planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Dec 19, 2018 6:22 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 4:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 7:11 pm
Posts: 706
Lotus49 wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
JN23 wrote:
Just read parts 1 & 2. The bit about Hungary in part 2 is very interesting, never heard some of the detail before!


If true, the allegation that he wanted the team to let Hamilton run out of fuel during the race, is a sign of a massive character flaw.
A different man would have taken the higher ground when Hamilton went out first in Qualifying and would have come away from that race with the full backing of the team.
One petulant decision and a blackmail plot later and instead of multiple WDC's he won nothing again.


That's what I always felt (That if he'd played it differently he could've left Hungary with the backing from Ron because of Lewis's action) but I assume after both the Monaco reaction and the refusal to punish Lewis in Hungary, not just for ignoring the order but (allegedly) telling Ron to go beeping swivel and not getting so much as a wrist slap for either, he didn't think the team were ever going to go against Lewis in any situation.

This was Ron Dennis getting told what to do by a rookie in no uncertain terms and for the whole team to hear twice within a handful of races, the big scary Ron. That's pretty unthinkable back then and he did nowt in return. That's obviously going to influence Alonso's thinking about who holds the power there right now.

Not that it makes the threat any better, he should've been sacked on the spot*, but I don't think McLaren were ever going to go against Lewis however Alonso played it tbh.



*Didn't know that was an option Macca were going to do, I knew Whitmarsh wanted to but not Ron. I wonder why Mosley convinced them not to? Did he really just dislike Ron so much he wanted him to suffer those two going at it all year or what?


That's my point, he never gave the team a chance to punish Lewis as he took the punishment into his own hands.
What Lewis did was subtle to the audience.
Alonso was not subtle and came out of it looking the bad guy.
It really could have been so different for him if he didn't make that decision.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 5:10 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5024
Laz_T800 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
JN23 wrote:
Just read parts 1 & 2. The bit about Hungary in part 2 is very interesting, never heard some of the detail before!


If true, the allegation that he wanted the team to let Hamilton run out of fuel during the race, is a sign of a massive character flaw.
A different man would have taken the higher ground when Hamilton went out first in Qualifying and would have come away from that race with the full backing of the team.
One petulant decision and a blackmail plot later and instead of multiple WDC's he won nothing again.


That's what I always felt (That if he'd played it differently he could've left Hungary with the backing from Ron because of Lewis's action) but I assume after both the Monaco reaction and the refusal to punish Lewis in Hungary, not just for ignoring the order but (allegedly) telling Ron to go beeping swivel and not getting so much as a wrist slap for either, he didn't think the team were ever going to go against Lewis in any situation.

This was Ron Dennis getting told what to do by a rookie in no uncertain terms and for the whole team to hear twice within a handful of races, the big scary Ron. That's pretty unthinkable back then and he did nowt in return. That's obviously going to influence Alonso's thinking about who holds the power there right now.

Not that it makes the threat any better, he should've been sacked on the spot*, but I don't think McLaren were ever going to go against Lewis however Alonso played it tbh.



*Didn't know that was an option Macca were going to do, I knew Whitmarsh wanted to but not Ron. I wonder why Mosley convinced them not to? Did he really just dislike Ron so much he wanted him to suffer those two going at it all year or what?


That's my point, he never gave the team a chance to punish Lewis as he took the punishment into his own hands.
What Lewis did was subtle to the audience.
Alonso was not subtle and came out of it looking the bad guy.
It really could have been so different for him if he didn't make that decision.


Sorry, I didn't mean the pit stop thing, I think he expected some form of punishment for Lewis that night (Saturday) probably getting fuel priority restored for a few weekends in a row or such, something to show Lewis's actions weren't going unpunished, but nothing came of it, they couldn't even stop Anthony Hamilton going to the stewards and he got the penalty late Saturday night, after midnight I think, and so the next day Lewis was now sitting pretty on pole unpunished and he was in 5th and the devil publicly because as you say he came out of the pit stop thing looking awful and was getting shreds tore off him in the paddock press and he let it get the better of him, however temporarily.

Like Whitmarsh said I can understand it more but obviously don't agree with it, I'd have still sacked him personally but I can at least see where it came from although he should've taken the threat back himself that half an hour later rather than send his manager to do it.

(Assuming all this is true of course)

_________________
"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 Nov 20, 2018 9:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28746
Exediron wrote:
Blake wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I think one of the great tragedies of 2007 was the race fuelled qualifying, shame it wasn't the same as today and let the best man win rather than one or the other car being disadvantaged.

You don't think that some cars, and subsequently their drivers, aren't disadvantaged in today's qualifying? It is not necessarily the "best man" winning the pole...best car/crewis a factor in qualifying as it is in the race.

I think he means only between teammates, where it is a pretty fair representation now. I don't believe any teams give one car a material advantage in qualifying over the other.

Yes that's what I meant. :thumbup:

_________________
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: Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28746
Mort Canard wrote:
"Fernando Alonso is refusing to rule out returning to the F1 grid in 2020 after a year of recharging his batteries."

Why does this feel akin to Arnold Schwarzenegger's declaration of "I'll be back"? Is this a promise or a threat?

