planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:30 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 5:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 1326
"Alonso in fast driver shock":

...Pretty remarkable against the bench mark of his team mates though. Worth looking at the twitter thread for a bit of context.
Not a surprise to anyone that was watching live timing of his overnight quadruple stint; His consistency and speed reeling in the 7 car was amazing, and exactly at the point it was most important in context of the race.

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 7:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6220
Location: Michigan, USA
Wow, thanks for posting!

I had the luck to watch his entire overnight stint, and it was incredible - he was lapping 2-3 seconds a lap faster than Lopez for most of the night. Really impressive pace for a guy who is little more than a rookie in sportscars.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 7:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7543
He was certainly the star of the Toyota drivers. Should put any of the 'undeserved' criticisms to bed. That night stint was potentially race winning (without the #7 problems later on in the race). I'm gutted I missed it, went to bed not longer after Alonso got in the car.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5628
Congrats to Alonso. It must feel good to accomplish this. After what happened at Indy last year and then trailing the sister car for much of the race, it was looking like his luck would abandon him again but he delivered the goods during this race. When an endurance team secures the services of a 2 time F1 champ, they expect that to mean an advantage for them and that's certainly what they got with Fernando. He was in a league of his own out there (as was Toyota). Good for him. I think a move to Indy car to complete the job is imminent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:28 pm
Posts: 771
I watched around 8-10 hours.

Many different battles through the event - the Bourdais one was interesting to watch for a few laps !

The Alonso stint through the night was impressive.

_________________
Should I grow a beard?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5017
Apparently they turned a relative weakness of Alonso into the race winning strength so whoever their strategy guy is should get a lot of credit.

So allegedly Alonso struggled in testing and Spa with tyre slip on the Michelin's which caused overheating during a stint. He worked on it and lessened the damage but it was still making a difference in stints so they decided to put him on the night shift with the cooler temps. Turns out the sister car couldn't keep the tyres in the working range during the night but Alonso could because of this aggressive style but he didn't overheat them and that's why he obliterated the sister car in that night shift.

Turning your relative weakness into your biggest strength is a hell of a call as putting the rookie in the night shift sounded a risk but Alonso delivered so fair play the race engineer/strategy dude (and Alonso of course).

I'm hoping someone puts the night stint up on you tube or wherever, It was incredible to watch the split screen of the No.7 and No.8.

_________________
"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 Jun 19, 2018 4:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:37 pm
Posts: 687
Lotus49 wrote:
Apparently they turned a relative weakness of Alonso into the race winning strength so whoever their strategy guy is should get a lot of credit.

So allegedly Alonso struggled in testing and Spa with tyre slip on the Michelin's which caused overheating during a stint. He worked on it and lessened the damage but it was still making a difference in stints so they decided to put him on the night shift with the cooler temps. Turns out the sister car couldn't keep the tyres in the working range during the night but Alonso could because of this aggressive style but he didn't overheat them and that's why he obliterated the sister car in that night shift.

Turning your relative weakness into your biggest strength is a hell of a call as putting the rookie in the night shift sounded a risk but Alonso delivered so fair play the race engineer/strategy dude (and Alonso of course).

I'm hoping someone puts the night stint up on you tube or wherever, It was incredible to watch the split screen of the No.7 and No.8.


I'd like that too... It was indeed phenomenal to watch


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28712
Lotus49 wrote:
Apparently they turned a relative weakness of Alonso into the race winning strength so whoever their strategy guy is should get a lot of credit.

So allegedly Alonso struggled in testing and Spa with tyre slip on the Michelin's which caused overheating during a stint. He worked on it and lessened the damage but it was still making a difference in stints so they decided to put him on the night shift with the cooler temps. Turns out the sister car couldn't keep the tyres in the working range during the night but Alonso could because of this aggressive style but he didn't overheat them and that's why he obliterated the sister car in that night shift.

Turning your relative weakness into your biggest strength is a hell of a call as putting the rookie in the night shift sounded a risk but Alonso delivered so fair play the race engineer/strategy dude (and Alonso of course).

I'm hoping someone puts the night stint up on you tube or wherever, It was incredible to watch the split screen of the No.7 and No.8.

That's some interesting stuff, I watched a good portion of the race, shame it was just a 2 car race at the front, the Toyotas were 2 seconds clear of the field.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 3:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6220
Location: Michigan, USA
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Apparently they turned a relative weakness of Alonso into the race winning strength so whoever their strategy guy is should get a lot of credit.

So allegedly Alonso struggled in testing and Spa with tyre slip on the Michelin's which caused overheating during a stint. He worked on it and lessened the damage but it was still making a difference in stints so they decided to put him on the night shift with the cooler temps. Turns out the sister car couldn't keep the tyres in the working range during the night but Alonso could because of this aggressive style but he didn't overheat them and that's why he obliterated the sister car in that night shift.

Turning your relative weakness into your biggest strength is a hell of a call as putting the rookie in the night shift sounded a risk but Alonso delivered so fair play the race engineer/strategy dude (and Alonso of course).

I'm hoping someone puts the night stint up on you tube or wherever, It was incredible to watch the split screen of the No.7 and No.8.

That's some interesting stuff, I watched a good portion of the race, shame it was just a 2 car race at the front, the Toyotas were 2 seconds clear of the field.

It's only a slight difference from many, many victories throughout the history of F1 and endurance racing alike. There have been numerous seasons and championships where one team had such an advantage that the only thing that could have stopped them from winning was a mechanical failure. In fact, I would go so far as to say that over the total history of auto racing, it's the norm. It's unusual to only officially have one team running at the top spec, but it's quite normal for it to happen in effect.

We spent three years being told how it was interesting to watch the two cars of your favorite team battle each other for race wins and championships, so I would think you'd appreciate seeing a tense battle between teammates for victory. 8)

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 3:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6220
Location: Michigan, USA
Some onboard from Alonso's night stint:


_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28712
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Apparently they turned a relative weakness of Alonso into the race winning strength so whoever their strategy guy is should get a lot of credit.

So allegedly Alonso struggled in testing and Spa with tyre slip on the Michelin's which caused overheating during a stint. He worked on it and lessened the damage but it was still making a difference in stints so they decided to put him on the night shift with the cooler temps. Turns out the sister car couldn't keep the tyres in the working range during the night but Alonso could because of this aggressive style but he didn't overheat them and that's why he obliterated the sister car in that night shift.

Turning your relative weakness into your biggest strength is a hell of a call as putting the rookie in the night shift sounded a risk but Alonso delivered so fair play the race engineer/strategy dude (and Alonso of course).

I'm hoping someone puts the night stint up on you tube or wherever, It was incredible to watch the split screen of the No.7 and No.8.

That's some interesting stuff, I watched a good portion of the race, shame it was just a 2 car race at the front, the Toyotas were 2 seconds clear of the field.

It's only a slight difference from many, many victories throughout the history of F1 and endurance racing alike. There have been numerous seasons and championships where one team had such an advantage that the only thing that could have stopped them from winning was a mechanical failure. In fact, I would go so far as to say that over the total history of auto racing, it's the norm. It's unusual to only officially have one team running at the top spec, but it's quite normal for it to happen in effect.

We spent three years being told how it was interesting to watch the two cars of your favorite team battle each other for race wins and championships, so I would think you'd appreciate seeing a tense battle between teammates for victory. 8)

There was basically no competition it's one thing for a manufacturer to do a better job then another, than to be the only manufacturer competing, this kind of swings round to what Alonso said before the race about undeserved titles and undeserved wins because of unfair advantages, I see double standards at play here, did Vettel and Hamilton walk into a dominant car at Red Bull and Mercedes, the answer would be no, unlike Alonso who walked into a much advantaged situation at Le Mans, you reap what you sow, Alonso started the put downs first.

Winning the Indy500 will be far, far more difficult for Alonso.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23932
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Apparently they turned a relative weakness of Alonso into the race winning strength so whoever their strategy guy is should get a lot of credit.

