someone joining from the state of the art McLaren centre pointed it out.

You can trust whoever's opinion you like, you should probably just trust your own eyes and judge this years Ferrari which was born out of just as much tension as any of Alonso's cars yet is the best since the testing ban.

But I guess the fixed wind tunnel, 100's of millions of new test benches from AVL, the full chassis dynometer and bang up to date simulation tools bought since 2014 are the real coincidence between the difference in calibre of cars Maranello was able to put out during those two periods and the real reason is because the clueless idiot Alonso's not there now designing bad cars.

Completely ignoring that Alonso himself had already led a team from 4th to back to back constructors titles during the testing era of course. Or when's it him and a positive does it suddenly not count?.

Trying to give Lewis credit for fixing the 2009 car without suggesting he was responsible for the bad version that started the year in the first place as well is exactly the type of picking and choosing nonsense you'd expect from someone trying to put a spin on car performance being down to the driver.


You can believe what you want. And the real story on the divorce between Ferrari and Alonso is definitely not what you(and not only you) think it is.
I can tell you that they are happier in Ferrari and Hamilton would not have spent 3 years of his racing career driving a crap car with a crap engine like the McLaren-Honda combo.
Some drivers tend to have all the "luck", at least you can not buy reputation so I think it is fair.


Will do. Maybe not, I wasn't trying to pass it off as fact in that thread, it was just the version that ticked all the boxes for me.

Ferrari are only happy when winning and they didn't sound happy in the second half of last year when Seb got the same kind of treatment in the press and telling off/wrist slapping from the bosses Alonso used to get. The stories of unhappy engineers didn't take long to surface again after they slipped to 3rd*. Truth or not, much like Alonso's, these things tend to rear their head at Ferrari in times of struggles.

You think Lewis would have solved their issues, quit or not taken that kind of gamble in the first place?. If it's the last one I can see the sense there. The other two not so much.




*
Quote:
Pino Allievi, arguably the most respected Italian journalist in the paddock, said: "We again saw the best from Fernando, who is limited by his McLaren."

"There are many at Maranello who still lament his departure," La Gazzetta dello Sport quoted him as saying.

Gazzetta, meanwhile, remained critical of Sebastian Vettel.

"The performance was not bad, but he is still very far from the top, with a car that is no longer guaranteed."

https://www.f1today.net/en/news/f1/2185 ... -departure


I am sure there would be some engineers who would like Alonso back, but It is not going to happen.
Right after Baku, Pino Allievi together with some Italian Journalist who are fans of Alonso, pushed(almost in unison) for Vettel to be replaced by Alonso next year on their websites with users given the option to vote.
Marchionne himself has been quick to shut down this silly fantasy.

Alonso thought he was bigger than Ferrari, something that not even Schumacher who was/is revered as a God by normal people dared to do, and he paid the price and he is not coming back.

P. Allievi has never liked Schumacher for example, and never misses an occasion to big up Alonso(even now) and talk rubbish about Hamilton or Vettel. The only other guy he likes is Ricciardo(go figure??). :o


I don't think it will happen either, nor am I shouting for it too, but the point was there was tension in Ferrari at the same time they were building their best car in a decade.

And if there were calls to replace Seb even though he's having a great season then it sums my thoughts on the Italian press and relationship with Ferrari. There's always an agenda somewhere on the go.

We can call Allievi the anti-Forghieri then and move on. ;)

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:20 pm
Posts: 21
mikeyg123 wrote:
Sharknose wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Sharknose wrote:
The OP confuses Alonso's cars' 'natural position' with Alonso's public statements about his cars. Calling the 2012 Ferrari the 4th best car is beyond ridiculous.


If you make the massive assumption that Raikkonen was as good as Alonso in 2012 then you could make a case for it being 3rd best.

I see that as very unlikely.

Regardless Alonso finished 2nd in the 2012 WDC so unless you think he had the best car, which he obviously didn't, then the point still stands.


I don't think there was a single best car that year; six different cars won races. But that it beside the point. The point being I find it amazing how people buy into Alonso's self-promotion. Maybe another driver would have won the WDC with his car in 2007, 2010 and 2012.
Alonso's reputation has become so larger-than-life that when he doesn't grand chelem every GP people automatically assume it's because of the car.


with that in mind why would it be "beyond ridiculous to say the Ferrari was 4th out of the 6? The Red Bull and Mclaren were certainly better over the season. As I said earlier the Lotus is more of a judgement call depending on driver performance but if you have to make a decision a sane person is probably going to conclude Alonso was more likely to be better.