Like Michael Schumacher's return to Mercedes, I don't see Fernando's return as having any opportunity to enhance his legacy. It will most likely only further add to the mediocrity exhibited in the last few years at McLaren. The chance that he would come back to a top team and resume winning races appear to be less than zero.

Like Jenson Button, Fernando should have plenty of opportunity to win in WEC or he could test himself by trying to become a winning driver in Indycar. Winning in Indycar would not be a given, but I would think he still has the chops to pose a credible threat in a decent car.

He's always inferred he would come back to F1 if he was able to come back to an improved situation for himself, hard to see it as a race winning car though so maybe not?

_________________
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: Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28746
Siao7 wrote:
Mort Canard wrote:
"Fernando Alonso is refusing to rule out returning to the F1 grid in 2020 after a year of recharging his batteries."

Why does this feel akin to Arnold Schwarzenegger's declaration of "I'll be back"? Is this a promise or a threat?

Like Michael Schumacher's return to Mercedes, I don't see Fernando's return as having any opportunity to enhance his legacy. It will most likely only further add to the mediocrity exhibited in the last few years at McLaren. The chance that he would come back to a top team and resume winning races appear to be less than zero.

Like Jenson Button, Fernando should have plenty of opportunity to win in WEC or he could test himself by trying to become a winning driver in Indycar. Winning in Indycar would not be a given, but I would think he still has the chops to pose a credible threat in a decent car.


As much as I admire Alonso as a driver, sometimes he is contradicting himself. Only a couple of days ago he said that he is leaving as F1 is a weak show (https://www.grandprix247.com/2018/11/17 ... weak-show/). Just can't take him seriously sometimes.

Well I think we all know exactly why he's leaving F1, and who can blame him, F1 is a weak show because he can't get in a winning car whilst WEC is apparently marvelous despite the fact that only two cars can win in LMP1.

_________________
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: Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28746
Lotus49 wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
JN23 wrote:
Just read parts 1 & 2. The bit about Hungary in part 2 is very interesting, never heard some of the detail before!


If true, the allegation that he wanted the team to let Hamilton run out of fuel during the race, is a sign of a massive character flaw.
A different man would have taken the higher ground when Hamilton went out first in Qualifying and would have come away from that race with the full backing of the team.
One petulant decision and a blackmail plot later and instead of multiple WDC's he won nothing again.


That's what I always felt (That if he'd played it differently he could've left Hungary with the backing from Ron because of Lewis's action) but I assume after both the Monaco reaction and the refusal to punish Lewis in Hungary, not just for ignoring the order but (allegedly) telling Ron to go beeping swivel and not getting so much as a wrist slap for either, he didn't think the team were ever going to go against Lewis in any situation.

This was Ron Dennis getting told what to do by a rookie in no uncertain terms and for the whole team to hear twice within a handful of races, the big scary Ron. That's pretty unthinkable back then and he did nowt in return. That's obviously going to influence Alonso's thinking about who holds the power there right now.

Not that it makes the threat any better, he should've been sacked on the spot*, but I don't think McLaren were ever going to go against Lewis however Alonso played it tbh.



*Didn't know that was an option Macca were going to do, I knew Whitmarsh wanted to but not Ron. I wonder why Mosley convinced them not to? Did he really just dislike Ron so much he wanted him to suffer those two going at it all year or what?


That's my point, he never gave the team a chance to punish Lewis as he took the punishment into his own hands.
What Lewis did was subtle to the audience.
Alonso was not subtle and came out of it looking the bad guy.
It really could have been so different for him if he didn't make that decision.


Sorry, I didn't mean the pit stop thing, I think he expected some form of punishment for Lewis that night (Saturday) probably getting fuel priority restored for a few weekends in a row or such, something to show Lewis's actions weren't going unpunished, but nothing came of it, they couldn't even stop Anthony Hamilton going to the stewards and he got the penalty late Saturday night, after midnight I think, and so the next day Lewis was now sitting pretty on pole unpunished and he was in 5th and the devil publicly because as you say he came out of the pit stop thing looking awful and was getting shreds tore off him in the paddock press and he let it get the better of him, however temporarily.

Like Whitmarsh said I can understand it more but obviously don't agree with it, I'd have still sacked him personally but I can at least see where it came from although he should've taken the threat back himself that half an hour later rather than send his manager to do it.

(Assuming all this is true of course)

Why are you thinking what punishment he expected for Hamilton when apparently he said what the punishment should have been, he wanted the team to run Hamilton out of fuel in the race.

_________________
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: Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:53 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5024
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:

If true, the allegation that he wanted the team to let Hamilton run out of fuel during the race, is a sign of a massive character flaw.
A different man would have taken the higher ground when Hamilton went out first in Qualifying and would have come away from that race with the full backing of the team.
One petulant decision and a blackmail plot later and instead of multiple WDC's he won nothing again.


That's what I always felt (That if he'd played it differently he could've left Hungary with the backing from Ron because of Lewis's action) but I assume after both the Monaco reaction and the refusal to punish Lewis in Hungary, not just for ignoring the order but (allegedly) telling Ron to go beeping swivel and not getting so much as a wrist slap for either, he didn't think the team were ever going to go against Lewis in any situation.

