planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Dec 16, 2017 11:05 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 12:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12387
Thought I'd bring this back as Alonso is currently 15th in the 9th best car thus far. He's going to do it again!

I am aware I keep banging the Alonso drum but no current driver can do what he can do as often as he does it.

For me, if he'd managed his career better he'd be in the discussion for GOAT. As it is I still have him as the only current driver in the top 10. Vettel and Hamilton are knocking on the door though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4561
Location: Michigan, USA
mikeyg123 wrote:
For me, if he'd managed his career better he'd be in the discussion for GOAT. As it is I still have him as the only current driver in the top 10. Vettel and Hamilton are knocking on the door though.

I think I'd have Hamilton in the top ten as well, just by feeling, but without actually going through and looking at who that perspective top ten would be I can't say for sure. There's six I know would be in there, but the other four are pretty up in the air.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #3)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:04 pm
Posts: 685
mikeyg123 wrote:
Thought I'd bring this back as Alonso is currently 15th in the 9th best car thus far. He's going to do it again!

I am aware I keep banging the Alonso drum but no current driver can do what he can do as often as he does it.

For me, if he'd managed his career better he'd be in the discussion for GOAT. As it is I still have him as the only current driver in the top 10. Vettel and Hamilton are knocking on the door though.



Every driver has strengths and weaknesses and this thread is very well suited for Alonso.

He is very constant and can collect points like nobody but to win WDCs you need the peaks. I have always viewed him as a faster version of Button(minus the rain skills).

The difference between him and Hamilton/Vettel are the peaks(qualifying, rain) those two can reach when on song.

There is no way I will have him above Hamilton and Vettel when their careers will be over.


(OT: Regarding the peaks. Look at Hamilton for example. In qualifying he may be 8-7, 9-10, 5-6 against BUT/KOV/ALO/ROS/BOT but if you look closer and compare the poles, he will have most of them. Counterintuive eh? The only one who made him sweat was ROS. But I suspect that he is was underrated and the Mercedes was so
much faster than the rest that they had all the time in the world to "optimize" the car for both the drivers. Dr. Zetsche was very keen on restoring the "balance" between both the drivers.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4561
Location: Michigan, USA
Pullrod wrote:
(OT: Regarding the peaks. Look at Hamilton for example. In qualifying he may be 8-7, 9-10, 5-6 against BUT/KOV/ALO/ROS/BOT but if you look closer and compare the poles, he will have most of them. Counterintuive eh? The only one who made him sweat was ROS. But I suspect that he is was underrated and the Mercedes was so
much faster than the rest that they had all the time in the world to "optimize" the car for both the drivers. Dr. Zetsche was very keen on restoring the "balance" between both the drivers.)

Not only is it counter-intuitive, it's meaningless. Getting the pole when you beat your teammate just means you happened to also be the fastest on that day. Beating your teammate by a half tenth to the pole is no more impressive than beating him by a half tenth to sixth place.

If what you say is true, I would look for it in Hamilton and/or Vettel having higher peak performances over their teammates in terms of percentage or grid position, e.g. Hamilton and Alonso both having a bunch of -0.100 or -0.200s compared to a teammate, but Hamilton also having a few -0.500s or -0.700s thrown in while Alonso does not. If I have spare time later, I might see if such a pattern exists. I do not believe it does, but I'm open to being proved wrong.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #3)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 7:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:04 pm
Posts: 685
Exediron wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
(OT: Regarding the peaks. Look at Hamilton for example. In qualifying he may be 8-7, 9-10, 5-6 against BUT/KOV/ALO/ROS/BOT but if you look closer and compare the poles, he will have most of them. Counterintuive eh? The only one who made him sweat was ROS. But I suspect that he is was underrated and the Mercedes was so
much faster than the rest that they had all the time in the world to "optimize" the car for both the drivers. Dr. Zetsche was very keen on restoring the "balance" between both the drivers.)

Not only is it counter-intuitive, it's meaningless. Getting the pole when you beat your teammate just means you happened to also be the fastest on that day. Beating your teammate by a half tenth to the pole is no more impressive than beating him by a half tenth to sixth place.

If what you say is true, I would look for it in Hamilton and/or Vettel having higher peak performances over their teammates in terms of percentage or grid position, e.g. Hamilton and Alonso both having a bunch of -0.100 or -0.200s compared to a teammate, but Hamilton also having a few -0.500s or -0.700s thrown in while Alonso does not. If I have spare time later, I might see if such a pattern exists. I do not believe it does, but I'm open to being proved wrong.


You didn't get what i meant.

Bottas is consistent but slower and not the fastest. Alonso is consistent but "slower" and not fastest.
Hamilton may fluctuates here and there, but he will reach the highest places more often than not when the occasion arises.

Teammate comparisons don't say much and it is the reason Alonso reputation is what it is.
It is more important it seems to trounce your teammate while in 13th(So Hulkenberg is the bestest, and Sainz not that bad) than to win the WDC by few points on your teammate.
It is like a pianist impressing people on a broken Piano at the station, and not that much(more) brilliant when playing on a Concert Grand Piano.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 8:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21003
Pullrod wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
(OT: Regarding the peaks. Look at Hamilton for example. In qualifying he may be 8-7, 9-10, 5-6 against BUT/KOV/ALO/ROS/BOT but if you look closer and compare the poles, he will have most of them. Counterintuive eh? The only one who made him sweat was ROS. But I suspect that he is was underrated and the Mercedes was so
much faster than the rest that they had all the time in the world to "optimize" the car for both the drivers. Dr. Zetsche was very keen on restoring the "balance" between both the drivers.)

Not only is it counter-intuitive, it's meaningless. Getting the pole when you beat your teammate just means you happened to also be the fastest on that day. Beating your teammate by a half tenth to the pole is no more impressive than beating him by a half tenth to sixth place.

If what you say is true, I would look for it in Hamilton and/or Vettel having higher peak performances over their teammates in terms of percentage or grid position, e.g. Hamilton and Alonso both having a bunch of -0.100 or -0.200s compared to a teammate, but Hamilton also having a few -0.500s or -0.700s thrown in while Alonso does not. If I have spare time later, I might see if such a pattern exists. I do not believe it does, but I'm open to being proved wrong.


You didn't get what i meant.

Bottas is consistent but slower and not the fastest. Alonso is consistent but "slower" and not fastest.
Hamilton may fluctuates here and there, but he will reach the highest places more often than not when the occasion arises.

Teammate comparisons don't say much and it is the reason Alonso reputation is what it is.
It is more important it seems to trounce your teammate while in 13th(So Hulkenberg is the bestest, and Sainz not that bad) than to win the WDC by few points on your teammate.
It is like a pianist impressing people on a broken Piano at the station, and not that much(more) brilliant when playing on a Concert Grand Piano.

but as has been pointed out, winning the WDC is as much a function of what car a driver is in than their skill level. Alonso didn't have a prayer of winning the WDC last year, but it had nothing to do with his driving.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 8:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4561
Location: Michigan, USA
Pullrod wrote:
You didn't get what i meant.

Bottas is consistent but slower and not the fastest. Alonso is consistent but "slower" and not fastest.
Hamilton may fluctuates here and there, but he will reach the highest places more often than not when the occasion arises.

Teammate comparisons don't say much and it is the reason Alonso reputation is what it is.
It is more important it seems to trounce your teammate while in 13th(So Hulkenberg is the bestest, and Sainz not that bad) than to win the WDC by few points on your teammate.
It is like a pianist impressing people on a broken Piano at the station, and not that much(more) brilliant when playing on a Concert Grand Piano.

Nope, I got what you meant. I think you're wrong, and you're too easily swayed by statistics that have far more to do with the car than the driver.

Teammate comparisons aren't perfect, but they're a lot more reliable than unfiltered stats - especially one as meaningless as poles. Pole position means you set the fastest time; great, but why does it automatically mean more just because of that? Kimi has outqualified Vettel three times this year: the Monaco pole was actually by the smallest margin, less than half a tenth faster. Yet you'd award it the highest significance, just because the Mercs happened to be slow on that day? Why? How is that a reasonable measure of a driver having higher peaks?

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #3)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 8:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:04 pm
Posts: 685
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
(OT: Regarding the peaks. Look at Hamilton for example. In qualifying he may be 8-7, 9-10, 5-6 against BUT/KOV/ALO/ROS/BOT but if you look closer and compare the poles, he will have most of them. Counterintuive eh? The only one who made him sweat was ROS. But I suspect that he is was underrated and the Mercedes was so
much faster than the rest that they had all the time in the world to "optimize" the car for both the drivers. Dr. Zetsche was very keen on restoring the "balance" between both the drivers.)

Not only is it counter-intuitive, it's meaningless. Getting the pole when you beat your teammate just means you happened to also be the fastest on that day. Beating your teammate by a half tenth to the pole is no more impressive than beating him by a half tenth to sixth place.

If what you say is true, I would look for it in Hamilton and/or Vettel having higher peak performances over their teammates in terms of percentage or grid position, e.g. Hamilton and Alonso both having a bunch of -0.100 or -0.200s compared to a teammate, but Hamilton also having a few -0.500s or -0.700s thrown in while Alonso does not. If I have spare time later, I might see if such a pattern exists. I do not believe it does, but I'm open to being proved wrong.


You didn't get what i meant.

Bottas is consistent but slower and not the fastest. Alonso is consistent but "slower" and not fastest.
Hamilton may fluctuates here and there, but he will reach the highest places more often than not when the occasion arises.

Teammate comparisons don't say much and it is the reason Alonso reputation is what it is.
It is more important it seems to trounce your teammate while in 13th(So Hulkenberg is the bestest, and Sainz not that bad) than to win the WDC by few points on your teammate.
It is like a pianist impressing people on a broken Piano at the station, and not that much(more) brilliant when playing on a Concert Grand Piano.

but as has been pointed out, winning the WDC is as much a function of what car a driver is in than their skill level. Alonso didn't have a prayer of winning the WDC last year, but it had nothing to do with his driving.


They look at your exploits when at the back, and at your mistakes when at the front.