6 teams won races, another 2 had a very good chance. It was a close season behind Red Bull and Mclaren and that's what allowed the 4th fastest car to compete for the WDC.


The 2012 season was a weird one indeed, but flat-out stating that the Ferrari was only the 4th best car throughout the entire season simply isn't true. There were races where it was completely off the pace, but also races where it was the fastest. I don't know how you can conclude it was the 4th best on average. Especially considering that what it lacked in speed on some tracks, it made up in reliability. The McLaren may have often been faster, but Hamilton had six retirements, a huge amount in the modern age.
I'm not saying Alonso's 2012 wasn't great, simply that it wasn't as good as some people make it out to be. It certainly wasn't the best season ever, as I've seen people state. Especially towards the end of the season his performance dropped off.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 11:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 11458
Sharknose wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Sharknose wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Sharknose wrote:
The OP confuses Alonso's cars' 'natural position' with Alonso's public statements about his cars. Calling the 2012 Ferrari the 4th best car is beyond ridiculous.


If you make the massive assumption that Raikkonen was as good as Alonso in 2012 then you could make a case for it being 3rd best.

I see that as very unlikely.

Regardless Alonso finished 2nd in the 2012 WDC so unless you think he had the best car, which he obviously didn't, then the point still stands.


I don't think there was a single best car that year; six different cars won races. But that it beside the point. The point being I find it amazing how people buy into Alonso's self-promotion. Maybe another driver would have won the WDC with his car in 2007, 2010 and 2012.
Alonso's reputation has become so larger-than-life that when he doesn't grand chelem every GP people automatically assume it's because of the car.


with that in mind why would it be "beyond ridiculous to say the Ferrari was 4th out of the 6? The Red Bull and Mclaren were certainly better over the season. As I said earlier the Lotus is more of a judgement call depending on driver performance but if you have to make a decision a sane person is probably going to conclude Alonso was more likely to be better.

6 teams won races, another 2 had a very good chance. It was a close season behind Red Bull and Mclaren and that's what allowed the 4th fastest car to compete for the WDC.


The 2012 season was a weird one indeed, but flat-out stating that the Ferrari was only the 4th best car throughout the entire season simply isn't true. There were races where it was completely off the pace, but also races where it was the fastest. I don't know how you can conclude it was the 4th best on average. Especially considering that what it lacked in speed on some tracks, it made up in reliability. The McLaren may have often been faster, but Hamilton had six retirements, a huge amount in the modern age.
I'm not saying Alonso's 2012 wasn't great, simply that it wasn't as good as some people make it out to be. It certainly wasn't the best season ever, as I've seen people state. Especially towards the end of the season his performance dropped off.


One race where you could argue it was the fastest. Just one.

Sometimes it was way off even the 4th fastest as well. I agree it's never easy to rank cars but if you 1-11 the cars in 2012 I think it's hard to make a convincing case the Ferrari was anything better than 4th on average.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 3:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 881
mikeyg123 wrote:

One race where you could argue it was the fastest. Just one.

Sometimes it was way off even the 4th fastest as well. I agree it's never easy to rank cars but if you 1-11 the cars in 2012 I think it's hard to make a convincing case the Ferrari was anything better than 4th on average.


Malaysia, Spain, Silverstone and Germany take your pick.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 4:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 11458
Rockie wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

One race where you could argue it was the fastest. Just one.

Sometimes it was way off even the 4th fastest as well. I agree it's never easy to rank cars but if you 1-11 the cars in 2012 I think it's hard to make a convincing case the Ferrari was anything better than 4th on average.


Malaysia, Spain, Silverstone and Germany take your pick.


Honestly?

Malaysia -

Alonso qualified 9th and Massa 12th. 1 second down on both Red Bull's and both Mclaren's.

The rain and others mistakes shakes the order up and Alonso ends up leading. On the drying track Perez is catching quickly and only didn't catch completely because of an error with a few laps to go. As it was finished 2.2 seconds behind Alonso.