This was Ron Dennis getting told what to do by a rookie in no uncertain terms and for the whole team to hear twice within a handful of races, the big scary Ron. That's pretty unthinkable back then and he did nowt in return. That's obviously going to influence Alonso's thinking about who holds the power there right now.

Not that it makes the threat any better, he should've been sacked on the spot*, but I don't think McLaren were ever going to go against Lewis however Alonso played it tbh.



*Didn't know that was an option Macca were going to do, I knew Whitmarsh wanted to but not Ron. I wonder why Mosley convinced them not to? Did he really just dislike Ron so much he wanted him to suffer those two going at it all year or what?


That's my point, he never gave the team a chance to punish Lewis as he took the punishment into his own hands.
What Lewis did was subtle to the audience.
Alonso was not subtle and came out of it looking the bad guy.
It really could have been so different for him if he didn't make that decision.


Sorry, I didn't mean the pit stop thing, I think he expected some form of punishment for Lewis that night (Saturday) probably getting fuel priority restored for a few weekends in a row or such, something to show Lewis's actions weren't going unpunished, but nothing came of it, they couldn't even stop Anthony Hamilton going to the stewards and he got the penalty late Saturday night, after midnight I think, and so the next day Lewis was now sitting pretty on pole unpunished and he was in 5th and the devil publicly because as you say he came out of the pit stop thing looking awful and was getting shreds tore off him in the paddock press and he let it get the better of him, however temporarily.

Like Whitmarsh said I can understand it more but obviously don't agree with it, I'd have still sacked him personally but I can at least see where it came from although he should've taken the threat back himself that half an hour later rather than send his manager to do it.

(Assuming all this is true of course)

Why are you thinking what punishment he expected for Hamilton when apparently he said what the punishment should have been, he wanted the team to run Hamilton out of fuel in the race.


Yes that's the threat he made in an argument with Ron a few hours before the race on Sunday. I'd be surprised if he wasn't asking for Lewis to be punished in some way,shape or form from the moment he left the car on Saturday afternoon though or at least asking what they plan to do 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: Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28746
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
That's what I always felt (That if he'd played it differently he could've left Hungary with the backing from Ron because of Lewis's action) but I assume after both the Monaco reaction and the refusal to punish Lewis in Hungary, not just for ignoring the order but (allegedly) telling Ron to go beeping swivel and not getting so much as a wrist slap for either, he didn't think the team were ever going to go against Lewis in any situation.

This was Ron Dennis getting told what to do by a rookie in no uncertain terms and for the whole team to hear twice within a handful of races, the big scary Ron. That's pretty unthinkable back then and he did nowt in return. That's obviously going to influence Alonso's thinking about who holds the power there right now.

Not that it makes the threat any better, he should've been sacked on the spot*, but I don't think McLaren were ever going to go against Lewis however Alonso played it tbh.



*Didn't know that was an option Macca were going to do, I knew Whitmarsh wanted to but not Ron. I wonder why Mosley convinced them not to? Did he really just dislike Ron so much he wanted him to suffer those two going at it all year or what?


That's my point, he never gave the team a chance to punish Lewis as he took the punishment into his own hands.
What Lewis did was subtle to the audience.
Alonso was not subtle and came out of it looking the bad guy.
It really could have been so different for him if he didn't make that decision.


Sorry, I didn't mean the pit stop thing, I think he expected some form of punishment for Lewis that night (Saturday) probably getting fuel priority restored for a few weekends in a row or such, something to show Lewis's actions weren't going unpunished, but nothing came of it, they couldn't even stop Anthony Hamilton going to the stewards and he got the penalty late Saturday night, after midnight I think, and so the next day Lewis was now sitting pretty on pole unpunished and he was in 5th and the devil publicly because as you say he came out of the pit stop thing looking awful and was getting shreds tore off him in the paddock press and he let it get the better of him, however temporarily.

Like Whitmarsh said I can understand it more but obviously don't agree with it, I'd have still sacked him personally but I can at least see where it came from although he should've taken the threat back himself that half an hour later rather than send his manager to do it.

(Assuming all this is true of course)

Why are you thinking what punishment he expected for Hamilton when apparently he said what the punishment should have been, he wanted the team to run Hamilton out of fuel in the race.


Yes that's the threat he made in an argument with Ron a few hours before the race on Sunday. I'd be surprised if he wasn't asking for Lewis to be punished in some way,shape or form from the moment he left the car on Saturday afternoon though or at least asking what they plan to do about it.

Well normally you are at your angriest in the moment and then clam down a bit afterwards, after he had time to think he came up with running Hamilton out of fuel, that seems worse then in the moment just wanting Hamilton to have the worse qualifying strategy in the next couple of races?

_________________
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: Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:22 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5024
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Laz_T800 wrote:

That's my point, he never gave the team a chance to punish Lewis as he took the punishment into his own hands.
What Lewis did was subtle to the audience.
Alonso was not subtle and came out of it looking the bad guy.
It really could have been so different for him if he didn't make that decision.


Sorry, I didn't mean the pit stop thing, I think he expected some form of punishment for Lewis that night (Saturday) probably getting fuel priority restored for a few weekends in a row or such, something to show Lewis's actions weren't going unpunished, but nothing came of it, they couldn't even stop Anthony Hamilton going to the stewards and he got the penalty late Saturday night, after midnight I think, and so the next day Lewis was now sitting pretty on pole unpunished and he was in 5th and the devil publicly because as you say he came out of the pit stop thing looking awful and was getting shreds tore off him in the paddock press and he let it get the better of him, however temporarily.