So allegedly Alonso struggled in testing and Spa with tyre slip on the Michelin's which caused overheating during a stint. He worked on it and lessened the damage but it was still making a difference in stints so they decided to put him on the night shift with the cooler temps. Turns out the sister car couldn't keep the tyres in the working range during the night but Alonso could because of this aggressive style but he didn't overheat them and that's why he obliterated the sister car in that night shift.

Turning your relative weakness into your biggest strength is a hell of a call as putting the rookie in the night shift sounded a risk but Alonso delivered so fair play the race engineer/strategy dude (and Alonso of course).

I'm hoping someone puts the night stint up on you tube or wherever, It was incredible to watch the split screen of the No.7 and No.8.

That's some interesting stuff, I watched a good portion of the race, shame it was just a 2 car race at the front, the Toyotas were 2 seconds clear of the field.

It's only a slight difference from many, many victories throughout the history of F1 and endurance racing alike. There have been numerous seasons and championships where one team had such an advantage that the only thing that could have stopped them from winning was a mechanical failure. In fact, I would go so far as to say that over the total history of auto racing, it's the norm. It's unusual to only officially have one team running at the top spec, but it's quite normal for it to happen in effect.

We spent three years being told how it was interesting to watch the two cars of your favorite team battle each other for race wins and championships, so I would think you'd appreciate seeing a tense battle between teammates for victory. 8)

There was basically no competition it's one thing for a manufacturer to do a better job then another, than to be the only manufacturer competing, this kind of swings round to what Alonso said before the race about undeserved titles and undeserved wins because of unfair advantages, I see double standards at play here, did Vettel and Hamilton walk into a dominant car at Red Bull and Mercedes, the answer would be no, unlike Alonso who walked into a much advantaged situation at Le Mans, you reap what you sow, Alonso started the put downs first.

Winning the Indy500 will be far, far more difficult for Alonso.

I too see double standards at play from Alonso, particularly in light of his comments on undeserved titles, but I also think there is not a great deal of difference between what he did at Le Mans and what the Mercedes drivers did between 2014-2016. They both had limited opposition and basically had to beat only reliability and their sister car.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28712
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Apparently they turned a relative weakness of Alonso into the race winning strength so whoever their strategy guy is should get a lot of credit.

So allegedly Alonso struggled in testing and Spa with tyre slip on the Michelin's which caused overheating during a stint. He worked on it and lessened the damage but it was still making a difference in stints so they decided to put him on the night shift with the cooler temps. Turns out the sister car couldn't keep the tyres in the working range during the night but Alonso could because of this aggressive style but he didn't overheat them and that's why he obliterated the sister car in that night shift.

Turning your relative weakness into your biggest strength is a hell of a call as putting the rookie in the night shift sounded a risk but Alonso delivered so fair play the race engineer/strategy dude (and Alonso of course).

I'm hoping someone puts the night stint up on you tube or wherever, It was incredible to watch the split screen of the No.7 and No.8.

That's some interesting stuff, I watched a good portion of the race, shame it was just a 2 car race at the front, the Toyotas were 2 seconds clear of the field.

It's only a slight difference from many, many victories throughout the history of F1 and endurance racing alike. There have been numerous seasons and championships where one team had such an advantage that the only thing that could have stopped them from winning was a mechanical failure. In fact, I would go so far as to say that over the total history of auto racing, it's the norm. It's unusual to only officially have one team running at the top spec, but it's quite normal for it to happen in effect.

We spent three years being told how it was interesting to watch the two cars of your favorite team battle each other for race wins and championships, so I would think you'd appreciate seeing a tense battle between teammates for victory. 8)

There was basically no competition it's one thing for a manufacturer to do a better job then another, than to be the only manufacturer competing, this kind of swings round to what Alonso said before the race about undeserved titles and undeserved wins because of unfair advantages, I see double standards at play here, did Vettel and Hamilton walk into a dominant car at Red Bull and Mercedes, the answer would be no, unlike Alonso who walked into a much advantaged situation at Le Mans, you reap what you sow, Alonso started the put downs first.

Winning the Indy500 will be far, far more difficult for Alonso.

I too see double standards at play from Alonso, particularly in light of his comments on undeserved titles, but I also think there is not a great deal of difference between what he did at Le Mans and what the Mercedes drivers did between 2014-2016. They both had limited opposition and basically had to beat only reliability and their sister car.

I wonder why you didn't include Vettel who I mentioned and who clearly is Alonso's main target?

Back to what you said about Hamilton and Rosberg, Rosberg joined Mercedes in 2010 so he earned his spurs so to speak, Hamilton joined Mercedes in 2013 when they were a midfield team the year before, what Alonso did with Toyota this year would be the equivalent of Hamilton joining Mercedes in 2015 after seeing they were dominant, by the way this is something that Alonso himself attempted, also let's not forget that Toyota stalwart Anthony Davidson had to step down for Alonso so Alonso inherited the glory from a guy who put in all the ground work, now if Alonso had competed in Le Mans last year when it was competitive then the nature of what Alonso did this year would be more in line with what Hamilton did at Mercedes.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5017
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Apparently they turned a relative weakness of Alonso into the race winning strength so whoever their strategy guy is should get a lot of credit.

So allegedly Alonso struggled in testing and Spa with tyre slip on the Michelin's which caused overheating during a stint. He worked on it and lessened the damage but it was still making a difference in stints so they decided to put him on the night shift with the cooler temps. Turns out the sister car couldn't keep the tyres in the working range during the night but Alonso could because of this aggressive style but he didn't overheat them and that's why he obliterated the sister car in that night shift.

Turning your relative weakness into your biggest strength is a hell of a call as putting the rookie in the night shift sounded a risk but Alonso delivered so fair play the race engineer/strategy dude (and Alonso of course).

I'm hoping someone puts the night stint up on you tube or wherever, It was incredible to watch the split screen of the No.7 and No.8.

That's some interesting stuff, I watched a good portion of the race, shame it was just a 2 car race at the front, the Toyotas were 2 seconds clear of the field.


About time he got a nice toy to play with. :nod:

But in all seriousness yeah it would always be better with more comp but we were all a bit worried there wouldn't even be a fight between the two but chasing down the No.7 in that night stint was one of the tensest things I've seen.

Just because he was a rook, at night and dealing with the traffic, it was really quite nerve racking and I still can't quite believe how aggressive he is behind the wheel, we saw glimpses in Spa with the SC restart with Conway chasing him but during that night stint there was a feed with split cameras so you could watch the 7 and 8 at the same time and the aggressiveness is just on another level but with zero errors, it's stupid.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5017
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Apparently they turned a relative weakness of Alonso into the race winning strength so whoever their strategy guy is should get a lot of credit.

So allegedly Alonso struggled in testing and Spa with tyre slip on the Michelin's which caused overheating during a stint. He worked on it and lessened the damage but it was still making a difference in stints so they decided to put him on the night shift with the cooler temps. Turns out the sister car couldn't keep the tyres in the working range during the night but Alonso could because of this aggressive style but he didn't overheat them and that's why he obliterated the sister car in that night shift.

Turning your relative weakness into your biggest strength is a hell of a call as putting the rookie in the night shift sounded a risk but Alonso delivered so fair play the race engineer/strategy dude (and Alonso of course).

I'm hoping someone puts the night stint up on you tube or wherever, It was incredible to watch the split screen of the No.7 and No.8.

That's some interesting stuff, I watched a good portion of the race, shame it was just a 2 car race at the front, the Toyotas were 2 seconds clear of the field.

It's only a slight difference from many, many victories throughout the history of F1 and endurance racing alike. There have been numerous seasons and championships where one team had such an advantage that the only thing that could have stopped them from winning was a mechanical failure. In fact, I would go so far as to say that over the total history of auto racing, it's the norm. It's unusual to only officially have one team running at the top spec, but it's quite normal for it to happen in effect.

We spent three years being told how it was interesting to watch the two cars of your favorite team battle each other for race wins and championships, so I would think you'd appreciate seeing a tense battle between teammates for victory. 8)

There was basically no competition it's one thing for a manufacturer to do a better job then another, than to be the only manufacturer competing, this kind of swings round to what Alonso said before the race about undeserved titles and undeserved wins because of unfair advantages, I see double standards at play here, did Vettel and Hamilton walk into a dominant car at Red Bull and Mercedes, the answer would be no, unlike Alonso who walked into a much advantaged situation at Le Mans, you reap what you sow, Alonso started the put downs first.