Verdict - Nowhere near the fastest car


Spain -

Alonso qualified 3rd, Massa 17th.

Grid penalty leaves Hamilton's much faster Mclaren at the back. Alonso also out qualified by Williams of Maldanado.... In the race Alonso never loos like passing Maldanado and Kimi finishes right behind him. Massa finishes 15th

Verdict - One could argue Ferrari were second quickest if you are happy to ignore Massa in the lower midfield and assume Kimi and Maldanado were Alonso's equal on the day. Unlikely in my opinion.


Silverstone -

Pole for Alonso and 5th for Massa.

Alonso is overtaken on track by Webber for the victory.

Verdict - Ferrari second best unless someone wants to try and argue Webber is better than Alonso.

Germany -

Lights to flag victory for Alonso. Vettel and Button close behind.

Verdict - You could argue Ferrari were quickest here if you are happy to ignore Massa. Personally I don't rate Massa but i've seen him compete for a WDC in the quickest car so forgive me If I don't quite buy him not being able to score points in one.



I guess I was wrong too say only one was arguable. If you really, really don't rate Alonso you could at a push argue the Ferrari was quickest in Britain and Germany. You'd have to be a lunatic to try and make out it was the best car in Malaysia or Spain.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 4:48 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6354
mikeyg123 wrote:
Silverstone -

Pole for Alonso and 5th for Massa.

Alonso is overtaken on track by Webber for the victory.

Verdict - Ferrari second best unless someone wants to try and argue Webber is better than Alonso.

Agree with your main point and summary but for Silverstone you don't have to think that Webber is better than Alonso overall to think that he could have been better on the day.

Webber occasionally beat Vettel but few would argue he was the better driver.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 4:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 11458
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Silverstone -

Pole for Alonso and 5th for Massa.

Alonso is overtaken on track by Webber for the victory.

Verdict - Ferrari second best unless someone wants to try and argue Webber is better than Alonso.

Agree with your main point and summary but for Silverstone you don't have to think that Webber is better than Alonso overall to think that he could have been better on the day.

Webber occasionally beat Vettel but few would argue he was the better driver.


True.

Silverstone was the one all along I was thinking was the debatable one. I'm happy to concede Ferrari may have been the best car to be sitting in that weekend.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 7:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 2987
He got pole because it was wet, same as Germany. In the race he held on thanks in part to RB's performance in traffic dropped quite a bit so I don't think it was the quickest at those two. If he hadn't poled in the wet I can't see him making a dent in the Bulls. You could argue it was the quickest in the wet though of course.

It looked like the outright quickest in Italy though. Might well have gone very well at Spa too but we'll never know.

It really was an up and down season in terms of car performance. Before Spain when they suffered with the coanda the Mercedes,Sauber and Williams could and did outqualify and beat the Ferrari regularly, never mind the other 3(Maccs,RB and L-R).

Between Spain fix for the coanda and RB's response update wise in Silverstone though it could easily be the 2nd quickest in the dry and arguably best in the wet. Dropped the Williams,Saubers and especially the Mercs though finally.

Post Silverstone and outside Monza it was clearly slower than the RB's and Macca's in all conditions and dropped behind the Lotus in the very hottest temps. Similar strengths and weaknesses to the Lotus in general post Spain and I struggle to separate them.

It was never a static performance for them so simply saying it was always 4th is obviously not true but it was so rarely quickest and also had a quarter of a season when it was much lower than 4th that coming to an about 3/4th overall is more than fair. Any higher and you're ignoring large parts of the season and putting too much weight into reliability for me.

You could run that season again and the reliability/luck in general can shift but you can run it a thousand times and the Ferrari will never get half a second quicker.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1632
Webber had the quickest sectors in the wet at Silverstone and Vettel the same at Hockenheim. This points to red bull being quicker than Ferrari in the wet at those races.

Agree that Monza was the one race where you might argue Ferrari was the quickest. It was very close with McLaren though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2017 10:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 881
mikeyg123 wrote:
Rockie wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:

One race where you could argue it was the fastest. Just one.

Sometimes it was way off even the 4th fastest as well. I agree it's never easy to rank cars but if you 1-11 the cars in 2012 I think it's hard to make a convincing case the Ferrari was anything better than 4th on average.