Like Whitmarsh said I can understand it more but obviously don't agree with it, I'd have still sacked him personally but I can at least see where it came from although he should've taken the threat back himself that half an hour later rather than send his manager to do it.

(Assuming all this is true of course)

Why are you thinking what punishment he expected for Hamilton when apparently he said what the punishment should have been, he wanted the team to run Hamilton out of fuel in the race.


Yes that's the threat he made in an argument with Ron a few hours before the race on Sunday. I'd be surprised if he wasn't asking for Lewis to be punished in some way,shape or form from the moment he left the car on Saturday afternoon though or at least asking what they plan to do about it.

Well normally you are at your angriest in the moment and then clam down a bit afterwards, after he had time to think he came up with running Hamilton out of fuel, that seems worse then in the moment just wanting Hamilton to have the worse qualifying strategy in the next couple of races?


His penalty took 7 hours to come through so I'm pretty sure there was plenty of angry moments and heated exchanges with all that was going on across both days. The article mentions the retraction of the threat came with a lost temper excuse so it was obviously still pretty heated in that meeting with Ron before the race.

_________________
"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 Nov 21, 2018 10:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6670
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

Sorry, I didn't mean the pit stop thing, I think he expected some form of punishment for Lewis that night (Saturday) probably getting fuel priority restored for a few weekends in a row or such, something to show Lewis's actions weren't going unpunished, but nothing came of it, they couldn't even stop Anthony Hamilton going to the stewards and he got the penalty late Saturday night, after midnight I think, and so the next day Lewis was now sitting pretty on pole unpunished and he was in 5th and the devil publicly because as you say he came out of the pit stop thing looking awful and was getting shreds tore off him in the paddock press and he let it get the better of him, however temporarily.

Like Whitmarsh said I can understand it more but obviously don't agree with it, I'd have still sacked him personally but I can at least see where it came from although he should've taken the threat back himself that half an hour later rather than send his manager to do it.

(Assuming all this is true of course)

Why are you thinking what punishment he expected for Hamilton when apparently he said what the punishment should have been, he wanted the team to run Hamilton out of fuel in the race.


Yes that's the threat he made in an argument with Ron a few hours before the race on Sunday. I'd be surprised if he wasn't asking for Lewis to be punished in some way,shape or form from the moment he left the car on Saturday afternoon though or at least asking what they plan to do about it.

Well normally you are at your angriest in the moment and then clam down a bit afterwards, after he had time to think he came up with running Hamilton out of fuel, that seems worse then in the moment just wanting Hamilton to have the worse qualifying strategy in the next couple of races?


His penalty took 7 hours to come through so I'm pretty sure there was plenty of angry moments and heated exchanges with all that was going on across both days. The article mentions the retraction of the threat came with a lost temper excuse so it was obviously still pretty heated in that meeting with Ron before the race.


Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. He sounds like a pretty angry man if the day after he is still making these threats, Mediterranean temperament and all that. Still, I find it incredible, especially if he was with his manager; he should have done a better job than that really. I'd expect his manager to knock some sense into him, not a good idea to go requesting sabotaging your own team mate...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28746
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Sorry, I didn't mean the pit stop thing, I think he expected some form of punishment for Lewis that night (Saturday) probably getting fuel priority restored for a few weekends in a row or such, something to show Lewis's actions weren't going unpunished, but nothing came of it, they couldn't even stop Anthony Hamilton going to the stewards and he got the penalty late Saturday night, after midnight I think, and so the next day Lewis was now sitting pretty on pole unpunished and he was in 5th and the devil publicly because as you say he came out of the pit stop thing looking awful and was getting shreds tore off him in the paddock press and he let it get the better of him, however temporarily.

Like Whitmarsh said I can understand it more but obviously don't agree with it, I'd have still sacked him personally but I can at least see where it came from although he should've taken the threat back himself that half an hour later rather than send his manager to do it.

(Assuming all this is true of course)

Why are you thinking what punishment he expected for Hamilton when apparently he said what the punishment should have been, he wanted the team to run Hamilton out of fuel in the race.


Yes that's the threat he made in an argument with Ron a few hours before the race on Sunday. I'd be surprised if he wasn't asking for Lewis to be punished in some way,shape or form from the moment he left the car on Saturday afternoon though or at least asking what they plan to do about it.

Well normally you are at your angriest in the moment and then clam down a bit afterwards, after he had time to think he came up with running Hamilton out of fuel, that seems worse then in the moment just wanting Hamilton to have the worse qualifying strategy in the next couple of races?


His penalty took 7 hours to come through so I'm pretty sure there was plenty of angry moments and heated exchanges with all that was going on across both days. The article mentions the retraction of the threat came with a lost temper excuse so it was obviously still pretty heated in that meeting with Ron before the race.

The point I was actually making though is that he suggested Hamilton be run out of fuel were you're kind of saying maybe he asked for Hamilton to have the inferior qualifying strategy in the next couple of races first but McLaren were not interested, it kind of looks to be giving Alonso some justification in what he asked for in his blackmailing threat by perhaps suggesting it was McLaren that were being unreasonable in how they were going to deal with Hamilton?