Alonso could have won the WDC in 2007/2010/2012 had he been better on those areas I reckon he is not the best. It is not like he has never had a WDC capable car.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 8:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12387
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
(OT: Regarding the peaks. Look at Hamilton for example. In qualifying he may be 8-7, 9-10, 5-6 against BUT/KOV/ALO/ROS/BOT but if you look closer and compare the poles, he will have most of them. Counterintuive eh? The only one who made him sweat was ROS. But I suspect that he is was underrated and the Mercedes was so
much faster than the rest that they had all the time in the world to "optimize" the car for both the drivers. Dr. Zetsche was very keen on restoring the "balance" between both the drivers.)

Not only is it counter-intuitive, it's meaningless. Getting the pole when you beat your teammate just means you happened to also be the fastest on that day. Beating your teammate by a half tenth to the pole is no more impressive than beating him by a half tenth to sixth place.

If what you say is true, I would look for it in Hamilton and/or Vettel having higher peak performances over their teammates in terms of percentage or grid position, e.g. Hamilton and Alonso both having a bunch of -0.100 or -0.200s compared to a teammate, but Hamilton also having a few -0.500s or -0.700s thrown in while Alonso does not. If I have spare time later, I might see if such a pattern exists. I do not believe it does, but I'm open to being proved wrong.


You didn't get what i meant.

Bottas is consistent but slower and not the fastest. Alonso is consistent but "slower" and not fastest.
Hamilton may fluctuates here and there, but he will reach the highest places more often than not when the occasion arises.

Teammate comparisons don't say much and it is the reason Alonso reputation is what it is.
It is more important it seems to trounce your teammate while in 13th(So Hulkenberg is the bestest, and Sainz not that bad) than to win the WDC by few points on your teammate.
It is like a pianist impressing people on a broken Piano at the station, and not that much(more) brilliant when playing on a Concert Grand Piano.

but as has been pointed out, winning the WDC is as much a function of what car a driver is in than their skill level. Alonso didn't have a prayer of winning the WDC last year, but it had nothing to do with his driving.


They look at your exploits when at the back, and at your mistakes when at the front.


Alonso could have won the WDC in 2007/2010/2012 had he been better on those areas I reckon he is not the best. It is not like he has never had a WDC capable car.


I think that's true to an extent but drivers usually get a big ratings boost when they sit in a faster car and lose ground when they end up in a slower one.

Gorsjean is rated lower now than at the end of 2013, Massa was rated way higher at the end of 06 than the start of it etc.

Lots more examples of that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 8:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:04 pm
Posts: 685
Exediron wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
You didn't get what i meant.

Bottas is consistent but slower and not the fastest. Alonso is consistent but "slower" and not fastest.
Hamilton may fluctuates here and there, but he will reach the highest places more often than not when the occasion arises.

Teammate comparisons don't say much and it is the reason Alonso reputation is what it is.
It is more important it seems to trounce your teammate while in 13th(So Hulkenberg is the bestest, and Sainz not that bad) than to win the WDC by few points on your teammate.
It is like a pianist impressing people on a broken Piano at the station, and not that much(more) brilliant when playing on a Concert Grand Piano.

Nope, I got what you meant. I think you're wrong, and you're too easily swayed by statistics that have far more to do with the car than the driver.

Teammate comparisons aren't perfect, but they're a lot more reliable than unfiltered stats - especially one as meaningless as poles. Pole position means you set the fastest time; great, but why does it automatically mean more just because of that? Kimi has outqualified Vettel three times this year: the Monaco pole was actually by the smallest margin, less than half a tenth faster. Yet you'd award it the highest significance, just because the Mercs happened to be slow on that day? Why? How is that a reasonable measure of a driver having higher peaks?


Ing. Forghieri(not Pullrod) believed Alonso was detrimental to Ferrari progress as a car.
I predicted(my posts are there to verify) that Vettel would get more poles and wins than Alonso during the same period.
Cars are built by engineers(and drivers) but perfected with the help of drivers.

And no, I don't believe I am wrong if I think some driving styles or preferences are more suited to attain the highest peaks than others versus trouncing your teammate because he can not drive like you.

Driving style is the reason Hamilton has done really bad(and well) in some occasions in qualifying with Mercedes. as explained by himself, he has to drive a certain way to extract the last drop of performance from the car and in some instances when in that zone, the Mercedes car changes completely and you have no grip.
Could it have been better for him to drive conservatively and take 3rd? Maybe, but he was convinced Pole was there for the taking(as he usually does) and was proven wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 9:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12387
Pullrod wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
You didn't get what i meant.

Bottas is consistent but slower and not the fastest. Alonso is consistent but "slower" and not fastest.
Hamilton may fluctuates here and there, but he will reach the highest places more often than not when the occasion arises.

Teammate comparisons don't say much and it is the reason Alonso reputation is what it is.
It is more important it seems to trounce your teammate while in 13th(So Hulkenberg is the bestest, and Sainz not that bad) than to win the WDC by few points on your teammate.
It is like a pianist impressing people on a broken Piano at the station, and not that much(more) brilliant when playing on a Concert Grand Piano.

Nope, I got what you meant. I think you're wrong, and you're too easily swayed by statistics that have far more to do with the car than the driver.

Teammate comparisons aren't perfect, but they're a lot more reliable than unfiltered stats - especially one as meaningless as poles. Pole position means you set the fastest time; great, but why does it automatically mean more just because of that? Kimi has outqualified Vettel three times this year: the Monaco pole was actually by the smallest margin, less than half a tenth faster. Yet you'd award it the highest significance, just because the Mercs happened to be slow on that day? Why? How is that a reasonable measure of a driver having higher peaks?


Ing. Forghieri(not Pullrod) believed Alonso was detrimental to Ferrari progress as a car.
I predicted(my posts are there to verify) that Vettel would get more poles and wins than Alonso during the same period.
Cars are built by engineers(and drivers) but perfected with the help of drivers.

And no, I don't believe I am wrong if I think some driving styles or preferences are more suited to attain the highest peaks than others versus trouncing your teammate because he can not drive like you.

Driving style is the reason Hamilton has done really bad(and well) in some occasions in qualifying with Mercedes. as explained by himself, he has to drive a certain way to extract the last drop of performance from the car and in some instances when in that zone, the Mercedes car changes completely and you have no grip.
Could it have been better for him to drive conservatively and take 3th? Maybe, but he was convinced Pole was there for the taking(as he usually does) and was proven wrong.


Well you're wrong at this stage.

Vettel:

Races for Ferrari - 51
Wins - 7
Poles - 3

Alonso:

First 51 races for Ferrari
Wins - 8
Poles - 4


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 10:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:20 pm
Posts: 39
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:04 pm
Posts: 685
mikeyg123 wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
You didn't get what i meant.

Bottas is consistent but slower and not the fastest. Alonso is consistent but "slower" and not fastest.
Hamilton may fluctuates here and there, but he will reach the highest places more often than not when the occasion arises.

Teammate comparisons don't say much and it is the reason Alonso reputation is what it is.
It is more important it seems to trounce your teammate while in 13th(So Hulkenberg is the bestest, and Sainz not that bad) than to win the WDC by few points on your teammate.
It is like a pianist impressing people on a broken Piano at the station, and not that much(more) brilliant when playing on a Concert Grand Piano.

Nope, I got what you meant. I think you're wrong, and you're too easily swayed by statistics that have far more to do with the car than the driver.

Teammate comparisons aren't perfect, but they're a lot more reliable than unfiltered stats - especially one as meaningless as poles. Pole position means you set the fastest time; great, but why does it automatically mean more just because of that? Kimi has outqualified Vettel three times this year: the Monaco pole was actually by the smallest margin, less than half a tenth faster. Yet you'd award it the highest significance, just because the Mercs happened to be slow on that day? Why? How is that a reasonable measure of a driver having higher peaks?


Ing. Forghieri(not Pullrod) believed Alonso was detrimental to Ferrari progress as a car.
I predicted(my posts are there to verify) that Vettel would get more poles and wins than Alonso during the same period.
Cars are built by engineers(and drivers) but perfected with the help of drivers.

And no, I don't believe I am wrong if I think some driving styles or preferences are more suited to attain the highest peaks than others versus trouncing your teammate because he can not drive like you.

Driving style is the reason Hamilton has done really bad(and well) in some occasions in qualifying with Mercedes. as explained by himself, he has to drive a certain way to extract the last drop of performance from the car and in some instances when in that zone, the Mercedes car changes completely and you have no grip.
Could it have been better for him to drive conservatively and take 3th? Maybe, but he was convinced Pole was there for the taking(as he usually does) and was proven wrong.


Well you're wrong at this stage.

Vettel:

Races for Ferrari - 51
Wins - 7
Poles - 3

Alonso:

First 51 races for Ferrari
Wins - 8
Poles - 4


Give it 2,5 more years and post the stats again.
I am confident he will have a more successful stint there than Alonso.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 11:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12387
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3620
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.


Where would you put it?. Alonso can call it anything he wants and it won't sway anyone. Getting outqualified by over a second by Sauber drivers is what convinces people about the state of peoples cars. The press dubbing it Clifford the big Red Dog convinces people,Taking until the update in Spain to outqualify the Mercedes drivers is what convinces people. Routinely getting out qualified by Webber,Button,Kimi and RoGro convinces people. etc...It might have been fashionable at the time to put all that down to a lack of pace over 1 lap for Alonso but unfortunately he crushed 3 out of those 4 in qualifying so it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

3rd/4th is perfectly reasonable looking at the season as a whole. It held no single strength advantage over any of it's rivals. The RB and Macca were outright quicker and the Lotus was just as reliable and good on it's tyres on a Sunday.

It was very reliable of course and better on a Sunday but you'd rather have outright pace and track position every day of the week otherwise you're relegated to sitting there in dirty air hoping those in front fail all the time. What you need is great starts to gain some quick places back,which he did, some good luck, which he got, some poor performances from those in the quicker cars, which he got, and the talent to always get yourself in the position to be the one to capitalise on any drama in front, which he 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: Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3620
Pullrod wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
You didn't get what i meant.

Bottas is consistent but slower and not the fastest. Alonso is consistent but "slower" and not fastest.
Hamilton may fluctuates here and there, but he will reach the highest places more often than not when the occasion arises.

Teammate comparisons don't say much and it is the reason Alonso reputation is what it is.
It is more important it seems to trounce your teammate while in 13th(So Hulkenberg is the bestest, and Sainz not that bad) than to win the WDC by few points on your teammate.
It is like a pianist impressing people on a broken Piano at the station, and not that much(more) brilliant when playing on a Concert Grand Piano.