Malaysia, Spain, Silverstone and Germany take your pick.


Honestly?

Malaysia -

Alonso qualified 9th and Massa 12th. 1 second down on both Red Bull's and both Mclaren's.

The rain and others mistakes shakes the order up and Alonso ends up leading. On the drying track Perez is catching quickly and only didn't catch completely because of an error with a few laps to go. As it was finished 2.2 seconds behind Alonso.


Verdict - Nowhere near the fastest car


Spain -

Alonso qualified 3rd, Massa 17th.

Grid penalty leaves Hamilton's much faster Mclaren at the back. Alonso also out qualified by Williams of Maldanado.... In the race Alonso never loos like passing Maldanado and Kimi finishes right behind him. Massa finishes 15th

Verdict - One could argue Ferrari were second quickest if you are happy to ignore Massa in the lower midfield and assume Kimi and Maldanado were Alonso's equal on the day. Unlikely in my opinion.


Silverstone -

Pole for Alonso and 5th for Massa.

Alonso is overtaken on track by Webber for the victory.

Verdict - Ferrari second best unless someone wants to try and argue Webber is better than Alonso.

Germany -

Lights to flag victory for Alonso. Vettel and Button close behind.

Verdict - You could argue Ferrari were quickest here if you are happy to ignore Massa. Personally I don't rate Massa but i've seen him compete for a WDC in the quickest car so forgive me If I don't quite buy him not being able to score points in one.



I guess I was wrong too say only one was arguable. If you really, really don't rate Alonso you could at a push argue the Ferrari was quickest in Britain and Germany. You'd have to be a lunatic to try and make out it was the best car in Malaysia or Spain.


So with the highlighted part we can look at the Ferrari and say its the third quickest car this season as Kimi is behind one of the Redbulls. Afterall Alonso beat Webber in the standings and finished 2nd so how it was the 4th quickest car is funny.

What has Massas finishing position got to do with the car being fast or not? If Alonso is winning the race and Massa not finishing in the top 10.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10241
davidheath461 wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Give it 2,5 more years and post the stats again.
I am confident he will have a more successful stint there than Alonso.


Unfortunately we can't really use your crystal ball as evidence at this point in time.

What we do know is that Alonso has better stats than Vettel at Ferrari despite driving inferior cars.


How do you come to this conclusion? During Vettel's first two years at Ferrari the dominance asserted by Mercedes was such that it demoted every other car, Ferrari included, to highly inferior. Haven't worked it out but would not be surprised if Vettel's Ferraris in 2015 and 2016 were further off the front than Alonso's.
Either way he shouldn't have won even one race, let alone three.

This year he has won as many races as Hamilton and is leading the WDC despite having been in what has overall been the second best car. That's two places up on its natural position, and he can't really go any higher now can he?

_________________
Supporting all drivers with surnames starting with "V".

Proud member of the "It's Toro Rosso, not Torro Rosso" action committee.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10241
mikeyg123 wrote:
[
Verdict - Ferrari second best unless someone wants to try and argue Webber is better than Alonso..


There's something wrong with this line and it's the same as in another post where someone mentions "you see the Sauber outqualify the Ferrari and it makes you realise how bad the car was" (or something to that extent).

It's that performance fluctuates. Car to car, driver to driver, and for both of these race to race or even day to day.
See, nobody would state Webber was a better driver than Vettel. So I guess it's impossible Webber ever beat Vettel. Right? Oh, but it did happen now and then! How come? Performance fluctuates.

Vandoorne had a better weekend overall in Silverstone than Alonso. So why couldn't Webber? Why automatically assume that if driver A beat driver B one weekend, despite being lower rated generally, that it was the car and not the driver?

Same thing with the car. Sure, Sauber were faster a limited number of times... If they overall were slower then the car does not rate higher. The Ferrari was third fastest in 2012. Button and Webber made a meal of it, McLaren ruined it for Hamilton, so Alonso ended up an all in all logical second. It was his accomplishment that he was close to the title after all, but had McLaren not screwed up time after time Hamilton would have ended up in front of Alonso as well, and then there's the second drivers... But given Massa also screwed up it was just a very bad year for second drivers (also look at Grosjean Vs Raikkonen).