It's supposition on your part against what we are told actually happened.

_________________
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 Nov 21, 2018 1:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 3481
pokerman wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Mort Canard wrote:
"Fernando Alonso is refusing to rule out returning to the F1 grid in 2020 after a year of recharging his batteries."

Why does this feel akin to Arnold Schwarzenegger's declaration of "I'll be back"? Is this a promise or a threat?

Like Michael Schumacher's return to Mercedes, I don't see Fernando's return as having any opportunity to enhance his legacy. It will most likely only further add to the mediocrity exhibited in the last few years at McLaren. The chance that he would come back to a top team and resume winning races appear to be less than zero.

Like Jenson Button, Fernando should have plenty of opportunity to win in WEC or he could test himself by trying to become a winning driver in Indycar. Winning in Indycar would not be a given, but I would think he still has the chops to pose a credible threat in a decent car.


As much as I admire Alonso as a driver, sometimes he is contradicting himself. Only a couple of days ago he said that he is leaving as F1 is a weak show (https://www.grandprix247.com/2018/11/17 ... weak-show/). Just can't take him seriously sometimes.

Well I think we all know exactly why he's leaving F1, and who can blame him, F1 is a weak show because he can't get in a winning car whilst WEC is apparently marvelous despite the fact that only two cars can win in LMP1.



Pretty hilarious indeed :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2018 2:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5635
Lotus49 wrote:
Very nice 5 part article(s) about Alonso and his career. Contributions from Dennis,Luca,Domenicalli and Stella as well as some anon contributions. Some things some might know, might not know, it fleshes out some things we already knew and Stella gives a nice comparison insight into Fernando and Michael and their differences.

Something for everyone is touched upon, 2007,his technical feedback, behaviour within a team and interestingly his fathers role in one of his decisions. It hints a few times Alonso was getting bad advice throughout.

Well worth a read whatever your opinion of him, its not a glossed over hard luck story but neither is it a bash fest.

Part 1 and you can click on the next part at the bottom of part 1...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/46225204

For me, this is a puff piece; basically glossing over Alonso's most insidious actions and trying to put a positive spin on his conflicts over the years. The choice of words is really amusing; like when they say that Alonso argued that he and Hamilton "should not be racing each other". Why not just say that he wanted Hamilton to not be permitted to race him? The way the article is written is decidedly defensive of Alonso. It doesn't really go into the blackmail or the Crashgate debacle. It trips over itself to defend his performance relative to Hamilton as his teammate without mentioning the favoritism that he received during the first third of the season.

As much though I think Alonso is great and, in terms of his driving ability, he's one of the all-time greats; I am very tired of all the grand-standing and pomp from him. Now that his opportunities have dried up in F1, he has nothing positive to say about the sport and just seems to want to drag everyone down; as though the sport can't be great without him winning. Too bad he can't walk away more gracefully like JB, without the bitterness and attention-seeking.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2018 3:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:17 pm
Posts: 570
Location: illinois
" As much though I think Alonso is great and, in terms of his driving ability, he's one of the all-time greats; I am very tired of all the grand-standing and pomp from him. Now that his opportunities have dried up in F1, he has nothing positive to say about the sport and just seems to want to drag everyone down; as though the sport can't be great without him winning. Too bad he can't walk away more gracefully like JB, without the bitterness and attention-seeking. "

sandman, this where i am at with alonso also


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2018 3:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6670
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Very nice 5 part article(s) about Alonso and his career. Contributions from Dennis,Luca,Domenicalli and Stella as well as some anon contributions. Some things some might know, might not know, it fleshes out some things we already knew and Stella gives a nice comparison insight into Fernando and Michael and their differences.

Something for everyone is touched upon, 2007,his technical feedback, behaviour within a team and interestingly his fathers role in one of his decisions. It hints a few times Alonso was getting bad advice throughout.

Well worth a read whatever your opinion of him, its not a glossed over hard luck story but neither is it a bash fest.

Part 1 and you can click on the next part at the bottom of part 1...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/46225204

For me, this is a puff piece; basically glossing over Alonso's most insidious actions and trying to put a positive spin on his conflicts over the years. The choice of words is really amusing; like when they say that Alonso argued that he and Hamilton "should not be racing each other". Why not just say that he wanted Hamilton to not be permitted to race him? The way the article is written is decidedly defensive of Alonso. It doesn't really go into the blackmail or the Crashgate debacle. It trips over itself to defend his performance relative to Hamilton as his teammate without mentioning the favoritism that he received during the first third of the season.

As much though I think Alonso is great and, in terms of his driving ability, he's one of the all-time greats; I am very tired of all the grand-standing and pomp from him. Now that his opportunities have dried up in F1, he has nothing positive to say about the sport and just seems to want to drag everyone down; as though the sport can't be great without him winning. Too bad he can't walk away more gracefully like JB, without the bitterness and attention-seeking.


Pretty much this. It is expected up to a point, there is always a certain element of romanticism when a driver retires, passes away, etc.