Nope, I got what you meant. I think you're wrong, and you're too easily swayed by statistics that have far more to do with the car than the driver.

Teammate comparisons aren't perfect, but they're a lot more reliable than unfiltered stats - especially one as meaningless as poles. Pole position means you set the fastest time; great, but why does it automatically mean more just because of that? Kimi has outqualified Vettel three times this year: the Monaco pole was actually by the smallest margin, less than half a tenth faster. Yet you'd award it the highest significance, just because the Mercs happened to be slow on that day? Why? How is that a reasonable measure of a driver having higher peaks?


Ing. Forghieri(not Pullrod) believed Alonso was detrimental to Ferrari progress as a car.
I predicted(my posts are there to verify) that Vettel would get more poles and wins than Alonso during the same period.
Cars are built by engineers(and drivers) but perfected with the help of drivers.

And no, I don't believe I am wrong if I think some driving styles or preferences are more suited to attain the highest peaks than others versus trouncing your teammate because he can not drive like you.

Driving style is the reason Hamilton has done really bad(and well) in some occasions in qualifying with Mercedes. as explained by himself, he has to drive a certain way to extract the last drop of performance from the car and in some instances when in that zone, the Mercedes car changes completely and you have no grip.
Could it have been better for him to drive conservatively and take 3rd? Maybe, but he was convinced Pole was there for the taking(as he usually does) and was proven wrong.


Drivers don't build anything. They can give feedback on what's been brought to track sure but we know Alonso is good at that from comments by engineers he's worked with.

What drivers need is their engineers to be the ones to come up with something the others don't have. He had that at Renault with the mass damper and surprise surprise he won.

Lewis didn't come up with the lean burn tech and HPC suspension Mercedes brought to the Turbo era. Seb didn't convince Mahle to bring their TJI to Ferrari in 2015.

That's whats separating those cars from the others at this point and it's got absolutely nothing to do with the drivers who are pretty much the most irrelevant piece of the puzzle in getting the best car to the track in this cfd,simulation and ban on testing age.

Technology dominates and those that bring the best technology or are the first to perfect it are the ones that win. 2007/8 is the last time I can think of that there wasn't a big technological input or difference unless I'm forgetting something on them. But one was just a copy of the other anyway.

_________________
"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: Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1743
Pullrod wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
You didn't get what i meant.

Bottas is consistent but slower and not the fastest. Alonso is consistent but "slower" and not fastest.
Hamilton may fluctuates here and there, but he will reach the highest places more often than not when the occasion arises.

Teammate comparisons don't say much and it is the reason Alonso reputation is what it is.
It is more important it seems to trounce your teammate while in 13th(So Hulkenberg is the bestest, and Sainz not that bad) than to win the WDC by few points on your teammate.
It is like a pianist impressing people on a broken Piano at the station, and not that much(more) brilliant when playing on a Concert Grand Piano.

Nope, I got what you meant. I think you're wrong, and you're too easily swayed by statistics that have far more to do with the car than the driver.

Teammate comparisons aren't perfect, but they're a lot more reliable than unfiltered stats - especially one as meaningless as poles. Pole position means you set the fastest time; great, but why does it automatically mean more just because of that? Kimi has outqualified Vettel three times this year: the Monaco pole was actually by the smallest margin, less than half a tenth faster. Yet you'd award it the highest significance, just because the Mercs happened to be slow on that day? Why? How is that a reasonable measure of a driver having higher peaks?


Ing. Forghieri(not Pullrod) believed Alonso was detrimental to Ferrari progress as a car.
I predicted(my posts are there to verify) that Vettel would get more poles and wins than Alonso during the same period.
Cars are built by engineers(and drivers) but perfected with the help of drivers.

And no, I don't believe I am wrong if I think some driving styles or preferences are more suited to attain the highest peaks than others versus trouncing your teammate because he can not drive like you.

Driving style is the reason Hamilton has done really bad(and well) in some occasions in qualifying with Mercedes. as explained by himself, he has to drive a certain way to extract the last drop of performance from the car and in some instances when in that zone, the Mercedes car changes completely and you have no grip.
Could it have been better for him to drive conservatively and take 3th? Maybe, but he was convinced Pole was there for the taking(as he usually does) and was proven wrong.


Well you're wrong at this stage.

Vettel:

Races for Ferrari - 51
Wins - 7
Poles - 3

Alonso:

First 51 races for Ferrari
Wins - 8
Poles - 4


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1743
Lotus49 wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
You didn't get what i meant.

Bottas is consistent but slower and not the fastest. Alonso is consistent but "slower" and not fastest.
Hamilton may fluctuates here and there, but he will reach the highest places more often than not when the occasion arises.

Teammate comparisons don't say much and it is the reason Alonso reputation is what it is.
It is more important it seems to trounce your teammate while in 13th(So Hulkenberg is the bestest, and Sainz not that bad) than to win the WDC by few points on your teammate.
It is like a pianist impressing people on a broken Piano at the station, and not that much(more) brilliant when playing on a Concert Grand Piano.

Nope, I got what you meant. I think you're wrong, and you're too easily swayed by statistics that have far more to do with the car than the driver.

Teammate comparisons aren't perfect, but they're a lot more reliable than unfiltered stats - especially one as meaningless as poles. Pole position means you set the fastest time; great, but why does it automatically mean more just because of that? Kimi has outqualified Vettel three times this year: the Monaco pole was actually by the smallest margin, less than half a tenth faster. Yet you'd award it the highest significance, just because the Mercs happened to be slow on that day? Why? How is that a reasonable measure of a driver having higher peaks?


Ing. Forghieri(not Pullrod) believed Alonso was detrimental to Ferrari progress as a car.
I predicted(my posts are there to verify) that Vettel would get more poles and wins than Alonso during the same period.
Cars are built by engineers(and drivers) but perfected with the help of drivers.

And no, I don't believe I am wrong if I think some driving styles or preferences are more suited to attain the highest peaks than others versus trouncing your teammate because he can not drive like you.

Driving style is the reason Hamilton has done really bad(and well) in some occasions in qualifying with Mercedes. as explained by himself, he has to drive a certain way to extract the last drop of performance from the car and in some instances when in that zone, the Mercedes car changes completely and you have no grip.
Could it have been better for him to drive conservatively and take 3rd? Maybe, but he was convinced Pole was there for the taking(as he usually does) and was proven wrong.


Drivers don't build anything. They can give feedback on what's been brought to track sure but we know Alonso is good at that from comments by engineers he's worked with.

What drivers need is their engineers to be the ones to come up with something the others don't have. He had that at Renault with the mass damper and surprise surprise he won.

Lewis didn't come up with the lean burn tech and HPC suspension Mercedes brought to the Turbo era. Seb didn't convince Mahle to bring their TJI to Ferrari in 2015.

That's whats separating those cars from the others at this point and it's got absolutely nothing to do with the drivers who are pretty much the most irrelevant piece of the puzzle in getting the best car to the track in this cfd,simulation and ban on testing age.

Technology dominates and those that bring the best technology or are the first to perfect it are the ones that win. 2007/8 is the last time I can think of that there wasn't a big technological input or difference unless I'm forgetting something on them. But one was just a copy of the other anyway.


:thumbup: Great post

When posters try and put the blame for an inferior car on a driver it shows a basic lack of understanding of the sport.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:04 pm
Posts: 685
Lotus49 wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
You didn't get what i meant.

Bottas is consistent but slower and not the fastest. Alonso is consistent but "slower" and not fastest.
Hamilton may fluctuates here and there, but he will reach the highest places more often than not when the occasion arises.

Teammate comparisons don't say much and it is the reason Alonso reputation is what it is.
It is more important it seems to trounce your teammate while in 13th(So Hulkenberg is the bestest, and Sainz not that bad) than to win the WDC by few points on your teammate.
It is like a pianist impressing people on a broken Piano at the station, and not that much(more) brilliant when playing on a Concert Grand Piano.

Nope, I got what you meant. I think you're wrong, and you're too easily swayed by statistics that have far more to do with the car than the driver.

Teammate comparisons aren't perfect, but they're a lot more reliable than unfiltered stats - especially one as meaningless as poles. Pole position means you set the fastest time; great, but why does it automatically mean more just because of that? Kimi has outqualified Vettel three times this year: the Monaco pole was actually by the smallest margin, less than half a tenth faster. Yet you'd award it the highest significance, just because the Mercs happened to be slow on that day? Why? How is that a reasonable measure of a driver having higher peaks?


Ing. Forghieri(not Pullrod) believed Alonso was detrimental to Ferrari progress as a car.
I predicted(my posts are there to verify) that Vettel would get more poles and wins than Alonso during the same period.
Cars are built by engineers(and drivers) but perfected with the help of drivers.

And no, I don't believe I am wrong if I think some driving styles or preferences are more suited to attain the highest peaks than others versus trouncing your teammate because he can not drive like you.

Driving style is the reason Hamilton has done really bad(and well) in some occasions in qualifying with Mercedes. as explained by himself, he has to drive a certain way to extract the last drop of performance from the car and in some instances when in that zone, the Mercedes car changes completely and you have no grip.
Could it have been better for him to drive conservatively and take 3rd? Maybe, but he was convinced Pole was there for the taking(as he usually does) and was proven wrong.


Drivers don't build anything. They can give feedback on what's been brought to track sure but we know Alonso is good at that from comments by engineers he's worked with.

What drivers need is their engineers to be the ones to come up with something the others don't have. He had that at Renault with the mass damper and surprise surprise he won.

Lewis didn't come up with the lean burn tech and HPC suspension Mercedes brought to the Turbo era. Seb didn't convince Mahle to bring their TJI to Ferrari in 2015.

That's whats separating those cars from the others at this point and it's got absolutely nothing to do with the drivers who are pretty much the most irrelevant piece of the puzzle in getting the best car to the track in this cfd,simulation and ban on testing age.

Technology dominates and those that bring the best technology or are the first to perfect it are the ones that win. 2007/8 is the last time I can think of that there wasn't a big technological input or difference unless I'm forgetting something on them. But one was just a copy of the other anyway.


That is not true at all.
The architecture is not the realm of drivers, but how you set up a car, use the tyres or develop the car yes.
Granted if you have a faulty architecture there is not much you can do, but a working platform is meant to be developed, and it is done with not only computers but data collected during racing events.