_________________
Supporting all drivers with surnames starting with "V".

Proud member of the "It's Toro Rosso, not Torro Rosso" action committee.


Last edited by mds on Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4002
Location: Michigan, USA
mds wrote:
Either way he shouldn't have won even one race, let alone three.

In one of those races at least, the Ferrari was the quickest car; Seb's good, but I can't believe he took pole in Singapore by 7 tenths of a second on talent alone. So that's one he should have won. In Malaysia you could argue he shouldn't have won - and wouldn't have, without Merc making a strategy blunder - but the car was also very competitive, consistently right up there with Merc throughout practice and qualifying. So really, Hungary is the only one where he probably 'shouldn't' have won by his car alone.

Credit where credit is due, Seb maximized all his opportunities to win in 2015. But it's not accurate to say he shouldn't have won any of the three.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10241
Exediron wrote:
mds wrote:
Either way he shouldn't have won even one race, let alone three.

In one of those races at least, the Ferrari was the quickest car; Seb's good, but I can't believe he took pole in Singapore by 7 tenths of a second on talent alone. So that's one he should have won. In Malaysia you could argue he shouldn't have won - and wouldn't have, without Merc making a strategy blunder - but the car was also very competitive, consistently right up there with Merc throughout practice and qualifying. So really, Hungary is the only one where he probably 'shouldn't' have won by his car alone.

Credit where credit is due, Seb maximized all his opportunities to win in 2015. But it's not accurate to say he shouldn't have won any of the three.


Ah but see, when Alonso wins in a car that shouldn't it's him being brilliant (fact notwithstanding that he needs others to make mistakes or bottle their strategies), whereas when Vettel does the same he should have won because others made mistakes or bottled their strategies :)

In all reality the Mercedes was dominant and should have won it all. They just failed to get it together in a few races and Vettel picked up what was there to be picked up. I don't see how that was really so different to what Alonso did.

_________________
Supporting all drivers with surnames starting with "V".

Proud member of the "It's Toro Rosso, not Torro Rosso" action committee.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4002
Location: Michigan, USA
mds wrote:
Ah but see, when Alonso wins in a car that shouldn't it's him being brilliant (fact notwithstanding that he needs others to make mistakes or bottle their strategies), whereas when Vettel does the same he should have won because others made mistakes or bottled their strategies :)

In all reality the Mercedes was dominant and should have won it all. They just failed to get it together in a few races and Vettel picked up what was there to be picked up. I don't see how that was really so different to what Alonso did.

It's not. But I would never describe 2012 as 'Alonso shouldn't have won any races', despite him clearly not driving the best car.

There's a difference between winning a race when you happen to be the fastest on the day but not the season (Singapore 2015, for example) and winning a race you really shouldn't have won under ordinary circumstances (Spain 2016, as another example). The Mercs didn't hit each other, nobody had technical problems, etc. at Singapore. Vettel had at least the equal fastest car that day, regardless of what it was like the whole season. He should have won that race, and he did.

Frankly, I think the extent to which Alonso fans drum up his accomplishments is vastly exaggerated. Do you see us going around talking about what a mind-blowing drive he had in Hungary? No, we just say it was a track that finally let the Macca chassis show what it's capable of, and he delivered. Nobody was trying to claim his chart-topper in Q1 at Silverstone was down to anything but being on the right tyre at the right time, either. I'm a bit tired of this narrative that supposedly when Alonso does well it's all down to him. Step back a bit and see how many people are actually claiming that.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 2:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 2987
mds wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
[
Verdict - Ferrari second best unless someone wants to try and argue Webber is better than Alonso..


There's something wrong with this line and it's the same as in another post where someone mentions "you see the Sauber outqualify the Ferrari and it makes you realise how bad the car was" (or something to that extent).

It's that performance fluctuates. Car to car, driver to driver, and for both of these race to race or even day to day.
See, nobody would state Webber was a better driver than Vettel. So I guess it's impossible Webber ever beat Vettel. Right? Oh, but it did happen now and then! How come? Performance fluctuates.

Vandoorne had a better weekend overall in Silverstone than Alonso. So why couldn't Webber? Why automatically assume that if driver A beat driver B one weekend, despite being lower rated generally, that it was the car and not the driver?