But yeah, to gloss over the bad stuff is a bit poor. Schumacher and Senna are always remembered for both sides of their character, this should be for all drivers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2018 1:11 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5024
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Why are you thinking what punishment he expected for Hamilton when apparently he said what the punishment should have been, he wanted the team to run Hamilton out of fuel in the race.


Yes that's the threat he made in an argument with Ron a few hours before the race on Sunday. I'd be surprised if he wasn't asking for Lewis to be punished in some way,shape or form from the moment he left the car on Saturday afternoon though or at least asking what they plan to do about it.

Well normally you are at your angriest in the moment and then clam down a bit afterwards, after he had time to think he came up with running Hamilton out of fuel, that seems worse then in the moment just wanting Hamilton to have the worse qualifying strategy in the next couple of races?


His penalty took 7 hours to come through so I'm pretty sure there was plenty of angry moments and heated exchanges with all that was going on across both days. The article mentions the retraction of the threat came with a lost temper excuse so it was obviously still pretty heated in that meeting with Ron before the race.

The point I was actually making though is that he suggested Hamilton be run out of fuel were you're kind of saying maybe he asked for Hamilton to have the inferior qualifying strategy in the next couple of races first but McLaren were not interested, it kind of looks to be giving Alonso some justification in what he asked for in his blackmailing threat by perhaps suggesting it was McLaren that were being unreasonable in how they were going to deal with Hamilton?

It's supposition on your part against what we are told actually happened.


No I was suggesting he'd possibly be waiting for a punishment coming from McLaren that didn't come and I put forward an example (priority) just to illustrate.

I also said I'd have sacked him on the spot.

_________________
"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 Nov 22, 2018 1:32 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5024
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Very nice 5 part article(s) about Alonso and his career. Contributions from Dennis,Luca,Domenicalli and Stella as well as some anon contributions. Some things some might know, might not know, it fleshes out some things we already knew and Stella gives a nice comparison insight into Fernando and Michael and their differences.

Something for everyone is touched upon, 2007,his technical feedback, behaviour within a team and interestingly his fathers role in one of his decisions. It hints a few times Alonso was getting bad advice throughout.

Well worth a read whatever your opinion of him, its not a glossed over hard luck story but neither is it a bash fest.

Part 1 and you can click on the next part at the bottom of part 1...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/46225204

For me, this is a puff piece; basically glossing over Alonso's most insidious actions and trying to put a positive spin on his conflicts over the years. The choice of words is really amusing; like when they say that Alonso argued that he and Hamilton "should not be racing each other". Why not just say that he wanted Hamilton to not be permitted to race him? The way the article is written is decidedly defensive of Alonso. It doesn't really go into the blackmail or the Crashgate debacle. It trips over itself to defend his performance relative to Hamilton as his teammate without mentioning the favoritism that he received during the first third of the season.

As much though I think Alonso is great and, in terms of his driving ability, he's one of the all-time greats; I am very tired of all the grand-standing and pomp from him. Now that his opportunities have dried up in F1, he has nothing positive to say about the sport and just seems to want to drag everyone down; as though the sport can't be great without him winning. Too bad he can't walk away more gracefully like JB, without the bitterness and attention-seeking.


I think that's pretty unfair on the article, it leaves plenty out of 2007 from both sides as its not just a 2007 piece. It says Lewis was on pace immediately, he wasn't. He was half a second slower on Michelins in testing. It doesn't mention Alonso not being allowed to run Hitco brakes until the summer or the whole racing Alonso thing, tyre blanket suspicion and independent steward request. All things that would be included in any puff piece and they'd certainly not "reveal" the full extent of the running out of fuel story a few days before has to sit and likely answer questions about it on his last weekend.

I do think Crashgate should've been mentioned though,but then they should've noted him being cleared as well but he's left out the second Renault stint entirely.

But the piece criticises his decision making, the people he kept around him, his attitude and ultimately how he couldn't achieve what he should've. That's not a puff piece, its just not an all out bash piece either like I said. It will make Alonso fans uncomfortable reading it in places but also apparently those wanting more shots at him too so it does about as good a job as you can do I think.

_________________
"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 Nov 22, 2018 1:48 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5024
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Very nice 5 part article(s) about Alonso and his career. Contributions from Dennis,Luca,Domenicalli and Stella as well as some anon contributions. Some things some might know, might not know, it fleshes out some things we already knew and Stella gives a nice comparison insight into Fernando and Michael and their differences.

Something for everyone is touched upon, 2007,his technical feedback, behaviour within a team and interestingly his fathers role in one of his decisions. It hints a few times Alonso was getting bad advice throughout.

Well worth a read whatever your opinion of him, its not a glossed over hard luck story but neither is it a bash fest.

Part 1 and you can click on the next part at the bottom of part 1...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/46225204

For me, this is a puff piece; basically glossing over Alonso's most insidious actions and trying to put a positive spin on his conflicts over the years. The choice of words is really amusing; like when they say that Alonso argued that he and Hamilton "should not be racing each other". Why not just say that he wanted Hamilton to not be permitted to race him? The way the article is written is decidedly defensive of Alonso. It doesn't really go into the blackmail or the Crashgate debacle. It trips over itself to defend his performance relative to Hamilton as his teammate without mentioning the favoritism that he received during the first third of the season.