Winning the Indy500 will be far, far more difficult for Alonso.


Did Alonso say his comment was about dominant machinery or was it about someone winning the title when someone else drove better?

I think it's a comment either about 2012 or 2016, I'd lean towards 2012 as I think he commented on Nico at the time and said it was deserved but we all know opinions change and Nico had a dig at him so it could be payback but I think it's 2012.

But I don't think it was about dominant machinery in of itself. You'd have a hard time trying to pretend Seb and Lewis didn't deserve 2011/13/15 respectively. Or Clarks dominant years or Schumachers. I think it's about getting outperformed (In his opinion obviously) but still coming out with the trophy.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23932
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
That's some interesting stuff, I watched a good portion of the race, shame it was just a 2 car race at the front, the Toyotas were 2 seconds clear of the field.

It's only a slight difference from many, many victories throughout the history of F1 and endurance racing alike. There have been numerous seasons and championships where one team had such an advantage that the only thing that could have stopped them from winning was a mechanical failure. In fact, I would go so far as to say that over the total history of auto racing, it's the norm. It's unusual to only officially have one team running at the top spec, but it's quite normal for it to happen in effect.

We spent three years being told how it was interesting to watch the two cars of your favorite team battle each other for race wins and championships, so I would think you'd appreciate seeing a tense battle between teammates for victory. 8)

There was basically no competition it's one thing for a manufacturer to do a better job then another, than to be the only manufacturer competing, this kind of swings round to what Alonso said before the race about undeserved titles and undeserved wins because of unfair advantages, I see double standards at play here, did Vettel and Hamilton walk into a dominant car at Red Bull and Mercedes, the answer would be no, unlike Alonso who walked into a much advantaged situation at Le Mans, you reap what you sow, Alonso started the put downs first.

Winning the Indy500 will be far, far more difficult for Alonso.

I too see double standards at play from Alonso, particularly in light of his comments on undeserved titles, but I also think there is not a great deal of difference between what he did at Le Mans and what the Mercedes drivers did between 2014-2016. They both had limited opposition and basically had to beat only reliability and their sister car.

I wonder why you didn't include Vettel who I mentioned and who clearly is Alonso's main target?

Back to what you said about Hamilton and Rosberg, Rosberg joined Mercedes in 2010 so he earned his spurs so to speak, Hamilton joined Mercedes in 2013 when they were a midfield team the year before, what Alonso did with Toyota this year would be the equivalent of Hamilton joining Mercedes in 2015 after seeing they were dominant, by the way this is something that Alonso himself attempted, also let's not forget that Toyota stalwart Anthony Davidson had to step down for Alonso so Alonso inherited the glory from a guy who put in all the ground work, now if Alonso had competed in Le Mans last year when it was competitive then the nature of what Alonso did this year would be more in line with what Hamilton did at Mercedes.

Because I don't see the Red Bull as being in the same dominant league as the F1 Mercedes and the WEC Toyota? Those have obvious similarities

It could be argued that Alonso put in the groundwork by virtue of proving himself so well in F1 that Toyota were keen to get him onboard, but that's besides the point anyway. It's about the actual racing, not what went on before.

I'm not passing judgement here, other than to say that in terms of winning a title without much competition, there are pretty close similarities between Alonso at Le Mans and the Merc drivers between 2014-2016. I don't think you need to get defensive on it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5017
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
That's some interesting stuff, I watched a good portion of the race, shame it was just a 2 car race at the front, the Toyotas were 2 seconds clear of the field.

It's only a slight difference from many, many victories throughout the history of F1 and endurance racing alike. There have been numerous seasons and championships where one team had such an advantage that the only thing that could have stopped them from winning was a mechanical failure. In fact, I would go so far as to say that over the total history of auto racing, it's the norm. It's unusual to only officially have one team running at the top spec, but it's quite normal for it to happen in effect.

We spent three years being told how it was interesting to watch the two cars of your favorite team battle each other for race wins and championships, so I would think you'd appreciate seeing a tense battle between teammates for victory. 8)

There was basically no competition it's one thing for a manufacturer to do a better job then another, than to be the only manufacturer competing, this kind of swings round to what Alonso said before the race about undeserved titles and undeserved wins because of unfair advantages, I see double standards at play here, did Vettel and Hamilton walk into a dominant car at Red Bull and Mercedes, the answer would be no, unlike Alonso who walked into a much advantaged situation at Le Mans, you reap what you sow, Alonso started the put downs first.

Winning the Indy500 will be far, far more difficult for Alonso.

I too see double standards at play from Alonso, particularly in light of his comments on undeserved titles, but I also think there is not a great deal of difference between what he did at Le Mans and what the Mercedes drivers did between 2014-2016. They both had limited opposition and basically had to beat only reliability and their sister car.

I wonder why you didn't include Vettel who I mentioned and who clearly is Alonso's main target?

Back to what you said about Hamilton and Rosberg, Rosberg joined Mercedes in 2010 so he earned his spurs so to speak, Hamilton joined Mercedes in 2013 when they were a midfield team the year before, what Alonso did with Toyota this year would be the equivalent of Hamilton joining Mercedes in 2015 after seeing they were dominant, by the way this is something that Alonso himself attempted, also let's not forget that Toyota stalwart Anthony Davidson had to step down for Alonso so Alonso inherited the glory from a guy who put in all the ground work, now if Alonso had competed in Le Mans last year when it was competitive then the nature of what Alonso did this year would be more in line with what Hamilton did at Mercedes.


What does when you sign have to do with it? What ground work towards the turbo engine did Nico and Lewis do exactly?

Total rubbish, dominant machinery is dominant machinery, the drivers don't build the bloody thing, they get given it to drive. When you're given it doesn't matter and it's a fair comparison, like 92 Williams say, because it's a two car fight between team mates.

Seb's Red Bulls didn't have quite the advantage of those types, the RB6 being the closest but that was more half a second to a second rather than 1-2 seconds so you can't really mention those as comparisons as other cars could get there track dependent so it wasn't a two car fight.

Last year wouldn't work as a comparison either as there was more than just a fight between teamates. And Anthony got the short end of the stick because he drove poorly last year for Toyota. He could've had one of the other seats outside of the Japanese pair and Alonso but he didn't drive as well as they did so nothing unfair about it.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5017
Alonso was the quickest on average and had the smallest variance in LMP1 so was the most consistent again like in Spa.



Image
https://twitter.com/thebpillar/status/1 ... 2926383105

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5017
wolfticket wrote:
"Alonso in fast driver shock":

...Pretty remarkable against the bench mark of his team mates though. Worth looking at the twitter thread for a bit of context.
Not a surprise to anyone that was watching live timing of his overnight quadruple stint; His consistency and speed reeling in the 7 car was amazing, and exactly at the point it was most important in context of the race.


To go along with that tweet...



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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6220
Location: Michigan, USA
pokerman wrote:
There was basically no competition it's one thing for a manufacturer to do a better job then another, than to be the only manufacturer competing, this kind of swings round to what Alonso said before the race about undeserved titles and undeserved wins because of unfair advantages, I see double standards at play here, did Vettel and Hamilton walk into a dominant car at Red Bull and Mercedes, the answer would be no, unlike Alonso who walked into a much advantaged situation at Le Mans, you reap what you sow, Alonso started the put downs first.

If we were talking about how much the team earned it, I would completely agree with you. Mercedes earned their championships far more than Toyota earned this Le Mans win. However, since the driver has just about nothing to do with making a winning car, they earn the win by driving it faster than the rest - and in that regard, Alonso (and teammates) defeating one equal car to win is precisely the same as what Hamilton or Rosberg were doing from 2014-2016.

So what if Hamilton didn't walk into a dominant car and had to wait a year? He still won two titles (and lost one) in a car that had no competition. Does it somehow make his driving more impressive that he happened to be on the market a year before the engine switch instead of after?

pokerman wrote:
Winning the Indy500 will be far, far more difficult for Alonso.