Same thing with the car. Sure, Sauber were faster a limited number of times... If they overall were slower then the car does not rate higher. The Ferrari was third fastest in 2012. Button and Webber made a meal of it, McLaren ruined it for Hamilton, so Alonso ended up an all in all logical second. It was his accomplishment that he was close to the title after all, but had McLaren not screwed up time after time Hamilton would have ended up in front of Alonso as well, and then there's the second drivers... But given Massa also screwed up it was just a very bad year for second drivers (also look at Grosjean Vs Raikkonen).


I think it was my comment with the Sauber and it is tricky and performance fluctuates but if drivers like Kobayashi and Perez(2012 version) are constantly within a tenth or two either in front or behind then I think if we swapped Alonso's name for Lewis and Seb people wouldn't believe they were sitting in a faster car for a second and that was pretty much the story before Monaco which is a fair chunk of the season.

Gaps between leading Ferrari and Sauber drivers..

Aus

Alo 0.094 Kob

Mal

Alo 0.132 Per

Chn

Kob 0.129 Alo (Q2, Alonso was over a second behind in Q3, I don't know if that was mistake or car problem so I used Q2)

Bhn

Alo 0.257 Per (Q2, No time set in Q3 from Ferrari)

Spn

Alo 0.231 Per


Avg. 0.117 advantage to Ferrari. (Unless I've done something daft which is possible. 0.178 if we ignore China in that case)

Considering Lewis had nearly 3ths over Rosberg and Alonso had 2.5ths over Button I find it hard to believe the Sauber wasn't the quicker car before Spain. Unless Alonso was just outright poor over one lap for the entire opening quarter of the season which I find hard to believe. He held an avg gap to Massa of 0.549 over the same period for example.

Ferrari left Sauber well behind between Monaco and Hungary though but Sauber came back strong post summer break at a couple of venues but nothing like the opening quarter so I couldn't put them ahead of Ferrari overall but I still think for the first quarter of the season it was quicker than the Ferrari.

What did you think of the Lotus-Renault?. I think 3rd's fine for Ferrari by the way I just wanted to explain my Sauber comment with the above. I struggle with the L-R and I think that opening quarter where the Ferrari was so poor is hard to look by so I'm in the 3rd/4th camp for what it's worth.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 881
mds wrote:
Exediron wrote:
mds wrote:
Either way he shouldn't have won even one race, let alone three.

In one of those races at least, the Ferrari was the quickest car; Seb's good, but I can't believe he took pole in Singapore by 7 tenths of a second on talent alone. So that's one he should have won. In Malaysia you could argue he shouldn't have won - and wouldn't have, without Merc making a strategy blunder - but the car was also very competitive, consistently right up there with Merc throughout practice and qualifying. So really, Hungary is the only one where he probably 'shouldn't' have won by his car alone.

Credit where credit is due, Seb maximized all his opportunities to win in 2015. But it's not accurate to say he shouldn't have won any of the three.


Ah but see, when Alonso wins in a car that shouldn't it's him being brilliant (fact notwithstanding that he needs others to make mistakes or bottle their strategies), whereas when Vettel does the same he should have won because others made mistakes or bottled their strategies :)

In all reality the Mercedes was dominant and should have won it all. They just failed to get it together in a few races and Vettel picked up what was there to be picked up. I don't see how that was really so different to what Alonso did.


Couldn't have put it better, when others win against the odds, the car was the fastest, when Alonso does it it's his talent.

It's just like the performance at Hungary, no one is giving credit to Mclaren and Honda, yes Honda as the engine held up to the end.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4002
Location: Michigan, USA
Rockie wrote:
It's just like the performance at Hungary, no one is giving credit to Mclaren and Honda, yes Honda as the engine held up to the end.

No, that's flat out bullshit. Honda isn't getting much credit, but everyone is giving McLaren credit. It's proof that the Macca chassis is good - as I'm sure you'll have heard, if you were actually paying attention. Vandoorne being right behind Alonso in pretty much every session but the race makes it pretty clear, doesn't it?

This is a perfect example of what I was complaining about. You're making up a bogus claim about what Alonso fans are saying, and it doesn't match reality. If Alonso had beaten a Red Bull, I'd probably be singing his praises and calling it an epic drive, but he didn't. He finished where the car deserved to be. Vandoorne finished below where the car deserved to be, but he clearly showed its pace as well.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 2987
Rockie wrote:
mds wrote:
Exediron wrote:
mds wrote:
Either way he shouldn't have won even one race, let alone three.