Where do they take the steering and throttle/brake input from? Who/Which data do they use for their driver in the loop simulations?
Drivers are not robots and each of them have a different driving style.

“He is one of those drivers that, as an engineer, you want in your car,”


Those are words from Paddy Lowe on Hamilton.
Interesting article..

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archi ... ing-enigma

from the same article:

He(Hamilton) is more comfortable with corner entry oversteer probably than any other driver on the grid and uses that as an asset. In simple terms, because of the way the aerodynamics work, F1 cars tend naturally to oversteer in high-speed corners and understeer at low speed. The more comfortable a driver is with high-speed oversteer, the less understeer he needs to tolerate at low speeds – and the faster the car is around the lap


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:20 pm
Posts: 39
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1743
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.


Maybe another driver would have won the WDC with Schumacher's car in 1998? :lol:

Give the man the credit he is due for 2012 at least.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2017 4:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3620
Pullrod wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
You didn't get what i meant.

Bottas is consistent but slower and not the fastest. Alonso is consistent but "slower" and not fastest.
Hamilton may fluctuates here and there, but he will reach the highest places more often than not when the occasion arises.

Teammate comparisons don't say much and it is the reason Alonso reputation is what it is.
It is more important it seems to trounce your teammate while in 13th(So Hulkenberg is the bestest, and Sainz not that bad) than to win the WDC by few points on your teammate.
It is like a pianist impressing people on a broken Piano at the station, and not that much(more) brilliant when playing on a Concert Grand Piano.

Nope, I got what you meant. I think you're wrong, and you're too easily swayed by statistics that have far more to do with the car than the driver.

Teammate comparisons aren't perfect, but they're a lot more reliable than unfiltered stats - especially one as meaningless as poles. Pole position means you set the fastest time; great, but why does it automatically mean more just because of that? Kimi has outqualified Vettel three times this year: the Monaco pole was actually by the smallest margin, less than half a tenth faster. Yet you'd award it the highest significance, just because the Mercs happened to be slow on that day? Why? How is that a reasonable measure of a driver having higher peaks?


Ing. Forghieri(not Pullrod) believed Alonso was detrimental to Ferrari progress as a car.
I predicted(my posts are there to verify) that Vettel would get more poles and wins than Alonso during the same period.
Cars are built by engineers(and drivers) but perfected with the help of drivers.

And no, I don't believe I am wrong if I think some driving styles or preferences are more suited to attain the highest peaks than others versus trouncing your teammate because he can not drive like you.

Driving style is the reason Hamilton has done really bad(and well) in some occasions in qualifying with Mercedes. as explained by himself, he has to drive a certain way to extract the last drop of performance from the car and in some instances when in that zone, the Mercedes car changes completely and you have no grip.
Could it have been better for him to drive conservatively and take 3rd? Maybe, but he was convinced Pole was there for the taking(as he usually does) and was proven wrong.


Drivers don't build anything. They can give feedback on what's been brought to track sure but we know Alonso is good at that from comments by engineers he's worked with.

What drivers need is their engineers to be the ones to come up with something the others don't have. He had that at Renault with the mass damper and surprise surprise he won.

Lewis didn't come up with the lean burn tech and HPC suspension Mercedes brought to the Turbo era. Seb didn't convince Mahle to bring their TJI to Ferrari in 2015.

That's whats separating those cars from the others at this point and it's got absolutely nothing to do with the drivers who are pretty much the most irrelevant piece of the puzzle in getting the best car to the track in this cfd,simulation and ban on testing age.

Technology dominates and those that bring the best technology or are the first to perfect it are the ones that win. 2007/8 is the last time I can think of that there wasn't a big technological input or difference unless I'm forgetting something on them. But one was just a copy of the other anyway.


That is not true at all.
The architecture is not the realm of drivers, but how you set up a car, use the tyres or develop the car yes.
Granted if you have a faulty architecture there is not much you can do, but a working platform is meant to be developed, and it is done with not only computers but data collected during racing events.

Where do they take the steering and throttle/brake input from? Who/Which data do they use for their driver in the loop simulations?
Drivers are not robots and each of them have a different driving style.

“He is one of those drivers that, as an engineer, you want in your car,”


Those are words from Paddy Lowe on Hamilton.
Interesting article..

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archi ... ing-enigma

from the same article:

He(Hamilton) is more comfortable with corner entry oversteer probably than any other driver on the grid and uses that as an asset. In simple terms, because of the way the aerodynamics work, F1 cars tend naturally to oversteer in high-speed corners and understeer at low speed. The more comfortable a driver is with high-speed oversteer, the less understeer he needs to tolerate at low speeds – and the faster the car is around the lap


Name one thing a driver builds on a car. Teams arrive to track these days with fully simulated set ups from the simulator the driver then tweaks to their own preference during the weekend. Drivers can have different set ups within the same team. Development work is fully simulated towards whatever concept the car has. The drivers feedback when it hits the track is welcome of course but it doesn't outweigh the plethora of monitoring tools that dictate whether the part does in the real world what it does in simulation. This isn't the 90's.

Take Seb's work with Pirelli. He was rightly praised for how much diligence he showed through the tyre tests and over the winter, and Ferrari's tyre performance has been great. The problem?. All data is available to all teams. McLaren, who didn't even bother doing the tests has, according to AMuS, the best tyre performance on the grid in terms of turning them on and getting them in the window in all conditions. Fully from simulating that collected data from the other teams and nothing to do with their drivers.

Drivers being more towards the neutral side of preference or having the talent to deal with whatever the team brings is great, that's what makes them the best (generally speaking). And Lewis is one of the best so Paddy's comments are not surprising. You'll find comments along those lines for Seb and Alonso too.

But if you think he's the reason Mercedes dominated the Turbo era though you're talking nonsense. And if you think having him would make Renault or Honda come up with and introduce TJI earlier you're also talking nonsense. Same if you thought Alonso came up with the mass damper.

And on team dynamics or harmony contributing to better development and performance of the car, that is also nonsense, as perfectly demonstrated by Ferrari who Forgheri was talking about during Alonso's time. Last year there was as much tension at Maranello as at any point of the Alonso time bar the last few months. Internal struggles and upheaval,stories in the press of engineers apparently pining for Alonso because of Seb's performance when the car slipped to 3rd, The boss rapping the drivers knuckles and telling him to focus on the car, etc...The result on the following years car?.

The best Ferrari on track for a decade. The tension at Mercedes was also legendary over the past few years. Not a step missed in car performance.

Kumbaya's don't add lap time.

_________________
"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: Sun Aug 06, 2017 4:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21003
Lotus49 wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Nope, I got what you meant. I think you're wrong, and you're too easily swayed by statistics that have far more to do with the car than the driver.

Teammate comparisons aren't perfect, but they're a lot more reliable than unfiltered stats - especially one as meaningless as poles. Pole position means you set the fastest time; great, but why does it automatically mean more just because of that? Kimi has outqualified Vettel three times this year: the Monaco pole was actually by the smallest margin, less than half a tenth faster. Yet you'd award it the highest significance, just because the Mercs happened to be slow on that day? Why? How is that a reasonable measure of a driver having higher peaks?


Ing. Forghieri(not Pullrod) believed Alonso was detrimental to Ferrari progress as a car.
I predicted(my posts are there to verify) that Vettel would get more poles and wins than Alonso during the same period.
Cars are built by engineers(and drivers) but perfected with the help of drivers.

And no, I don't believe I am wrong if I think some driving styles or preferences are more suited to attain the highest peaks than others versus trouncing your teammate because he can not drive like you.

Driving style is the reason Hamilton has done really bad(and well) in some occasions in qualifying with Mercedes. as explained by himself, he has to drive a certain way to extract the last drop of performance from the car and in some instances when in that zone, the Mercedes car changes completely and you have no grip.
Could it have been better for him to drive conservatively and take 3rd? Maybe, but he was convinced Pole was there for the taking(as he usually does) and was proven wrong.


Drivers don't build anything. They can give feedback on what's been brought to track sure but we know Alonso is good at that from comments by engineers he's worked with.

What drivers need is their engineers to be the ones to come up with something the others don't have. He had that at Renault with the mass damper and surprise surprise he won.

Lewis didn't come up with the lean burn tech and HPC suspension Mercedes brought to the Turbo era. Seb didn't convince Mahle to bring their TJI to Ferrari in 2015.

That's whats separating those cars from the others at this point and it's got absolutely nothing to do with the drivers who are pretty much the most irrelevant piece of the puzzle in getting the best car to the track in this cfd,simulation and ban on testing age.

Technology dominates and those that bring the best technology or are the first to perfect it are the ones that win. 2007/8 is the last time I can think of that there wasn't a big technological input or difference unless I'm forgetting something on them. But one was just a copy of the other anyway.


That is not true at all.
The architecture is not the realm of drivers, but how you set up a car, use the tyres or develop the car yes.
Granted if you have a faulty architecture there is not much you can do, but a working platform is meant to be developed, and it is done with not only computers but data collected during racing events.

Where do they take the steering and throttle/brake input from? Who/Which data do they use for their driver in the loop simulations?
Drivers are not robots and each of them have a different driving style.

“He is one of those drivers that, as an engineer, you want in your car,”


Those are words from Paddy Lowe on Hamilton.
Interesting article..

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archi ... ing-enigma

from the same article:

He(Hamilton) is more comfortable with corner entry oversteer probably than any other driver on the grid and uses that as an asset. In simple terms, because of the way the aerodynamics work, F1 cars tend naturally to oversteer in high-speed corners and understeer at low speed. The more comfortable a driver is with high-speed oversteer, the less understeer he needs to tolerate at low speeds – and the faster the car is around the lap


Name one thing a driver builds on a car. Teams arrive to track these days with fully simulated set ups from the simulator the driver then tweaks to their own preference during the weekend. Drivers can have different set ups within the same team. Development work is fully simulated towards whatever concept the car has. The drivers feedback when it hits the track is welcome of course but it doesn't outweigh the plethora of monitoring tools that dictate whether the part does in the real world what it does in simulation. This isn't the 90's.