No argument there, but I don't see how its relevant.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 8:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2957
Location: UK
I went to Le Mans for the first time this year and cannot recommend it enough. In terms of the spectacle and the accessibility to the fans it far surpasses attending any F1 Grand Prix weekend. Mulsanne at night is truly spectacular.

The only real negative was the appalling behaviour of some of the British fans, who seemed mostly interested in getting hideously drunk, blaring out godawful dance music until 3am every night and setting fire to whatever they could find unattended in the campsite.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28712
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
It's only a slight difference from many, many victories throughout the history of F1 and endurance racing alike. There have been numerous seasons and championships where one team had such an advantage that the only thing that could have stopped them from winning was a mechanical failure. In fact, I would go so far as to say that over the total history of auto racing, it's the norm. It's unusual to only officially have one team running at the top spec, but it's quite normal for it to happen in effect.

We spent three years being told how it was interesting to watch the two cars of your favorite team battle each other for race wins and championships, so I would think you'd appreciate seeing a tense battle between teammates for victory. 8)

There was basically no competition it's one thing for a manufacturer to do a better job then another, than to be the only manufacturer competing, this kind of swings round to what Alonso said before the race about undeserved titles and undeserved wins because of unfair advantages, I see double standards at play here, did Vettel and Hamilton walk into a dominant car at Red Bull and Mercedes, the answer would be no, unlike Alonso who walked into a much advantaged situation at Le Mans, you reap what you sow, Alonso started the put downs first.

Winning the Indy500 will be far, far more difficult for Alonso.

I too see double standards at play from Alonso, particularly in light of his comments on undeserved titles, but I also think there is not a great deal of difference between what he did at Le Mans and what the Mercedes drivers did between 2014-2016. They both had limited opposition and basically had to beat only reliability and their sister car.

I wonder why you didn't include Vettel who I mentioned and who clearly is Alonso's main target?

Back to what you said about Hamilton and Rosberg, Rosberg joined Mercedes in 2010 so he earned his spurs so to speak, Hamilton joined Mercedes in 2013 when they were a midfield team the year before, what Alonso did with Toyota this year would be the equivalent of Hamilton joining Mercedes in 2015 after seeing they were dominant, by the way this is something that Alonso himself attempted, also let's not forget that Toyota stalwart Anthony Davidson had to step down for Alonso so Alonso inherited the glory from a guy who put in all the ground work, now if Alonso had competed in Le Mans last year when it was competitive then the nature of what Alonso did this year would be more in line with what Hamilton did at Mercedes.

Because I don't see the Red Bull as being in the same dominant league as the F1 Mercedes and the WEC Toyota? Those have obvious similarities

It could be argued that Alonso put in the groundwork by virtue of proving himself so well in F1 that Toyota were keen to get him onboard, but that's besides the point anyway. It's about the actual racing, not what went on before.

I'm not passing judgement here, other than to say that in terms of winning a title without much competition, there are pretty close similarities between Alonso at Le Mans and the Merc drivers between 2014-2016. I don't think you need to get defensive on it.

Alonso's jibes have normally been against Vettel yet you have chosen to focus on Mercedes, Ive already explained why is not like for like the same, why did Toyota with a dominant car need Alonso to win Le Mans, that was pure marketing.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28712
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Exediron wrote:
There was basically no competition it's one thing for a manufacturer to do a better job then another, than to be the only manufacturer competing, this kind of swings round to what Alonso said before the race about undeserved titles and undeserved wins because of unfair advantages, I see double standards at play here, did Vettel and Hamilton walk into a dominant car at Red Bull and Mercedes, the answer would be no, unlike Alonso who walked into a much advantaged situation at Le Mans, you reap what you sow, Alonso started the put downs first.

Winning the Indy500 will be far, far more difficult for Alonso.

I too see double standards at play from Alonso, particularly in light of his comments on undeserved titles, but I also think there is not a great deal of difference between what he did at Le Mans and what the Mercedes drivers did between 2014-2016. They both had limited opposition and basically had to beat only reliability and their sister car.

I wonder why you didn't include Vettel who I mentioned and who clearly is Alonso's main target?

Back to what you said about Hamilton and Rosberg, Rosberg joined Mercedes in 2010 so he earned his spurs so to speak, Hamilton joined Mercedes in 2013 when they were a midfield team the year before, what Alonso did with Toyota this year would be the equivalent of Hamilton joining Mercedes in 2015 after seeing they were dominant, by the way this is something that Alonso himself attempted, also let's not forget that Toyota stalwart Anthony Davidson had to step down for Alonso so Alonso inherited the glory from a guy who put in all the ground work, now if Alonso had competed in Le Mans last year when it was competitive then the nature of what Alonso did this year would be more in line with what Hamilton did at Mercedes.


What does when you sign have to do with it? What ground work towards the turbo engine did Nico and Lewis do exactly?

Total rubbish, dominant machinery is dominant machinery, the drivers don't build the bloody thing, they get given it to drive. When you're given it doesn't matter and it's a fair comparison, like 92 Williams say, because it's a two car fight between team mates.

Seb's Red Bulls didn't have quite the advantage of those types, the RB6 being the closest but that was more half a second to a second rather than 1-2 seconds so you can't really mention those as comparisons as other cars could get there track dependent so it wasn't a two car fight.

Last year wouldn't work as a comparison either as there was more than just a fight between teamates. And Anthony got the short end of the stick because he drove poorly last year for Toyota. He could've had one of the other seats outside of the Japanese pair and Alonso but he didn't drive as well as they did so nothing unfair about it.

Toyota didn't need Alonso to win Le Mans so dropping Davidson wasn't a necessity, am I missing the Alonso message that F1 is unfair because of car disparities yet he himself is happy to walk into an advantaged position?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Last edited by pokerman on Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28712
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
There was basically no competition it's one thing for a manufacturer to do a better job then another, than to be the only manufacturer competing, this kind of swings round to what Alonso said before the race about undeserved titles and undeserved wins because of unfair advantages, I see double standards at play here, did Vettel and Hamilton walk into a dominant car at Red Bull and Mercedes, the answer would be no, unlike Alonso who walked into a much advantaged situation at Le Mans, you reap what you sow, Alonso started the put downs first.

If we were talking about how much the team earned it, I would completely agree with you. Mercedes earned their championships far more than Toyota earned this Le Mans win. However, since the driver has just about nothing to do with making a winning car, they earn the win by driving it faster than the rest - and in that regard, Alonso (and teammates) defeating one equal car to win is precisely the same as what Hamilton or Rosberg were doing from 2014-2016.

So what if Hamilton didn't walk into a dominant car and had to wait a year? He still won two titles (and lost one) in a car that had no competition. Does it somehow make his driving more impressive that he happened to be on the market a year before the engine switch instead of after?

pokerman wrote:
Winning the Indy500 will be far, far more difficult for Alonso.

No argument there, but I don't see how its relevant.

Are we missing what Alonso said about F1 before he walked into this advantaged position in WEC and in particular Le Mans?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5017
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I too see double standards at play from Alonso, particularly in light of his comments on undeserved titles, but I also think there is not a great deal of difference between what he did at Le Mans and what the Mercedes drivers did between 2014-2016. They both had limited opposition and basically had to beat only reliability and their sister car.

I wonder why you didn't include Vettel who I mentioned and who clearly is Alonso's main target?

Back to what you said about Hamilton and Rosberg, Rosberg joined Mercedes in 2010 so he earned his spurs so to speak, Hamilton joined Mercedes in 2013 when they were a midfield team the year before, what Alonso did with Toyota this year would be the equivalent of Hamilton joining Mercedes in 2015 after seeing they were dominant, by the way this is something that Alonso himself attempted, also let's not forget that Toyota stalwart Anthony Davidson had to step down for Alonso so Alonso inherited the glory from a guy who put in all the ground work, now if Alonso had competed in Le Mans last year when it was competitive then the nature of what Alonso did this year would be more in line with what Hamilton did at Mercedes.


What does when you sign have to do with it? What ground work towards the turbo engine did Nico and Lewis do exactly?