As much though I think Alonso is great and, in terms of his driving ability, he's one of the all-time greats; I am very tired of all the grand-standing and pomp from him. Now that his opportunities have dried up in F1, he has nothing positive to say about the sport and just seems to want to drag everyone down; as though the sport can't be great without him winning. Too bad he can't walk away more gracefully like JB, without the bitterness and attention-seeking.


Pretty much this. It is expected up to a point, there is always a certain element of romanticism when a driver retires, passes away, etc.

But yeah, to gloss over the bad stuff is a bit poor. Schumacher and Senna are always remembered for both sides of their character, this should be for all drivers.


How does it gloss over the blackmail, it goes into it in detail even naming the people present for the first time, that they were going to pull Alonso from the car and I assume sack him, the specific threat made and Mosley advising not to pull him which is also new afaik.

Crashgate yeah but again what can they say other than it was for his benefit? No-ones come out and said he knew about it, no off the record sources that I know of like they have with the blackmail/Spygate stuff so what is there to say.

Senna and Schumacher's on track actions were all to see and undeniable, just like holding Lewis in the pit lane from Alonso, which was absolutely covered and not glossed over, quite the opposite, it revealed more.

I think people expecting a conspiracy theory handbook of everything I think Alonso's done behind closed doors should be looking elsewhere tbh.

_________________
"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 Nov 22, 2018 4:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5635
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Very nice 5 part article(s) about Alonso and his career. Contributions from Dennis,Luca,Domenicalli and Stella as well as some anon contributions. Some things some might know, might not know, it fleshes out some things we already knew and Stella gives a nice comparison insight into Fernando and Michael and their differences.

Something for everyone is touched upon, 2007,his technical feedback, behaviour within a team and interestingly his fathers role in one of his decisions. It hints a few times Alonso was getting bad advice throughout.

Well worth a read whatever your opinion of him, its not a glossed over hard luck story but neither is it a bash fest.

Part 1 and you can click on the next part at the bottom of part 1...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/46225204

For me, this is a puff piece; basically glossing over Alonso's most insidious actions and trying to put a positive spin on his conflicts over the years. The choice of words is really amusing; like when they say that Alonso argued that he and Hamilton "should not be racing each other". Why not just say that he wanted Hamilton to not be permitted to race him? The way the article is written is decidedly defensive of Alonso. It doesn't really go into the blackmail or the Crashgate debacle. It trips over itself to defend his performance relative to Hamilton as his teammate without mentioning the favoritism that he received during the first third of the season.

As much though I think Alonso is great and, in terms of his driving ability, he's one of the all-time greats; I am very tired of all the grand-standing and pomp from him. Now that his opportunities have dried up in F1, he has nothing positive to say about the sport and just seems to want to drag everyone down; as though the sport can't be great without him winning. Too bad he can't walk away more gracefully like JB, without the bitterness and attention-seeking.


I think that's pretty unfair on the article, it leaves plenty out of 2007 from both sides as its not just a 2007 piece. It says Lewis was on pace immediately, he wasn't. He was half a second slower on Michelins in testing. It doesn't mention Alonso not being allowed to run Hitco brakes until the summer or the whole racing Alonso thing, tyre blanket suspicion and independent steward request. All things that would be included in any puff piece and they'd certainly not "reveal" the full extent of the running out of fuel story a few days before has to sit and likely answer questions about it on his last weekend.

I do think Crashgate should've been mentioned though,but then they should've noted him being cleared as well but he's left out the second Renault stint entirely.

But the piece criticises his decision making, the people he kept around him, his attitude and ultimately how he couldn't achieve what he should've. That's not a puff piece, its just not an all out bash piece either like I said. It will make Alonso fans uncomfortable reading it in places but also apparently those wanting more shots at him too so it does about as good a job as you can do I think.

"Half a second off in testing"? Really? We're talkinga bout testing pre-season; where we don't even know what fuel loads are bieng run and where Lewis was literally in an F1 car for the first time?

From the first race in Australia, Hamilton was able to live with Alonso's pace and by the time they went to North America, it was Alonso who needed to keep up. The tire warmer thing was BS and has never been substantiated in any way. Likewise the "racing Alonso" comment was not in any way impactful on the actual racing. Those were just words. I'm sure you would have loved for them to squeeze even more excuses for 2007 into this article but I think they had plenty and they were all on Alonso's side of things.

The article didn't mention what happened between him and Trulli in 2004; when Alonso was so angered by Jarno winning a race and competing against him that he escalated things with Flavio; ultimately resulting in Jarno's sacking (at a time when Trulli was ahead in the points). It also doesn't discuss the Crashgate debacle or the way that Alonso has left almost every team on bad terms.

Anyway, I don't expect you and I to agree on the article but it is FAR from being balanced. It's practically a love letter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2018 6:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9398
According to the article Dennis and Whitmarsh had basically agreed to not let Alonso drive for them anymore after the Hungary quali fiasco, but Mosley convinced them otherwise. Would be interesting to hear why they agreed to this.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2018 7:15 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5024
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Very nice 5 part article(s) about Alonso and his career. Contributions from Dennis,Luca,Domenicalli and Stella as well as some anon contributions. Some things some might know, might not know, it fleshes out some things we already knew and Stella gives a nice comparison insight into Fernando and Michael and their differences.