Take Seb's work with Pirelli. He was rightly praised for how much diligence he showed through the tyre tests and over the winter, and Ferrari's tyre performance has been great. The problem?. All data is available to all teams. McLaren, who didn't even bother doing the tests has, according to AMuS, the best tyre performance on the grid in terms of turning them on and getting them in the window in all conditions. Fully from simulating that collected data from the other teams and nothing to do with their drivers.

Drivers being more towards the neutral side of preference or having the talent to deal with whatever the team brings is great, that's what makes them the best (generally speaking). And Lewis is one of the best so Paddy's comments are not surprising. You'll find comments along those lines for Seb and Alonso too.

But if you think he's the reason Mercedes dominated the Turbo era though you're talking nonsense. And if you think having him would make Renault or Honda come up with and introduce TJI earlier you're also talking nonsense. Same if you thought Alonso came up with the mass damper.

And on team dynamics or harmony contributing to better development and performance of the car, that is also nonsense, as perfectly demonstrated by Ferrari who Forgheri was talking about during Alonso's time. Last year there was as much tension at Maranello as at any point of the Alonso time bar the last few months. Internal struggles and upheaval,stories in the press of engineers apparently pining for Alonso because of Seb's performance when the car slipped to 3rd, The boss rapping the drivers knuckles and telling him to focus on the car, etc...The result on the following years car?.

The best Ferrari on track for a decade. The tension at Mercedes was also legendary over the past few years. Not a step missed in car performance.

Kumbaya's don't add lap time.

I don't have a sig. But this is tempting me mightily :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 7:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:04 pm
Posts: 685
Lotus49 wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Pullrod wrote:

Ing. Forghieri(not Pullrod) believed Alonso was detrimental to Ferrari progress as a car.
I predicted(my posts are there to verify) that Vettel would get more poles and wins than Alonso during the same period.
Cars are built by engineers(and drivers) but perfected with the help of drivers.

And no, I don't believe I am wrong if I think some driving styles or preferences are more suited to attain the highest peaks than others versus trouncing your teammate because he can not drive like you.

Driving style is the reason Hamilton has done really bad(and well) in some occasions in qualifying with Mercedes. as explained by himself, he has to drive a certain way to extract the last drop of performance from the car and in some instances when in that zone, the Mercedes car changes completely and you have no grip.
Could it have been better for him to drive conservatively and take 3rd? Maybe, but he was convinced Pole was there for the taking(as he usually does) and was proven wrong.


Drivers don't build anything. They can give feedback on what's been brought to track sure but we know Alonso is good at that from comments by engineers he's worked with.

What drivers need is their engineers to be the ones to come up with something the others don't have. He had that at Renault with the mass damper and surprise surprise he won.

Lewis didn't come up with the lean burn tech and HPC suspension Mercedes brought to the Turbo era. Seb didn't convince Mahle to bring their TJI to Ferrari in 2015.

That's whats separating those cars from the others at this point and it's got absolutely nothing to do with the drivers who are pretty much the most irrelevant piece of the puzzle in getting the best car to the track in this cfd,simulation and ban on testing age.

Technology dominates and those that bring the best technology or are the first to perfect it are the ones that win. 2007/8 is the last time I can think of that there wasn't a big technological input or difference unless I'm forgetting something on them. But one was just a copy of the other anyway.


That is not true at all.
The architecture is not the realm of drivers, but how you set up a car, use the tyres or develop the car yes.
Granted if you have a faulty architecture there is not much you can do, but a working platform is meant to be developed, and it is done with not only computers but data collected during racing events.

Where do they take the steering and throttle/brake input from? Who/Which data do they use for their driver in the loop simulations?
Drivers are not robots and each of them have a different driving style.

“He is one of those drivers that, as an engineer, you want in your car,”


Those are words from Paddy Lowe on Hamilton.
Interesting article..

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archi ... ing-enigma

from the same article:

He(Hamilton) is more comfortable with corner entry oversteer probably than any other driver on the grid and uses that as an asset. In simple terms, because of the way the aerodynamics work, F1 cars tend naturally to oversteer in high-speed corners and understeer at low speed. The more comfortable a driver is with high-speed oversteer, the less understeer he needs to tolerate at low speeds – and the faster the car is around the lap


Name one thing a driver builds on a car. Teams arrive to track these days with fully simulated set ups from the simulator the driver then tweaks to their own preference during the weekend. Drivers can have different set ups within the same team. Development work is fully simulated towards whatever concept the car has. The drivers feedback when it hits the track is welcome of course but it doesn't outweigh the plethora of monitoring tools that dictate whether the part does in the real world what it does in simulation. This isn't the 90's.

Take Seb's work with Pirelli. He was rightly praised for how much diligence he showed through the tyre tests and over the winter, and Ferrari's tyre performance has been great. The problem?. All data is available to all teams. McLaren, who didn't even bother doing the tests has, according to AMuS, the best tyre performance on the grid in terms of turning them on and getting them in the window in all conditions. Fully from simulating that collected data from the other teams and nothing to do with their drivers.

Drivers being more towards the neutral side of preference or having the talent to deal with whatever the team brings is great, that's what makes them the best (generally speaking). And Lewis is one of the best so Paddy's comments are not surprising. You'll find comments along those lines for Seb and Alonso too.

But if you think he's the reason Mercedes dominated the Turbo era though you're talking nonsense. And if you think having him would make Renault or Honda come up with and introduce TJI earlier you're also talking nonsense. Same if you thought Alonso came up with the mass damper.

And on team dynamics or harmony contributing to better development and performance of the car, that is also nonsense, as perfectly demonstrated by Ferrari who Forgheri was talking about during Alonso's time. Last year there was as much tension at Maranello as at any point of the Alonso time bar the last few months. Internal struggles and upheaval,stories in the press of engineers apparently pining for Alonso because of Seb's performance when the car slipped to 3rd, The boss rapping the drivers knuckles and telling him to focus on the car, etc...The result on the following years car?.

The best Ferrari on track for a decade. The tension at Mercedes was also legendary over the past few years. Not a step missed in car performance.

Kumbaya's don't add lap time.


You are using a lot of words trying to be an alchemist to "prove"(wrongly) that drivers don't matter.
And I would trust what Ing. Forghieri(Who I have met not long ago at an event) has to say on the matter and not some fellow forumers.

The only things that have changed since the 1980 are:
- aerodynamics
- computational science(think multiphysics)
- electronics
- data acquisition and the use of advanced statistical methods to process data and use it in the models
- computer science (simulator)

But vehicle Dynamics(dampers, tyres, chassis) is the same and is based on the physics known since Newton's days with the exception of empirical methods.


When we talk about Ferrari, you are missing so MUCH if you are not living in Italy or you don't speak Italian.
Ing. Forghieri said in 2015 that when asked for an opinion by someone very high in the Ferrari management(my guess is Marchionne), his advice was to fire Alonso and Tombazis, and that Raikkonen was struggling because he was driving a car "inspired" and "designed" by Alonso. [My lousy translation and interpretation]

“Oggi lo ammetto e non mi vergogno: a suo tempo, quando mi è stato chiesto un parere, a qualcuno che conta in alto a Maranello ho dato il consiglio di mandare via Fernando Alonso,” ha ammesso Forghieri dalle colonne di Formula Passion. “Per due motivi: per i soldi che avrebbe preteso e perchè il pilota in accordo con “il greco” (Tombazis, ndr) faceva pasticci sulla macchina. Una sera ho sentito Raikkonen lamentarsi per il timore che gli ritirassero la patente incapace di guidare una Formula 1, ovvero la vettura ispirata e voluta dallo spagnolo. Oggi a Monza abbiamo potuto constatare che, tralasciando le stupidaggini in cui possono incorrere il pilota o la macchina, Raikkonen è sempre stato velocissimo.”

https://www.motorsportitalia.net/forghi ... ia-alonso/

It has also emerged that Vettel was in Ferrari plan since forever.

_____

This is another one:
"Alonso is better as a driver than a tester"
http://sport.repubblica.it/news/sport/f ... fresh_cens


and I repeat Ing. Forghieri is not some random guy, but he has direct contact to engineers and the people who matter in Ferrari and F1.


I am yet so see an engineer or ex engineer talking in this terms about Schumacher/Vettel/Hamilton.

McLaren had a problematic car in 2009 and it was among the best at the end of the season.
The moment Hamilton has left McLaren(2012), they have not achieved much and they had a Mercedes engine in 2013 and a Mercedes Power unit in 2014.

I am sure those are all coincidences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 7:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4561
Location: Michigan, USA
Pullrod wrote:
When we talk about Ferrari, you are missing so MUCH if you are not living in Italy or you don't speak Italian.
Ing. Forghieri said in 2015 that when asked for an opinion by someone very high in the Ferrari management(my guess is Marchionne), his advice was to fire Alonso and Tombazis, and that Raikkonen was struggling because he was driving a car "inspired" and "designed" by Alonso. [My lousy translation and interpretation]

“Oggi lo ammetto e non mi vergogno: a suo tempo, quando mi è stato chiesto un parere, a qualcuno che conta in alto a Maranello ho dato il consiglio di mandare via Fernando Alonso,” ha ammesso Forghieri dalle colonne di Formula Passion. “Per due motivi: per i soldi che avrebbe preteso e perchè il pilota in accordo con “il greco” (Tombazis, ndr) faceva pasticci sulla macchina. Una sera ho sentito Raikkonen lamentarsi per il timore che gli ritirassero la patente incapace di guidare una Formula 1, ovvero la vettura ispirata e voluta dallo spagnolo. Oggi a Monza abbiamo potuto constatare che, tralasciando le stupidaggini in cui possono incorrere il pilota o la macchina, Raikkonen è sempre stato velocissimo.”

Great idea! How did that work out? Did the newly rejuvinated Kimi, freed from Alonso's terrible car, produce the sort of performances Forghieri expected and start winning races?

No?

He was still slaughtered by his teammate in 2015?