Total rubbish, dominant machinery is dominant machinery, the drivers don't build the bloody thing, they get given it to drive. When you're given it doesn't matter and it's a fair comparison, like 92 Williams say, because it's a two car fight between team mates.

Seb's Red Bulls didn't have quite the advantage of those types, the RB6 being the closest but that was more half a second to a second rather than 1-2 seconds so you can't really mention those as comparisons as other cars could get there track dependent so it wasn't a two car fight.

Last year wouldn't work as a comparison either as there was more than just a fight between teamates. And Anthony got the short end of the stick because he drove poorly last year for Toyota. He could've had one of the other seats outside of the Japanese pair and Alonso but he didn't drive as well as they did so nothing unfair about it.

Toyota didn't need Alonso to win Le Mans so dropping Davidson wasn't a necessity, am I missing the Alonso message that F1 is unfair because of car disparities yet he himself is happy to walk into an advantaged position?


Mercedes didn't need Rosberg and Lewis either, they wanted them much like Toyota wanted Alonso. Dropping Davidson was obviously a necessity in Toyota's eyes or they wouldn't have done it.

I think you've invented that message so I don't know what you want me to say to it.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28712
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I wonder why you didn't include Vettel who I mentioned and who clearly is Alonso's main target?

Back to what you said about Hamilton and Rosberg, Rosberg joined Mercedes in 2010 so he earned his spurs so to speak, Hamilton joined Mercedes in 2013 when they were a midfield team the year before, what Alonso did with Toyota this year would be the equivalent of Hamilton joining Mercedes in 2015 after seeing they were dominant, by the way this is something that Alonso himself attempted, also let's not forget that Toyota stalwart Anthony Davidson had to step down for Alonso so Alonso inherited the glory from a guy who put in all the ground work, now if Alonso had competed in Le Mans last year when it was competitive then the nature of what Alonso did this year would be more in line with what Hamilton did at Mercedes.


What does when you sign have to do with it? What ground work towards the turbo engine did Nico and Lewis do exactly?

Total rubbish, dominant machinery is dominant machinery, the drivers don't build the bloody thing, they get given it to drive. When you're given it doesn't matter and it's a fair comparison, like 92 Williams say, because it's a two car fight between team mates.

Seb's Red Bulls didn't have quite the advantage of those types, the RB6 being the closest but that was more half a second to a second rather than 1-2 seconds so you can't really mention those as comparisons as other cars could get there track dependent so it wasn't a two car fight.

Last year wouldn't work as a comparison either as there was more than just a fight between teamates. And Anthony got the short end of the stick because he drove poorly last year for Toyota. He could've had one of the other seats outside of the Japanese pair and Alonso but he didn't drive as well as they did so nothing unfair about it.

Toyota didn't need Alonso to win Le Mans so dropping Davidson wasn't a necessity, am I missing the Alonso message that F1 is unfair because of car disparities yet he himself is happy to walk into an advantaged position?


Mercedes didn't need Rosberg and Lewis either, they wanted them much like Toyota wanted Alonso. Dropping Davidson was obviously a necessity in Toyota's eyes or they wouldn't have done it.

I think you've invented that message so I don't know what you want me to say to it.

Mercedes needed Hamilton when they signed him during their period as a midfield team, however after 2014 when they had a dominant car they would have no need to sign Hamilton to the team for their immediate success much like Toyota had no need of Alonso to win Le Mans, Hamilton made a commitment to Mercedes and later reaped the reward whilst Alonso just wanted to walk into a winning situation.

Regarding Alonso then what did he mean by all the trophies that drivers have that they don't deserve and every trophy he has he has deserved?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6220
Location: Michigan, USA
pokerman wrote:
Regarding Alonso then what did he mean by all the trophies that drivers have that they don't deserve and every trophy he has he has deserved?

Because he thinks he's the best driver, and any time he wins he deserved it because he was the best anyway. I don't think it's hard to figure out, whether or not you agree with him. It's the same reason he considered Lewis a deserving champion in 2014 despite having virtually no opposition - he thinks Hamilton deserves to be a champion, whereas for whatever reason he clearly does not have the same opinion of Vettel. In his mindset, the fact that he drove faster than any of the other Toyota drivers at Le Mans would confirm that he deserved the win, because he was the best driver there.

pokerman wrote:
Mercedes needed Hamilton when they signed him during their period as a midfield team, however after 2014 when they had a dominant car they would have no need to sign Hamilton to the team for their immediate success much like Toyota had no need of Alonso to win Le Mans, Hamilton made a commitment to Mercedes and later reaped the reward whilst Alonso just wanted to walk into a winning situation.

Mercedes needed Hamilton because Schumacher was retiring: they needed a highly marketable face for the team. That's the same reason Toyota wanted Alonso.

Hamilton joined Mercedes because he wanted out of McLaren and couldn't get into Red Bull: it was his good fortune that the car became dominant. He didn't put in years trundling around in the midfield like Rosberg did - the car was a winner and pole-sitter in his very first year, and then the year after that it was unstoppable. That's a pretty weak form of paying your dues, IMO.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5017
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:

What does when you sign have to do with it? What ground work towards the turbo engine did Nico and Lewis do exactly?

Total rubbish, dominant machinery is dominant machinery, the drivers don't build the bloody thing, they get given it to drive. When you're given it doesn't matter and it's a fair comparison, like 92 Williams say, because it's a two car fight between team mates.

Seb's Red Bulls didn't have quite the advantage of those types, the RB6 being the closest but that was more half a second to a second rather than 1-2 seconds so you can't really mention those as comparisons as other cars could get there track dependent so it wasn't a two car fight.

Last year wouldn't work as a comparison either as there was more than just a fight between teamates. And Anthony got the short end of the stick because he drove poorly last year for Toyota. He could've had one of the other seats outside of the Japanese pair and Alonso but he didn't drive as well as they did so nothing unfair about it.

Toyota didn't need Alonso to win Le Mans so dropping Davidson wasn't a necessity, am I missing the Alonso message that F1 is unfair because of car disparities yet he himself is happy to walk into an advantaged position?


Mercedes didn't need Rosberg and Lewis either, they wanted them much like Toyota wanted Alonso. Dropping Davidson was obviously a necessity in Toyota's eyes or they wouldn't have done it.

I think you've invented that message so I don't know what you want me to say to it.

Mercedes needed Hamilton when they signed him during their period as a midfield team, however after 2014 when they had a dominant car they would have no need to sign Hamilton to the team for their immediate success much like Toyota had no need of Alonso to win Le Mans, Hamilton made a commitment to Mercedes and later reaped the reward whilst Alonso just wanted to walk into a winning situation.

Regarding Alonso then what did he mean by all the trophies that drivers have that they don't deserve and every trophy he has he has deserved?


They didn't need him to build the engine that was the reason for their dominance, they wanted him because he's a top driver and hugely marketable for them, the same reason Toyota wanted Alonso in the car. Hamilton tried to go to Red Bull, pulling an Alonso in your eyes, but was rebuffed so went to Mercedes because Brawn and Lauda sold him on the turbo era and they were right.

He means if he drove slower or just worse in general than his rival but he took home the stats it would feel undeserved and in his opinion his aren't and some of his rivals who have more are. Arrogant and subjective of course but not about the dominance of your equipment but on performance.

If we'd seen a Spa repeat with the No.8 winning because the No.7 got unlucky and then told to hold station while Alonso was slower than two of the No.7 cars in Lemans then that's what he means and his Spa victory actually fits quite well.

Lemans not because he was the quickest driver in the quickest of the Toyota's and his stint played a huge part in the win so it was deserved.

_________________
"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: Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23932
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
There was basically no competition it's one thing for a manufacturer to do a better job then another, than to be the only manufacturer competing, this kind of swings round to what Alonso said before the race about undeserved titles and undeserved wins because of unfair advantages, I see double standards at play here, did Vettel and Hamilton walk into a dominant car at Red Bull and Mercedes, the answer would be no, unlike Alonso who walked into a much advantaged situation at Le Mans, you reap what you sow, Alonso started the put downs first.

Winning the Indy500 will be far, far more difficult for Alonso.