In one of those races at least, the Ferrari was the quickest car; Seb's good, but I can't believe he took pole in Singapore by 7 tenths of a second on talent alone. So that's one he should have won. In Malaysia you could argue he shouldn't have won - and wouldn't have, without Merc making a strategy blunder - but the car was also very competitive, consistently right up there with Merc throughout practice and qualifying. So really, Hungary is the only one where he probably 'shouldn't' have won by his car alone.

Credit where credit is due, Seb maximized all his opportunities to win in 2015. But it's not accurate to say he shouldn't have won any of the three.


Ah but see, when Alonso wins in a car that shouldn't it's him being brilliant (fact notwithstanding that he needs others to make mistakes or bottle their strategies), whereas when Vettel does the same he should have won because others made mistakes or bottled their strategies :)

In all reality the Mercedes was dominant and should have won it all. They just failed to get it together in a few races and Vettel picked up what was there to be picked up. I don't see how that was really so different to what Alonso did.


Couldn't have put it better, when others win against the odds, the car was the fastest, when Alonso does it it's his talent.

It's just like the performance at Hungary, no one is giving credit to Mclaren and Honda, yes Honda as the engine held up to the end.


Rubbish, McLaren have been getting plenty of praise for it, their car has been getting rave reviews all year as well, especially in AMuS.

Alonso gets the same big name driver perks as Seb and Lewis do, they've been getting more praise than their cars too. Ones a diva who's tyre behaviour decides all and the others apparently so slow in Q3 it's practically a Honda etc...

No different and it wasn't in 2015 either with Seb getting more credit than Ferrari, The Mercs were dominant everywhere apparently, including the race they messed up their suspension geometry and fell behind the Red Bull never mind the Ferrari. Or Malaysia where Mercedes got cocky and brought the same level of D/F as the year before thinking they had the same advantage and got caught out in the very hot race with too much tyre wear when the drivers had to push.

Only race Seb won in 2015 that the Mercedes car could legitimately be called dominant was Hungary. But the Mercedes drivers were hilariously inept and took turns in hitting Ricciardo and throwing it all away. Alonso managed to beat both those dominant Mercedes there in that race too by the way.

In a McLaren-Honda.

It's just a perk of the job if you're a big name driver that they generally put it down to your brilliance rather than just circumstances falling your way on that particular day or the truth which is probably in between. Dan in 2014 had something similar with his 3 wins and always being the one to benefit when things went wrong with the quicker cars and he got way more credit than Red Bull did.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2017 2:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 881
Exediron wrote:
Rockie wrote:
It's just like the performance at Hungary, no one is giving credit to Mclaren and Honda, yes Honda as the engine held up to the end.

No, that's flat out bullshit. Honda isn't getting much credit, but everyone is giving McLaren credit. It's proof that the Macca chassis is good - as I'm sure you'll have heard, if you were actually paying attention. Vandoorne being right behind Alonso in pretty much every session but the race makes it pretty clear, doesn't it?

This is a perfect example of what I was complaining about. You're making up a bogus claim about what Alonso fans are saying, and it doesn't match reality. If Alonso had beaten a Red Bull, I'd probably be singing his praises and calling it an epic drive, but he didn't. He finished where the car deserved to be. Vandoorne finished below where the car deserved to be, but he clearly showed its pace as well.


Are you saying much has not been made of the fastest lap he set or him being voted driver of the weekend?

I'm not making any bogus claim in this thread alone the Ferrari 0f '12 is being described as a car not worthy of the position it finished never mind Ferrari finished 2nd in the constructors in 2012. But no Ferrari was the 4th quickest car it's laughable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2017 3:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1632
mds wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Give it 2,5 more years and post the stats again.
I am confident he will have a more successful stint there than Alonso.


Unfortunately we can't really use your crystal ball as evidence at this point in time.

What we do know is that Alonso has better stats than Vettel at Ferrari despite driving inferior cars.


How do you come to this conclusion? During Vettel's first two years at Ferrari the dominance asserted by Mercedes was such that it demoted every other car, Ferrari included, to highly inferior. Haven't worked it out but would not be surprised if Vettel's Ferraris in 2015 and 2016 were further off the front than Alonso's.
Either way he shouldn't have won even one race, let alone three.