Hmmmm... :uhoh:

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #3)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 7:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12387
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 7:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:04 pm
Posts: 685
Exediron wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
When we talk about Ferrari, you are missing so MUCH if you are not living in Italy or you don't speak Italian.
Ing. Forghieri said in 2015 that when asked for an opinion by someone very high in the Ferrari management(my guess is Marchionne), his advice was to fire Alonso and Tombazis, and that Raikkonen was struggling because he was driving a car "inspired" and "designed" by Alonso. [My lousy translation and interpretation]

“Oggi lo ammetto e non mi vergogno: a suo tempo, quando mi è stato chiesto un parere, a qualcuno che conta in alto a Maranello ho dato il consiglio di mandare via Fernando Alonso,” ha ammesso Forghieri dalle colonne di Formula Passion. “Per due motivi: per i soldi che avrebbe preteso e perchè il pilota in accordo con “il greco” (Tombazis, ndr) faceva pasticci sulla macchina. Una sera ho sentito Raikkonen lamentarsi per il timore che gli ritirassero la patente incapace di guidare una Formula 1, ovvero la vettura ispirata e voluta dallo spagnolo. Oggi a Monza abbiamo potuto constatare che, tralasciando le stupidaggini in cui possono incorrere il pilota o la macchina, Raikkonen è sempre stato velocissimo.”

Great idea! How did that work out? Did the newly rejuvinated Kimi, freed from Alonso's terrible car, produce the sort of performances Forghieri expected and start winning races?

No?

He was still slaughtered by his teammate in 2015?

Hmmmm... :uhoh:


Raikkonen(and the team) is doing MUCH better now.
I have been of the opinion that the guy must have been fired 2 years ago but the Raikkonen of the last two races(plus Monaco qualifying) is the best I have seen since his return in Ferrari.
The Raikkonen of the last two races has nothing to do with the Raikkonen of the era Alonso, who could not put a lap together in qualifying without missing 3 apexes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:20 pm
Posts: 39
davidheath461 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.


Maybe another driver would have won the WDC with Schumacher's car in 1998? :lol:

Give the man the credit he is due for 2012 at least.


I have no problem giving Alonso credit for what indeed was a brilliant season. Note I said 'maybe' because I don't know; but then again nobody does. But I think the possibility shouldn't be automatically dismissed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 21003
Pullrod wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
When we talk about Ferrari, you are missing so MUCH if you are not living in Italy or you don't speak Italian.
Ing. Forghieri said in 2015 that when asked for an opinion by someone very high in the Ferrari management(my guess is Marchionne), his advice was to fire Alonso and Tombazis, and that Raikkonen was struggling because he was driving a car "inspired" and "designed" by Alonso. [My lousy translation and interpretation]

“Oggi lo ammetto e non mi vergogno: a suo tempo, quando mi è stato chiesto un parere, a qualcuno che conta in alto a Maranello ho dato il consiglio di mandare via Fernando Alonso,” ha ammesso Forghieri dalle colonne di Formula Passion. “Per due motivi: per i soldi che avrebbe preteso e perchè il pilota in accordo con “il greco” (Tombazis, ndr) faceva pasticci sulla macchina. Una sera ho sentito Raikkonen lamentarsi per il timore che gli ritirassero la patente incapace di guidare una Formula 1, ovvero la vettura ispirata e voluta dallo spagnolo. Oggi a Monza abbiamo potuto constatare che, tralasciando le stupidaggini in cui possono incorrere il pilota o la macchina, Raikkonen è sempre stato velocissimo.”

Great idea! How did that work out? Did the newly rejuvinated Kimi, freed from Alonso's terrible car, produce the sort of performances Forghieri expected and start winning races?

No?

He was still slaughtered by his teammate in 2015?

Hmmmm... :uhoh:


Raikkonen(and the team) is doing MUCH better now.
I have been of the opinion that the guy must have been fired 2 years ago but the Raikkonen of the last two races(plus Monaco qualifying) is the best I have seen since his return in Ferrari.
The Raikkonen of the last two races has nothing to do with the Raikkonen of the era Alonso, who could not put a lap together in qualifying without missing 3 apexes.

I don't get what was so special about his race in Silverstone. He was pretty much on his own all race.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 4:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3620
Pullrod wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Pullrod wrote:

Ing. Forghieri(not Pullrod) believed Alonso was detrimental to Ferrari progress as a car.
I predicted(my posts are there to verify) that Vettel would get more poles and wins than Alonso during the same period.
Cars are built by engineers(and drivers) but perfected with the help of drivers.

And no, I don't believe I am wrong if I think some driving styles or preferences are more suited to attain the highest peaks than others versus trouncing your teammate because he can not drive like you.

Driving style is the reason Hamilton has done really bad(and well) in some occasions in qualifying with Mercedes. as explained by himself, he has to drive a certain way to extract the last drop of performance from the car and in some instances when in that zone, the Mercedes car changes completely and you have no grip.
Could it have been better for him to drive conservatively and take 3rd? Maybe, but he was convinced Pole was there for the taking(as he usually does) and was proven wrong.


Drivers don't build anything. They can give feedback on what's been brought to track sure but we know Alonso is good at that from comments by engineers he's worked with.

What drivers need is their engineers to be the ones to come up with something the others don't have. He had that at Renault with the mass damper and surprise surprise he won.

Lewis didn't come up with the lean burn tech and HPC suspension Mercedes brought to the Turbo era. Seb didn't convince Mahle to bring their TJI to Ferrari in 2015.

That's whats separating those cars from the others at this point and it's got absolutely nothing to do with the drivers who are pretty much the most irrelevant piece of the puzzle in getting the best car to the track in this cfd,simulation and ban on testing age.

Technology dominates and those that bring the best technology or are the first to perfect it are the ones that win. 2007/8 is the last time I can think of that there wasn't a big technological input or difference unless I'm forgetting something on them. But one was just a copy of the other anyway.


That is not true at all.
The architecture is not the realm of drivers, but how you set up a car, use the tyres or develop the car yes.
Granted if you have a faulty architecture there is not much you can do, but a working platform is meant to be developed, and it is done with not only computers but data collected during racing events.

Where do they take the steering and throttle/brake input from? Who/Which data do they use for their driver in the loop simulations?
Drivers are not robots and each of them have a different driving style.

“He is one of those drivers that, as an engineer, you want in your car,”


Those are words from Paddy Lowe on Hamilton.
Interesting article..

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archi ... ing-enigma

from the same article:

He(Hamilton) is more comfortable with corner entry oversteer probably than any other driver on the grid and uses that as an asset. In simple terms, because of the way the aerodynamics work, F1 cars tend naturally to oversteer in high-speed corners and understeer at low speed. The more comfortable a driver is with high-speed oversteer, the less understeer he needs to tolerate at low speeds – and the faster the car is around the lap


Name one thing a driver builds on a car. Teams arrive to track these days with fully simulated set ups from the simulator the driver then tweaks to their own preference during the weekend. Drivers can have different set ups within the same team. Development work is fully simulated towards whatever concept the car has. The drivers feedback when it hits the track is welcome of course but it doesn't outweigh the plethora of monitoring tools that dictate whether the part does in the real world what it does in simulation. This isn't the 90's.

Take Seb's work with Pirelli. He was rightly praised for how much diligence he showed through the tyre tests and over the winter, and Ferrari's tyre performance has been great. The problem?. All data is available to all teams. McLaren, who didn't even bother doing the tests has, according to AMuS, the best tyre performance on the grid in terms of turning them on and getting them in the window in all conditions. Fully from simulating that collected data from the other teams and nothing to do with their drivers.

Drivers being more towards the neutral side of preference or having the talent to deal with whatever the team brings is great, that's what makes them the best (generally speaking). And Lewis is one of the best so Paddy's comments are not surprising. You'll find comments along those lines for Seb and Alonso too.

But if you think he's the reason Mercedes dominated the Turbo era though you're talking nonsense. And if you think having him would make Renault or Honda come up with and introduce TJI earlier you're also talking nonsense. Same if you thought Alonso came up with the mass damper.

And on team dynamics or harmony contributing to better development and performance of the car, that is also nonsense, as perfectly demonstrated by Ferrari who Forgheri was talking about during Alonso's time. Last year there was as much tension at Maranello as at any point of the Alonso time bar the last few months. Internal struggles and upheaval,stories in the press of engineers apparently pining for Alonso because of Seb's performance when the car slipped to 3rd, The boss rapping the drivers knuckles and telling him to focus on the car, etc...The result on the following years car?.

The best Ferrari on track for a decade. The tension at Mercedes was also legendary over the past few years. Not a step missed in car performance.

Kumbaya's don't add lap time.


You are using a lot of words trying to be an alchemist to "prove"(wrongly) that drivers don't matter.
And I would trust what Ing. Forghieri(Who I have met not long ago at an event) has to say on the matter and not some fellow forumers.

The only things that have changed since the 1980 are:
- aerodynamics
- computational science(think multiphysics)
- electronics
- data acquisition and the use of advanced statistical methods to process data and use it in the models
- computer science (simulator)

But vehicle Dynamics(dampers, tyres, chassis) is the same and is based on the physics known since Newton's days with the exception of empirical methods.


When we talk about Ferrari, you are missing so MUCH if you are not living in Italy or you don't speak Italian.
Ing. Forghieri said in 2015 that when asked for an opinion by someone very high in the Ferrari management(my guess is Marchionne), his advice was to fire Alonso and Tombazis, and that Raikkonen was struggling because he was driving a car "inspired" and "designed" by Alonso. [My lousy translation and interpretation]

“Oggi lo ammetto e non mi vergogno: a suo tempo, quando mi è stato chiesto un parere, a qualcuno che conta in alto a Maranello ho dato il consiglio di mandare via Fernando Alonso,” ha ammesso Forghieri dalle colonne di Formula Passion. “Per due motivi: per i soldi che avrebbe preteso e perchè il pilota in accordo con “il greco” (Tombazis, ndr) faceva pasticci sulla macchina. Una sera ho sentito Raikkonen lamentarsi per il timore che gli ritirassero la patente incapace di guidare una Formula 1, ovvero la vettura ispirata e voluta dallo spagnolo. Oggi a Monza abbiamo potuto constatare che, tralasciando le stupidaggini in cui possono incorrere il pilota o la macchina, Raikkonen è sempre stato velocissimo.”

https://www.motorsportitalia.net/forghi ... ia-alonso/

It has also emerged that Vettel was in Ferrari plan since forever.

_____

This is another one:
"Alonso is better as a driver than a tester"
http://sport.repubblica.it/news/sport/f ... fresh_cens


and I repeat Ing. Forghieri is not some random guy, but he has direct contact to engineers and the people who matter in Ferrari and F1.