I too see double standards at play from Alonso, particularly in light of his comments on undeserved titles, but I also think there is not a great deal of difference between what he did at Le Mans and what the Mercedes drivers did between 2014-2016. They both had limited opposition and basically had to beat only reliability and their sister car.

I wonder why you didn't include Vettel who I mentioned and who clearly is Alonso's main target?

Back to what you said about Hamilton and Rosberg, Rosberg joined Mercedes in 2010 so he earned his spurs so to speak, Hamilton joined Mercedes in 2013 when they were a midfield team the year before, what Alonso did with Toyota this year would be the equivalent of Hamilton joining Mercedes in 2015 after seeing they were dominant, by the way this is something that Alonso himself attempted, also let's not forget that Toyota stalwart Anthony Davidson had to step down for Alonso so Alonso inherited the glory from a guy who put in all the ground work, now if Alonso had competed in Le Mans last year when it was competitive then the nature of what Alonso did this year would be more in line with what Hamilton did at Mercedes.

Because I don't see the Red Bull as being in the same dominant league as the F1 Mercedes and the WEC Toyota? Those have obvious similarities

It could be argued that Alonso put in the groundwork by virtue of proving himself so well in F1 that Toyota were keen to get him onboard, but that's besides the point anyway. It's about the actual racing, not what went on before.

I'm not passing judgement here, other than to say that in terms of winning a title without much competition, there are pretty close similarities between Alonso at Le Mans and the Merc drivers between 2014-2016. I don't think you need to get defensive on it.

Alonso's jibes have normally been against Vettel yet you have chosen to focus on Mercedes, Ive already explained why is not like for like the same, why did Toyota with a dominant car need Alonso to win Le Mans, that was pure marketing.

I think it's more that you are trying to focus it on Vettel, but the trouble is the comparison is weak. Like I've already said the more apt parallel in terms of equipment is that of Mercedes between 2014-2016. Whatever Alonso's intentions - and since he didn't actually name anyone it's difficult to say who exactly he was targeting - the only cars in recent history with comparable levels of dominance that Toyota enjoyed at Le Mans were those Mercs.

As regards your explanation, I'm not the only one who has explained to you just how irrelevant drivers "paying their dues" is to the equation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:04 pm
Posts: 752
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Regarding Alonso then what did he mean by all the trophies that drivers have that they don't deserve and every trophy he has he has deserved?

Because he thinks he's the best driver, and any time he wins he deserved it because he was the best anyway. I don't think it's hard to figure out, whether or not you agree with him. It's the same reason he considered Lewis a deserving champion in 2014 despite having virtually no opposition - he thinks Hamilton deserves to be a champion, whereas for whatever reason he clearly does not have the same opinion of Vettel. In his mindset, the fact that he drove faster than any of the other Toyota drivers at Le Mans would confirm that he deserved the win, because he was the best driver there.

pokerman wrote:
Mercedes needed Hamilton when they signed him during their period as a midfield team, however after 2014 when they had a dominant car they would have no need to sign Hamilton to the team for their immediate success much like Toyota had no need of Alonso to win Le Mans, Hamilton made a commitment to Mercedes and later reaped the reward whilst Alonso just wanted to walk into a winning situation.

Mercedes needed Hamilton because Schumacher was retiring: they needed a highly marketable face for the team. That's the same reason Toyota wanted Alonso.

Hamilton joined Mercedes because he wanted out of McLaren and couldn't get into Red Bull: it was his good fortune that the car became dominant. He didn't put in years trundling around in the midfield like Rosberg did - the car was a winner and pole-sitter in his very first year, and then the year after that it was unstoppable. That's a pretty weak form of paying your dues, IMO.


Hamilton would have driven for Mercedes anyways... It could have been in 2015 or in 2016 but he would have gotten that car because he, Lewis Hamilton has ALWAYS been a Mercedes driver(Not Alonso, not Vettel or Raikkonen) since he was a kid and has won all of his championships with a Mercedes engine in the car.
And the 2014 car didn't become dominant by chance, they knew the engine was excellent and they "fixed" their tyres problems in 2013 with the help of Pirelli and Bernie Ecclestone.
It is also important to remember that Dr. Zetsche (and the Board) is a big fan of Hamilton, something we could not say of Alonso.

If most F1 fans think that Alonso/Vettel/Hamilton are interchangeable and the success is only the result of "good fortune", I am sorry but I would say that most F1 fans are naive.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23932
Pullrod wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Regarding Alonso then what did he mean by all the trophies that drivers have that they don't deserve and every trophy he has he has deserved?

Because he thinks he's the best driver, and any time he wins he deserved it because he was the best anyway. I don't think it's hard to figure out, whether or not you agree with him. It's the same reason he considered Lewis a deserving champion in 2014 despite having virtually no opposition - he thinks Hamilton deserves to be a champion, whereas for whatever reason he clearly does not have the same opinion of Vettel. In his mindset, the fact that he drove faster than any of the other Toyota drivers at Le Mans would confirm that he deserved the win, because he was the best driver there.

pokerman wrote:
Mercedes needed Hamilton when they signed him during their period as a midfield team, however after 2014 when they had a dominant car they would have no need to sign Hamilton to the team for their immediate success much like Toyota had no need of Alonso to win Le Mans, Hamilton made a commitment to Mercedes and later reaped the reward whilst Alonso just wanted to walk into a winning situation.

Mercedes needed Hamilton because Schumacher was retiring: they needed a highly marketable face for the team. That's the same reason Toyota wanted Alonso.

Hamilton joined Mercedes because he wanted out of McLaren and couldn't get into Red Bull: it was his good fortune that the car became dominant. He didn't put in years trundling around in the midfield like Rosberg did - the car was a winner and pole-sitter in his very first year, and then the year after that it was unstoppable. That's a pretty weak form of paying your dues, IMO.


Hamilton would have driven for Mercedes anyways... It could have been in 2015 or in 2016 but he would have gotten that car because he, Lewis Hamilton has ALWAYS been a Mercedes driver(Not Alonso, not Vettel or Raikkonen) since he was a kid and has won all of his championships with a Mercedes engine in the car.
And the 2014 car didn't become dominant by chance, they knew the engine was excellent and they "fixed" their tyres problems in 2013 with the help of Pirelli and Bernie Ecclestone.
It is also important to remember that Dr. Zetsche (and the Board) is a big fan of Hamilton, something we could not say of Alonso.

If most F1 fans think that Alonso/Vettel/Hamilton are interchangeable and the success is only the result of "good fortune", I am sorry but I would say that most F1 fans are naive.

BIB: I would suggest it's more naïve to think otherwise. None of the drivers can significantly influence a car's development, not these days. It was Vettel's good fortune that he joined Red Bull just before they hit the big time; it was Hamilton's that he did likewise with Mercedes; and it was Alonso's poor fortune that Honda didn't deliver on the promises they made. Any of that triumvirate would likely have had similar success to the other if they had enjoyed each other's equipment at the time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:04 pm
Posts: 752
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Toyota didn't need Alonso to win Le Mans so dropping Davidson wasn't a necessity, am I missing the Alonso message that F1 is unfair because of car disparities yet he himself is happy to walk into an advantaged position?


Mercedes didn't need Rosberg and Lewis either, they wanted them much like Toyota wanted Alonso. Dropping Davidson was obviously a necessity in Toyota's eyes or they wouldn't have done it.

I think you've invented that message so I don't know what you want me to say to it.

Mercedes needed Hamilton when they signed him during their period as a midfield team, however after 2014 when they had a dominant car they would have no need to sign Hamilton to the team for their immediate success much like Toyota had no need of Alonso to win Le Mans, Hamilton made a commitment to Mercedes and later reaped the reward whilst Alonso just wanted to walk into a winning situation.

Regarding Alonso then what did he mean by all the trophies that drivers have that they don't deserve and every trophy he has he has deserved?


They didn't need him to build the engine that was the reason for their dominance, they wanted him because he's a top driver and hugely marketable for them, the same reason Toyota wanted Alonso in the car. Hamilton tried to go to Red Bull, pulling an Alonso in your eyes, but was rebuffed so went to Mercedes because Brawn and Lauda sold him on the turbo era and they were right.