This year he has won as many races as Hamilton and is leading the WDC despite having been in what has overall been the second best car. That's two places up on its natural position, and he can't really go any higher now can he?


Alonso in 2010 - car that fluctuated between 2nd/3rd best car. Red Bull were the dominant force.
vs
Vettel in 2015 - 2nd best car. Mercs were dominant.

Alonso in 2011 - 3rd best car.
Vettel in 2016 - car that started as 2nd best and ended 3rd best.

Alonso in 2012 (up to summer break) - 3rd/4th best car.
Vettel in 2017 - equal best car.

Vettel is first in the standings right now because he''s performed better than Hamilton so far.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2017 3:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1632
mds wrote:

Vandoorne had a better weekend overall in Silverstone than Alonso. So why couldn't Webber? Why automatically assume that if driver A beat driver B one weekend, despite being lower rated generally, that it was the car and not the driver?


Well Alonso is the one who hooked his sectors up. Webber actually had faster sectors than him. Certainly nothing to conclude that Ferrari was faster.

Red Bull were faster in race pace, but Alonso might have won through track position had he followed the same strategy as Webber.

Quote:
Same thing with the car. Sure, Sauber were faster a limited number of times... If they overall were slower then the car does not rate higher. The Ferrari was third fastest in 2012. Button and Webber made a meal of it, McLaren ruined it for Hamilton, so Alonso ended up an all in all logical second. It was his accomplishment that he was close to the title after all, but had McLaren not screwed up time after time Hamilton would have ended up in front of Alonso as well, and then there's the second drivers... But given Massa also screwed up it was just a very bad year for second drivers (also look at Grosjean Vs Raikkonen).


What if Ferrari hadn''t made a meal of their car in the first 4 races? Or Kimi/Grosjean hadn't taken Alonso out at the start of races?

Not sure what your point is. Should we also look back at Schumacher's 97 season and conclude that Schumacher wasn't that great, it was just Williams/JV screwing up?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2017 9:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4002
Location: Michigan, USA
Rockie wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Rockie wrote:
It's just like the performance at Hungary, no one is giving credit to Mclaren and Honda, yes Honda as the engine held up to the end.

No, that's flat out bullshit. Honda isn't getting much credit, but everyone is giving McLaren credit. It's proof that the Macca chassis is good - as I'm sure you'll have heard, if you were actually paying attention. Vandoorne being right behind Alonso in pretty much every session but the race makes it pretty clear, doesn't it?

This is a perfect example of what I was complaining about. You're making up a bogus claim about what Alonso fans are saying, and it doesn't match reality. If Alonso had beaten a Red Bull, I'd probably be singing his praises and calling it an epic drive, but he didn't. He finished where the car deserved to be. Vandoorne finished below where the car deserved to be, but he clearly showed its pace as well.

Are you saying much has not been made of the fastest lap he set or him being voted driver of the weekend?

I'm not making any bogus claim in this thread alone the Ferrari 0f '12 is being described as a car not worthy of the position it finished never mind Ferrari finished 2nd in the constructors in 2012. But no Ferrari was the 4th quickest car it's laughable.

What's being made of his fastest lap, as far as I can tell, is people complaining that he was glory-hounding when he set it. But absolutely nobody believes he set a fastest lap in a garbage car. He was able to set it because the car was better than usual that weekend, and because he was the only one in a fast car trying to do so.

As for him being driver of the weekend, I don't see how that's supposed to be an argument for people unreasonably hyping him up. Out of the other top six drivers, one of them had a car problem that masked his pace, one of them was restricted by team orders, one of them couldn't beat his teammate without being let past, one of them was slow and nearly got gobbled by a slower car, and one of them hit his teammate and cost the team any chance at a win. Alonso delivered the best he could from his car, including one of the few true overtakes of the race. He has a very good claim to driver of the day based purely on what he actually did, which was maximizing his car and not making any mistakes.

Can you find me an example of somebody putting Alonso's fastest lap down purely to his ability and not as proof of the underlying pace of the car?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Black_Flag_11, Google Adsense [Bot], owenmahamilton, Siao7 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group