I am yet so see an engineer or ex engineer talking in this terms about Schumacher/Vettel/Hamilton.

McLaren had a problematic car in 2009 and it was among the best at the end of the season.
The moment Hamilton has left McLaren(2012), they have not achieved much and they had a Mercedes engine in 2013 and a Mercedes Power unit in 2014.

I am sure those are all coincidences.


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.

_________________
"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: Mon Aug 07, 2017 7:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4561
Location: Michigan, USA
Pullrod wrote:
Raikkonen(and the team) is doing MUCH better now.
I have been of the opinion that the guy must have been fired 2 years ago but the Raikkonen of the last two races(plus Monaco qualifying) is the best I have seen since his return in Ferrari.
The Raikkonen of the last two races has nothing to do with the Raikkonen of the era Alonso, who could not put a lap together in qualifying without missing 3 apexes.

The team is; Raikkonen's not, except in the specific case of qualifying. But even at that, in the first year without Alonso (2015) and with a car designed around a driver who is supposedly very similar to Kimi in needs (Vettel), he was absolutely nowhere. Kimi in 2015 was only marginally better than in 2014, and the fact that he's been on a more-or-less steady upwards curve since then cannot be reasonably attributed to anything done at the end of 2014.

On top of that, we're seeing your curious opinion on pole positions at play here again. Kimi outqualified Vettel by about half a tenth in Monaco; it wasn't anything special, and he did as good or better at almost half the races last year. But because it was for a pole position, somehow it was more of a sign of his returned form?

As for Hungary, it's impossible to say how much was Kimi being close to Vettel and how much was Vettel's issue. But he's good around Hungary, so I'll give him the benefit of a doubt and call it 2 races out of 11 where he's looked quicker than Seb on race day. That's not a great record even so.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #3)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 8:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:29 am
Posts: 1905
Kimi was ok in 2015, he beat Rosberg and Vettel at Bahrain as well as beating Vettel in 3 other races. In 2016 he out-qualified Vettel. He's also had perennial bad-luck with other drivers taking him out of contention in many races as well as a team who considers his race strategy as an afterthought. His concentration and alertness is not what it once was (aging) and he is still caught out by the Pirelli tyres now and again but only 2014 was a really bad season for him (ill-suiting car for his style) in his second Ferrari stint exaggerated by the fact he was paired with Alonso who perhaps is the most adaptable driver with respect to difficult cars in the whole history of F1.

_________________
Kimi: "Come on, get the McLaren out of the way!”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:04 pm
Posts: 685
Lotus49 wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

Drivers don't build anything. They can give feedback on what's been brought to track sure but we know Alonso is good at that from comments by engineers he's worked with.

What drivers need is their engineers to be the ones to come up with something the others don't have. He had that at Renault with the mass damper and surprise surprise he won.

Lewis didn't come up with the lean burn tech and HPC suspension Mercedes brought to the Turbo era. Seb didn't convince Mahle to bring their TJI to Ferrari in 2015.

That's whats separating those cars from the others at this point and it's got absolutely nothing to do with the drivers who are pretty much the most irrelevant piece of the puzzle in getting the best car to the track in this cfd,simulation and ban on testing age.

Technology dominates and those that bring the best technology or are the first to perfect it are the ones that win. 2007/8 is the last time I can think of that there wasn't a big technological input or difference unless I'm forgetting something on them. But one was just a copy of the other anyway.


That is not true at all.
The architecture is not the realm of drivers, but how you set up a car, use the tyres or develop the car yes.
Granted if you have a faulty architecture there is not much you can do, but a working platform is meant to be developed, and it is done with not only computers but data collected during racing events.

Where do they take the steering and throttle/brake input from? Who/Which data do they use for their driver in the loop simulations?
Drivers are not robots and each of them have a different driving style.

“He is one of those drivers that, as an engineer, you want in your car,”


Those are words from Paddy Lowe on Hamilton.
Interesting article..

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archi ... ing-enigma

from the same article:

He(Hamilton) is more comfortable with corner entry oversteer probably than any other driver on the grid and uses that as an asset. In simple terms, because of the way the aerodynamics work, F1 cars tend naturally to oversteer in high-speed corners and understeer at low speed. The more comfortable a driver is with high-speed oversteer, the less understeer he needs to tolerate at low speeds – and the faster the car is around the lap


Name one thing a driver builds on a car. Teams arrive to track these days with fully simulated set ups from the simulator the driver then tweaks to their own preference during the weekend. Drivers can have different set ups within the same team. Development work is fully simulated towards whatever concept the car has. The drivers feedback when it hits the track is welcome of course but it doesn't outweigh the plethora of monitoring tools that dictate whether the part does in the real world what it does in simulation. This isn't the 90's.

Take Seb's work with Pirelli. He was rightly praised for how much diligence he showed through the tyre tests and over the winter, and Ferrari's tyre performance has been great. The problem?. All data is available to all teams. McLaren, who didn't even bother doing the tests has, according to AMuS, the best tyre performance on the grid in terms of turning them on and getting them in the window in all conditions. Fully from simulating that collected data from the other teams and nothing to do with their drivers.

Drivers being more towards the neutral side of preference or having the talent to deal with whatever the team brings is great, that's what makes them the best (generally speaking). And Lewis is one of the best so Paddy's comments are not surprising. You'll find comments along those lines for Seb and Alonso too.

But if you think he's the reason Mercedes dominated the Turbo era though you're talking nonsense. And if you think having him would make Renault or Honda come up with and introduce TJI earlier you're also talking nonsense. Same if you thought Alonso came up with the mass damper.

And on team dynamics or harmony contributing to better development and performance of the car, that is also nonsense, as perfectly demonstrated by Ferrari who Forgheri was talking about during Alonso's time. Last year there was as much tension at Maranello as at any point of the Alonso time bar the last few months. Internal struggles and upheaval,stories in the press of engineers apparently pining for Alonso because of Seb's performance when the car slipped to 3rd, The boss rapping the drivers knuckles and telling him to focus on the car, etc...The result on the following years car?.

The best Ferrari on track for a decade. The tension at Mercedes was also legendary over the past few years. Not a step missed in car performance.

Kumbaya's don't add lap time.


You are using a lot of words trying to be an alchemist to "prove"(wrongly) that drivers don't matter.
And I would trust what Ing. Forghieri(Who I have met not long ago at an event) has to say on the matter and not some fellow forumers.

The only things that have changed since the 1980 are:
- aerodynamics
- computational science(think multiphysics)
- electronics
- data acquisition and the use of advanced statistical methods to process data and use it in the models
- computer science (simulator)

But vehicle Dynamics(dampers, tyres, chassis) is the same and is based on the physics known since Newton's days with the exception of empirical methods.


When we talk about Ferrari, you are missing so MUCH if you are not living in Italy or you don't speak Italian.
Ing. Forghieri said in 2015 that when asked for an opinion by someone very high in the Ferrari management(my guess is Marchionne), his advice was to fire Alonso and Tombazis, and that Raikkonen was struggling because he was driving a car "inspired" and "designed" by Alonso. [My lousy translation and interpretation]

“Oggi lo ammetto e non mi vergogno: a suo tempo, quando mi è stato chiesto un parere, a qualcuno che conta in alto a Maranello ho dato il consiglio di mandare via Fernando Alonso,” ha ammesso Forghieri dalle colonne di Formula Passion. “Per due motivi: per i soldi che avrebbe preteso e perchè il pilota in accordo con “il greco” (Tombazis, ndr) faceva pasticci sulla macchina. Una sera ho sentito Raikkonen lamentarsi per il timore che gli ritirassero la patente incapace di guidare una Formula 1, ovvero la vettura ispirata e voluta dallo spagnolo. Oggi a Monza abbiamo potuto constatare che, tralasciando le stupidaggini in cui possono incorrere il pilota o la macchina, Raikkonen è sempre stato velocissimo.”

https://www.motorsportitalia.net/forghi ... ia-alonso/

It has also emerged that Vettel was in Ferrari plan since forever.

_____

This is another one:
"Alonso is better as a driver than a tester"
http://sport.repubblica.it/news/sport/f ... fresh_cens


and I repeat Ing. Forghieri is not some random guy, but he has direct contact to engineers and the people who matter in Ferrari and F1.


I am yet so see an engineer or ex engineer talking in this terms about Schumacher/Vettel/Hamilton.

McLaren had a problematic car in 2009 and it was among the best at the end of the season.
The moment Hamilton has left McLaren(2012), they have not achieved much and they had a Mercedes engine in 2013 and a Mercedes Power unit in 2014.

I am sure those are all coincidences.


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6753
Pullrod wrote:
I can tell you that they are happier in Ferrari

Which department do you work in mate? Also is the balsamic vinegar really as good over there as they say it is?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 11:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 3620
Pullrod wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Pullrod wrote:

That is not true at all.
The architecture is not the realm of drivers, but how you set up a car, use the tyres or develop the car yes.
Granted if you have a faulty architecture there is not much you can do, but a working platform is meant to be developed, and it is done with not only computers but data collected during racing events.

Where do they take the steering and throttle/brake input from? Who/Which data do they use for their driver in the loop simulations?
Drivers are not robots and each of them have a different driving style.

“He is one of those drivers that, as an engineer, you want in your car,”


Those are words from Paddy Lowe on Hamilton.
Interesting article..

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archi ... ing-enigma

from the same article:

He(Hamilton) is more comfortable with corner entry oversteer probably than any other driver on the grid and uses that as an asset. In simple terms, because of the way the aerodynamics work, F1 cars tend naturally to oversteer in high-speed corners and understeer at low speed. The more comfortable a driver is with high-speed oversteer, the less understeer he needs to tolerate at low speeds – and the faster the car is around the lap


Name one thing a driver builds on a car. Teams arrive to track these days with fully simulated set ups from the simulator the driver then tweaks to their own preference during the weekend. Drivers can have different set ups within the same team. Development work is fully simulated towards whatever concept the car has. The drivers feedback when it hits the track is welcome of course but it doesn't outweigh the plethora of monitoring tools that dictate whether the part does in the real world what it does in simulation. This isn't the 90's.

Take Seb's work with Pirelli. He was rightly praised for how much diligence he showed through the tyre tests and over the winter, and Ferrari's tyre performance has been great. The problem?. All data is available to all teams. McLaren, who didn't even bother doing the tests has, according to AMuS, the best tyre performance on the grid in terms of turning them on and getting them in the window in all conditions. Fully from simulating that collected data from the other teams and nothing to do with their drivers.