He means if he drove slower or just worse in general than his rival but he took home the stats it would feel undeserved and in his opinion his aren't and some of his rivals who have more are. Arrogant and subjective of course but not about the dominance of your equipment but on performance.

If we'd seen a Spa repeat with the No.8 winning because the No.7 got unlucky and then told to hold station while Alonso was slower than two of the No.7 cars in Lemans then that's what he means and his Spa victory actually fits quite well.

Lemans not because he was the quickest driver in the quickest of the Toyota's and his stint played a huge part in the win so it was deserved.


Hamilton didn't try an Alonso. He wanted to fight Vettel in the same team and he did it in front of the cameras, whilst Alonso with Briatore tried to engineer(behind closed doors with politics) a swap between Hamilton and Alonso so that Fernando could drive for Mercedes but without Lewis. (Remember the politics Rosberg was talking about?? You are free to believe of not but it happened in 2014)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:04 pm
Posts: 752
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Regarding Alonso then what did he mean by all the trophies that drivers have that they don't deserve and every trophy he has he has deserved?

Because he thinks he's the best driver, and any time he wins he deserved it because he was the best anyway. I don't think it's hard to figure out, whether or not you agree with him. It's the same reason he considered Lewis a deserving champion in 2014 despite having virtually no opposition - he thinks Hamilton deserves to be a champion, whereas for whatever reason he clearly does not have the same opinion of Vettel. In his mindset, the fact that he drove faster than any of the other Toyota drivers at Le Mans would confirm that he deserved the win, because he was the best driver there.

pokerman wrote:
Mercedes needed Hamilton when they signed him during their period as a midfield team, however after 2014 when they had a dominant car they would have no need to sign Hamilton to the team for their immediate success much like Toyota had no need of Alonso to win Le Mans, Hamilton made a commitment to Mercedes and later reaped the reward whilst Alonso just wanted to walk into a winning situation.

Mercedes needed Hamilton because Schumacher was retiring: they needed a highly marketable face for the team. That's the same reason Toyota wanted Alonso.

Hamilton joined Mercedes because he wanted out of McLaren and couldn't get into Red Bull: it was his good fortune that the car became dominant. He didn't put in years trundling around in the midfield like Rosberg did - the car was a winner and pole-sitter in his very first year, and then the year after that it was unstoppable. That's a pretty weak form of paying your dues, IMO.


Hamilton would have driven for Mercedes anyways... It could have been in 2015 or in 2016 but he would have gotten that car because he, Lewis Hamilton has ALWAYS been a Mercedes driver(Not Alonso, not Vettel or Raikkonen) since he was a kid and has won all of his championships with a Mercedes engine in the car.
And the 2014 car didn't become dominant by chance, they knew the engine was excellent and they "fixed" their tyres problems in 2013 with the help of Pirelli and Bernie Ecclestone.
It is also important to remember that Dr. Zetsche (and the Board) is a big fan of Hamilton, something we could not say of Alonso.

If most F1 fans think that Alonso/Vettel/Hamilton are interchangeable and the success is only the result of "good fortune", I am sorry but I would say that most F1 fans are naive.

BIB: I would suggest it's more naïve to think otherwise. None of the drivers can significantly influence a car's development, not these days. It was Vettel's good fortune that he joined Red Bull just before they hit the big time; it was Hamilton's that he did likewise with Mercedes; and it was Alonso's poor fortune that Honda didn't deliver on the promises they made. Any of that triumvirate would likely have had similar success to the other if they had enjoyed each other's equipment at the time.


It is again naive to think the way you do.
The teams choose and pick who to put in their cars and you will not achieve LONG TERM success if you are not made of the right thing( a combination of talent, marketability and sharing of the company's ethos).
You can luck into 1 or 2 WDC but that's it.


Last edited by Pullrod on Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
Zoue wrote:
BIB: I would suggest it's more naïve to think otherwise. None of the drivers can significantly influence a car's development, not these days. It was Vettel's good fortune that he joined Red Bull just before they hit the big time


I'm not really that sure about this. Remember some comments about Newey back in the days about how he liked to design a car, and how he found in Vettel a driver that could really exploit this ideal design, needing a counterintuitive driving style and thus not a perfect match for any and all drivers. And so he could go on in the design direction he wanted, something he might not have been able to do with other drivers.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23932
mds wrote:
Zoue wrote:
BIB: I would suggest it's more naïve to think otherwise. None of the drivers can significantly influence a car's development, not these days. It was Vettel's good fortune that he joined Red Bull just before they hit the big time


I'm not really that sure about this. Remember some comments about Newey back in the days about how he liked to design a car, and how he found in Vettel a driver that could really exploit this ideal design, needing a counterintuitive driving style and thus not a perfect match for any and all drivers. And so he could go on in the design direction he wanted, something he might not have been able to do with other drivers.

That was more luck than judgement, though, in that Vettel could drive in the way that got the best out of Newey's car. I take your point but at the same time I find it hard to believe that a driver as adaptable as Alonso wouldn't have been able to get the best out of it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:04 pm
Posts: 752
Zoue wrote:
mds wrote:
Zoue wrote:
BIB: I would suggest it's more naïve to think otherwise. None of the drivers can significantly influence a car's development, not these days. It was Vettel's good fortune that he joined Red Bull just before they hit the big time


I'm not really that sure about this. Remember some comments about Newey back in the days about how he liked to design a car, and how he found in Vettel a driver that could really exploit this ideal design, needing a counterintuitive driving style and thus not a perfect match for any and all drivers. And so he could go on in the design direction he wanted, something he might not have been able to do with other drivers.

That was more luck than judgement, though, in that Vettel could drive in the way that got the best out of Newey's car. I take your point but at the same time I find it hard to believe that a driver as adaptable as Alonso wouldn't have been able to get the best out of it.


You have to be the best at a certain way of driving not sufficient or more than average to get the most out of it.
Engineers may design cars on computers, but they need track data and results to validate their design.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
Zoue wrote:
mds wrote:
Zoue wrote:
BIB: I would suggest it's more naïve to think otherwise. None of the drivers can significantly influence a car's development, not these days. It was Vettel's good fortune that he joined Red Bull just before they hit the big time


I'm not really that sure about this. Remember some comments about Newey back in the days about how he liked to design a car, and how he found in Vettel a driver that could really exploit this ideal design, needing a counterintuitive driving style and thus not a perfect match for any and all drivers. And so he could go on in the design direction he wanted, something he might not have been able to do with other drivers.

That was more luck than judgement, though, in that Vettel could drive in the way that got the best out of Newey's car. I take your point but at the same time I find it hard to believe that a driver as adaptable as Alonso wouldn't have been able to get the best out of it.


Vettel surely wouldn't really be the only one to exploit it (maybe the best one at it though, but that's arguable and cannot be proven). Just wanted to point out that while a driver cannot develop the car by himself, he can allow the designer the freedom to go in a certain direction and thus indirectly influence the design and development.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23932
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Regarding Alonso then what did he mean by all the trophies that drivers have that they don't deserve and every trophy he has he has deserved?

Because he thinks he's the best driver, and any time he wins he deserved it because he was the best anyway. I don't think it's hard to figure out, whether or not you agree with him. It's the same reason he considered Lewis a deserving champion in 2014 despite having virtually no opposition - he thinks Hamilton deserves to be a champion, whereas for whatever reason he clearly does not have the same opinion of Vettel. In his mindset, the fact that he drove faster than any of the other Toyota drivers at Le Mans would confirm that he deserved the win, because he was the best driver there.

pokerman wrote:
Mercedes needed Hamilton when they signed him during their period as a midfield team, however after 2014 when they had a dominant car they would have no need to sign Hamilton to the team for their immediate success much like Toyota had no need of Alonso to win Le Mans, Hamilton made a commitment to Mercedes and later reaped the reward whilst Alonso just wanted to walk into a winning situation.

Mercedes needed Hamilton because Schumacher was retiring: they needed a highly marketable face for the team. That's the same reason Toyota wanted Alonso.

Hamilton joined Mercedes because he wanted out of McLaren and couldn't get into Red Bull: it was his good fortune that the car became dominant. He didn't put in years trundling around in the midfield like Rosberg did - the car was a winner and pole-sitter in his very first year, and then the year after that it was unstoppable. That's a pretty weak form of paying your dues, IMO.


Hamilton would have driven for Mercedes anyways... It could have been in 2015 or in 2016 but he would have gotten that car because he, Lewis Hamilton has ALWAYS been a Mercedes driver(Not Alonso, not Vettel or Raikkonen) since he was a kid and has won all of his championships with a Mercedes engine in the car.
And the 2014 car didn't become dominant by chance, they knew the engine was excellent and they "fixed" their tyres problems in 2013 with the help of Pirelli and Bernie Ecclestone.
It is also important to remember that Dr. Zetsche (and the Board) is a big fan of Hamilton, something we could not say of Alonso.

If most F1 fans think that Alonso/Vettel/Hamilton are interchangeable and the success is only the result of "good fortune", I am sorry but I would say that most F1 fans are naive.

BIB: I would suggest it's more naïve to think otherwise. None of the drivers can significantly influence a car's development, not these days. It was Vettel's good fortune that he joined Red Bull just before they hit the big time; it was Hamilton's that he did likewise with Mercedes; and it was Alonso's poor fortune that Honda didn't deliver on the promises they made. Any of that triumvirate would likely have had similar success to the other if they had enjoyed each other's equipment at the time.


It is again naive to think the way you do.
The teams choose and pick who to put in their cars and you will not achieve LONG TERM success if you are not made of the right thing( a combination of talent, marketability and sharing of the company's ethos).
You can luck into 1 or 2 WDC but that's it.

No-one's suggesting the teams don't choose their drivers. But several factors contribute to that choice. Hamilton went knocking on Red Bull's door but was rejected. Does that mean they think he wasn't good enough? Or - more likely IMO - were they just happy with the lineup they had and didn't feel the need for another superstar driver? And wasn't Hamilton fortunate that they didn't take him on? Because otherwise he likely would never have sat in the Mercedes seat. So yes, good fortune does play a part in things.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:04 pm
Posts: 752
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Because he thinks he's the best driver, and any time he wins he deserved it because he was the best anyway. I don't think it's hard to figure out, whether or not you agree with him. It's the same reason he considered Lewis a deserving champion in 2014 despite having virtually no opposition - he thinks Hamilton deserves to be a champion, whereas for whatever reason he clearly does not have the same opinion of Vettel. In his mindset, the fact that he drove faster than any of the other Toyota drivers at Le Mans would confirm that he deserved the win, because he was the best driver there.

Mercedes needed Hamilton because Schumacher was retiring: they needed a highly marketable face for the team. That's the same reason Toyota wanted Alonso.

Hamilton joined Mercedes because he wanted out of McLaren and couldn't get into Red Bull: it was his good fortune that the car became dominant. He didn't put in years trundling around in the midfield like Rosberg did - the car was a winner and pole-sitter in his very first year, and then the year after that it was unstoppable. That's a pretty weak form of paying your dues, IMO.


Hamilton would have driven for Mercedes anyways... It could have been in 2015 or in 2016 but he would have gotten that car because he, Lewis Hamilton has ALWAYS been a Mercedes driver(Not Alonso, not Vettel or Raikkonen) since he was a kid and has won all of his championships with a Mercedes engine in the car.
And the 2014 car didn't become dominant by chance, they knew the engine was excellent and they "fixed" their tyres problems in 2013 with the help of Pirelli and Bernie Ecclestone.
It is also important to remember that Dr. Zetsche (and the Board) is a big fan of Hamilton, something we could not say of Alonso.

If most F1 fans think that Alonso/Vettel/Hamilton are interchangeable and the success is only the result of "good fortune", I am sorry but I would say that most F1 fans are naive.

BIB: I would suggest it's more naïve to think otherwise. None of the drivers can significantly influence a car's development, not these days. It was Vettel's good fortune that he joined Red Bull just before they hit the big time; it was Hamilton's that he did likewise with Mercedes; and it was Alonso's poor fortune that Honda didn't deliver on the promises they made. Any of that triumvirate would likely have had similar success to the other if they had enjoyed each other's equipment at the time.


It is again naive to think the way you do.
The teams choose and pick who to put in their cars and you will not achieve LONG TERM success if you are not made of the right thing( a combination of talent, marketability and sharing of the company's ethos).
You can luck into 1 or 2 WDC but that's it.

No-one's suggesting the teams don't choose their drivers. But several factors contribute to that choice. Hamilton went knocking on Red Bull's door but was rejected. Does that mean they think he wasn't good enough? Or - more likely IMO - were they just happy with the lineup they had and didn't feel the need for another superstar driver? And wasn't Hamilton fortunate that they didn't take him on? Because otherwise he likely would never have sat in the Mercedes seat. So yes, good fortune does play a part in things.


Hamilton to RedBull in 2012 would have meant a stronger RedBull and a weaker McLaren with LESS poles and wins and an even lesser chance for Alonso to shine that season.
IMHO Hamilton would have found his way into the Mercedes car given his history with the German Brand and it doesn't matter if it would have been 2014, 2015 or 2016 he would have gone there. No doubt about it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23932
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Hamilton would have driven for Mercedes anyways... It could have been in 2015 or in 2016 but he would have gotten that car because he, Lewis Hamilton has ALWAYS been a Mercedes driver(Not Alonso, not Vettel or Raikkonen) since he was a kid and has won all of his championships with a Mercedes engine in the car.
And the 2014 car didn't become dominant by chance, they knew the engine was excellent and they "fixed" their tyres problems in 2013 with the help of Pirelli and Bernie Ecclestone.
It is also important to remember that Dr. Zetsche (and the Board) is a big fan of Hamilton, something we could not say of Alonso.

If most F1 fans think that Alonso/Vettel/Hamilton are interchangeable and the success is only the result of "good fortune", I am sorry but I would say that most F1 fans are naive.

BIB: I would suggest it's more naïve to think otherwise. None of the drivers can significantly influence a car's development, not these days. It was Vettel's good fortune that he joined Red Bull just before they hit the big time; it was Hamilton's that he did likewise with Mercedes; and it was Alonso's poor fortune that Honda didn't deliver on the promises they made. Any of that triumvirate would likely have had similar success to the other if they had enjoyed each other's equipment at the time.


It is again naive to think the way you do.
The teams choose and pick who to put in their cars and you will not achieve LONG TERM success if you are not made of the right thing( a combination of talent, marketability and sharing of the company's ethos).
You can luck into 1 or 2 WDC but that's it.

No-one's suggesting the teams don't choose their drivers. But several factors contribute to that choice. Hamilton went knocking on Red Bull's door but was rejected. Does that mean they think he wasn't good enough? Or - more likely IMO - were they just happy with the lineup they had and didn't feel the need for another superstar driver? And wasn't Hamilton fortunate that they didn't take him on? Because otherwise he likely would never have sat in the Mercedes seat. So yes, good fortune does play a part in things.


Hamilton to RedBull in 2012 would have meant a stronger RedBull and a weaker McLaren with LESS poles and wins and an even lesser chance for Alonso to shine that season.
IMHO Hamilton would have found his way to the Mercedes car given his history with the German Brand and it doesn't matter if it would have been 2014, 2015 or 2016 he would have gone there. No doubt about it.

Of course there's doubt. It depends who else would have been sitting in the seat at the time. Say, for example, that Hamilton went to Red Bull in 2013 and Vettel went to Mercedes. It's likely that Vettel would still be there now and Hamilton wouldn't have had a look in. Why aren't Ferrari and Mercedes breaking Ricciardo's door down to join them? Because they are happy with their line ups, that's why, not because Ricciardo's not good enough. And just because Hamilton won his first title with a Mercedes engine doesn't mean he's destined to be with them forever.

I agree talent and marketability play a part, but it's talent that is the prime factor. I think sharing the company's ethos is way down the list in a team choosing a driver. You have to have the talent in the first place, but whether a seat is available at the right time for you has a healthy amount of luck involved, as does a car coming good. It's all a bit of a gamble


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: Lojik 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