Drivers being more towards the neutral side of preference or having the talent to deal with whatever the team brings is great, that's what makes them the best (generally speaking). And Lewis is one of the best so Paddy's comments are not surprising. You'll find comments along those lines for Seb and Alonso too.

But if you think he's the reason Mercedes dominated the Turbo era though you're talking nonsense. And if you think having him would make Renault or Honda come up with and introduce TJI earlier you're also talking nonsense. Same if you thought Alonso came up with the mass damper.

And on team dynamics or harmony contributing to better development and performance of the car, that is also nonsense, as perfectly demonstrated by Ferrari who Forgheri was talking about during Alonso's time. Last year there was as much tension at Maranello as at any point of the Alonso time bar the last few months. Internal struggles and upheaval,stories in the press of engineers apparently pining for Alonso because of Seb's performance when the car slipped to 3rd, The boss rapping the drivers knuckles and telling him to focus on the car, etc...The result on the following years car?.

The best Ferrari on track for a decade. The tension at Mercedes was also legendary over the past few years. Not a step missed in car performance.

Kumbaya's don't add lap time.


You are using a lot of words trying to be an alchemist to "prove"(wrongly) that drivers don't matter.
And I would trust what Ing. Forghieri(Who I have met not long ago at an event) has to say on the matter and not some fellow forumers.

The only things that have changed since the 1980 are:
- aerodynamics
- computational science(think multiphysics)
- electronics
- data acquisition and the use of advanced statistical methods to process data and use it in the models
- computer science (simulator)

But vehicle Dynamics(dampers, tyres, chassis) is the same and is based on the physics known since Newton's days with the exception of empirical methods.


When we talk about Ferrari, you are missing so MUCH if you are not living in Italy or you don't speak Italian.
Ing. Forghieri said in 2015 that when asked for an opinion by someone very high in the Ferrari management(my guess is Marchionne), his advice was to fire Alonso and Tombazis, and that Raikkonen was struggling because he was driving a car "inspired" and "designed" by Alonso. [My lousy translation and interpretation]

“Oggi lo ammetto e non mi vergogno: a suo tempo, quando mi è stato chiesto un parere, a qualcuno che conta in alto a Maranello ho dato il consiglio di mandare via Fernando Alonso,” ha ammesso Forghieri dalle colonne di Formula Passion. “Per due motivi: per i soldi che avrebbe preteso e perchè il pilota in accordo con “il greco” (Tombazis, ndr) faceva pasticci sulla macchina. Una sera ho sentito Raikkonen lamentarsi per il timore che gli ritirassero la patente incapace di guidare una Formula 1, ovvero la vettura ispirata e voluta dallo spagnolo. Oggi a Monza abbiamo potuto constatare che, tralasciando le stupidaggini in cui possono incorrere il pilota o la macchina, Raikkonen è sempre stato velocissimo.”

https://www.motorsportitalia.net/forghi ... ia-alonso/

It has also emerged that Vettel was in Ferrari plan since forever.

_____

This is another one:
"Alonso is better as a driver than a tester"
http://sport.repubblica.it/news/sport/f ... fresh_cens


and I repeat Ing. Forghieri is not some random guy, but he has direct contact to engineers and the people who matter in Ferrari and F1.


I am yet so see an engineer or ex engineer talking in this terms about Schumacher/Vettel/Hamilton.

McLaren had a problematic car in 2009 and it was among the best at the end of the season.
The moment Hamilton has left McLaren(2012), they have not achieved much and they had a Mercedes engine in 2013 and a Mercedes Power unit in 2014.

I am sure those are all coincidences.


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

_________________
"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: Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:22 am
Posts: 3846
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.

Best/fastest car changed throughout '12 (if memory serves correctly).

The Ferrari was far from best or fastest (probably 5th or 6th) at the start of the season - but the first few races were a lottery, with better cars dropping out right, left and centre!

Hence 6 different teams winning the first 6 races. Alonso was truly a "points hoover" at the start of the season as he had a bad car, and took full advantage of the turmoil.

At the end of the season the Ferrari was one of the best cars, but Alonso wasn't at his best and needed Massa (who was faster) to slow down and protect him in a couple of races.

The Mclaren was faster, but the team suffered from mistakes/reliability (again IIRC) at various races - resulting in them losing races they should have won - and Lewis looking for another team.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:04 pm
Posts: 685
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
I can tell you that they are happier in Ferrari

Which department do you work in mate? Also is the balsamic vinegar really as good over there as they say it is?


Come here to find out yourself. ;)
I work in the "family"/"relatives" department. :-P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:04 pm
Posts: 685
Lotus49 wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

Name one thing a driver builds on a car. Teams arrive to track these days with fully simulated set ups from the simulator the driver then tweaks to their own preference during the weekend. Drivers can have different set ups within the same team. Development work is fully simulated towards whatever concept the car has. The drivers feedback when it hits the track is welcome of course but it doesn't outweigh the plethora of monitoring tools that dictate whether the part does in the real world what it does in simulation. This isn't the 90's.

Take Seb's work with Pirelli. He was rightly praised for how much diligence he showed through the tyre tests and over the winter, and Ferrari's tyre performance has been great. The problem?. All data is available to all teams. McLaren, who didn't even bother doing the tests has, according to AMuS, the best tyre performance on the grid in terms of turning them on and getting them in the window in all conditions. Fully from simulating that collected data from the other teams and nothing to do with their drivers.

Drivers being more towards the neutral side of preference or having the talent to deal with whatever the team brings is great, that's what makes them the best (generally speaking). And Lewis is one of the best so Paddy's comments are not surprising. You'll find comments along those lines for Seb and Alonso too.

But if you think he's the reason Mercedes dominated the Turbo era though you're talking nonsense. And if you think having him would make Renault or Honda come up with and introduce TJI earlier you're also talking nonsense. Same if you thought Alonso came up with the mass damper.

And on team dynamics or harmony contributing to better development and performance of the car, that is also nonsense, as perfectly demonstrated by Ferrari who Forgheri was talking about during Alonso's time. Last year there was as much tension at Maranello as at any point of the Alonso time bar the last few months. Internal struggles and upheaval,stories in the press of engineers apparently pining for Alonso because of Seb's performance when the car slipped to 3rd, The boss rapping the drivers knuckles and telling him to focus on the car, etc...The result on the following years car?.

The best Ferrari on track for a decade. The tension at Mercedes was also legendary over the past few years. Not a step missed in car performance.

Kumbaya's don't add lap time.


You are using a lot of words trying to be an alchemist to "prove"(wrongly) that drivers don't matter.
And I would trust what Ing. Forghieri(Who I have met not long ago at an event) has to say on the matter and not some fellow forumers.

The only things that have changed since the 1980 are:
- aerodynamics
- computational science(think multiphysics)
- electronics
- data acquisition and the use of advanced statistical methods to process data and use it in the models
- computer science (simulator)

But vehicle Dynamics(dampers, tyres, chassis) is the same and is based on the physics known since Newton's days with the exception of empirical methods.


When we talk about Ferrari, you are missing so MUCH if you are not living in Italy or you don't speak Italian.
Ing. Forghieri said in 2015 that when asked for an opinion by someone very high in the Ferrari management(my guess is Marchionne), his advice was to fire Alonso and Tombazis, and that Raikkonen was struggling because he was driving a car "inspired" and "designed" by Alonso. [My lousy translation and interpretation]

“Oggi lo ammetto e non mi vergogno: a suo tempo, quando mi è stato chiesto un parere, a qualcuno che conta in alto a Maranello ho dato il consiglio di mandare via Fernando Alonso,” ha ammesso Forghieri dalle colonne di Formula Passion. “Per due motivi: per i soldi che avrebbe preteso e perchè il pilota in accordo con “il greco” (Tombazis, ndr) faceva pasticci sulla macchina. Una sera ho sentito Raikkonen lamentarsi per il timore che gli ritirassero la patente incapace di guidare una Formula 1, ovvero la vettura ispirata e voluta dallo spagnolo. Oggi a Monza abbiamo potuto constatare che, tralasciando le stupidaggini in cui possono incorrere il pilota o la macchina, Raikkonen è sempre stato velocissimo.”

https://www.motorsportitalia.net/forghi ... ia-alonso/

It has also emerged that Vettel was in Ferrari plan since forever.

_____

This is another one:
"Alonso is better as a driver than a tester"
http://sport.repubblica.it/news/sport/f ... fresh_cens


and I repeat Ing. Forghieri is not some random guy, but he has direct contact to engineers and the people who matter in Ferrari and F1.


I am yet so see an engineer or ex engineer talking in this terms about Schumacher/Vettel/Hamilton.

McLaren had a problematic car in 2009 and it was among the best at the end of the season.
The moment Hamilton has left McLaren(2012), they have not achieved much and they had a Mercedes engine in 2013 and a Mercedes Power unit in 2014.

I am sure those are all coincidences.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 12:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12387
LKS1 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.

Best/fastest car changed throughout '12 (if memory serves correctly).

The Ferrari was far from best or fastest (probably 5th or 6th) at the start of the season - but the first few races were a lottery, with better cars dropping out right, left and centre!

Hence 6 different teams winning the first 6 races. Alonso was truly a "points hoover" at the start of the season as he had a bad car, and took full advantage of the turmoil.

At the end of the season the Ferrari was one of the best cars, but Alonso wasn't at his best and needed Massa (who was faster) to slow down and protect him in a couple of races.

The Mclaren was faster, but the team suffered from mistakes/reliability (again IIRC) at various races - resulting in them losing races they should have won - and Lewis looking for another team.


Mclaren and Red Bull were much faster at the end of the season. Even then the best you could credit Ferrari with would be 3rd best.

They were more competitive mid season. Actually able to compete at the front without unusual goings on. Overall I thin 4th best is a fair reflection over the season. You could argue 3rd best if you think Raikkonen was as good as Alonso that season. Even then, it's not clear cut.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 8:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:11 pm
Posts: 1743
Pullrod wrote:

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


Why do you keep repeating the bolded without anything to back it up? Please provide quotes where Alonso said "I'm bigger than Ferrari!".


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: No registered users 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