Something for everyone is touched upon, 2007,his technical feedback, behaviour within a team and interestingly his fathers role in one of his decisions. It hints a few times Alonso was getting bad advice throughout.

Well worth a read whatever your opinion of him, its not a glossed over hard luck story but neither is it a bash fest.

Part 1 and you can click on the next part at the bottom of part 1...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/46225204

For me, this is a puff piece; basically glossing over Alonso's most insidious actions and trying to put a positive spin on his conflicts over the years. The choice of words is really amusing; like when they say that Alonso argued that he and Hamilton "should not be racing each other". Why not just say that he wanted Hamilton to not be permitted to race him? The way the article is written is decidedly defensive of Alonso. It doesn't really go into the blackmail or the Crashgate debacle. It trips over itself to defend his performance relative to Hamilton as his teammate without mentioning the favoritism that he received during the first third of the season.

As much though I think Alonso is great and, in terms of his driving ability, he's one of the all-time greats; I am very tired of all the grand-standing and pomp from him. Now that his opportunities have dried up in F1, he has nothing positive to say about the sport and just seems to want to drag everyone down; as though the sport can't be great without him winning. Too bad he can't walk away more gracefully like JB, without the bitterness and attention-seeking.


I think that's pretty unfair on the article, it leaves plenty out of 2007 from both sides as its not just a 2007 piece. It says Lewis was on pace immediately, he wasn't. He was half a second slower on Michelins in testing. It doesn't mention Alonso not being allowed to run Hitco brakes until the summer or the whole racing Alonso thing, tyre blanket suspicion and independent steward request. All things that would be included in any puff piece and they'd certainly not "reveal" the full extent of the running out of fuel story a few days before has to sit and likely answer questions about it on his last weekend.

I do think Crashgate should've been mentioned though,but then they should've noted him being cleared as well but he's left out the second Renault stint entirely.

But the piece criticises his decision making, the people he kept around him, his attitude and ultimately how he couldn't achieve what he should've. That's not a puff piece, its just not an all out bash piece either like I said. It will make Alonso fans uncomfortable reading it in places but also apparently those wanting more shots at him too so it does about as good a job as you can do I think.

"Half a second off in testing"? Really? We're talkinga bout testing pre-season; where we don't even know what fuel loads are bieng run and where Lewis was literally in an F1 car for the first time?

From the first race in Australia, Hamilton was able to live with Alonso's pace and by the time they went to North America, it was Alonso who needed to keep up. The tire warmer thing was BS and has never been substantiated in any way. Likewise the "racing Alonso" comment was not in any way impactful on the actual racing. Those were just words. I'm sure you would have loved for them to squeeze even more excuses for 2007 into this article but I think they had plenty and they were all on Alonso's side of things.

The article didn't mention what happened between him and Trulli in 2004; when Alonso was so angered by Jarno winning a race and competing against him that he escalated things with Flavio; ultimately resulting in Jarno's sacking (at a time when Trulli was ahead in the points). It also doesn't discuss the Crashgate debacle or the way that Alonso has left almost every team on bad terms.

Anyway, I don't expect you and I to agree on the article but it is FAR from being balanced. It's practically a love letter.


What rot. I was giving examples of what you would expect from a puff piece, not things I'd love to see. The half second thing was from Hughes, take it up with him. If the author had set out for a so called love letter these things would be in and we wouldn't be reading extensive coverage of his blackmail attempt, including new info for goodness sake. We spend more time reading about dumb career moves than any attempt to go into details of why each project failed. There's barely a mention of his best drives or career defining battle with Schumacher in 2006 and one of the atg titles either. What a weird puff piece.

Trulli was sacked for embarrassing Renault and Michelin in France while at the same time demanding a new bumper deal from Flavio and using Toyota's interest to do it but I guess those things are irrelevant and of course weren't mentioned either. Yet it doesn't make it a bash fest to exclude them from a summary of his career strangely.

The angst is ridiculous for a perfectly fair and balanced article about his retirement and talks extensively about his darkest moment so its the weirdest love letter I've ever read.

_________________
"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 Nov 22, 2018 7:23 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5024
Covalent wrote:
According to the article Dennis and Whitmarsh had basically agreed to not let Alonso drive for them anymore after the Hungary quali fiasco, but Mosley convinced them otherwise. Would be interesting to hear why they agreed to this.


This was the most interesting bit for me too. ((And the Singapore 2018 bit).

I can't work out why Max would want him to stay there or why Ron of all people would listen to Max's advice on it. They supposedly hated each other.

_________________
"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 Nov 22, 2018 8:03 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5024
Lotus49 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
According to the article Dennis and Whitmarsh had basically agreed to not let Alonso drive for them anymore after the Hungary quali fiasco, but Mosley convinced them otherwise. Would be interesting to hear why they agreed to this.


This was the most interesting bit for me too. ((And the Singapore 2018 bit).

I can't work out why Max would want him to stay there or why Ron of all people would listen to Max's advice on it. They supposedly hated each other.


I've had a thought. What if Max merely suggested a cut off,angry Alonso now sacked and outside the team could cause a lot more trouble during the Spygate hearings than an apologetic Alonso that was still in house and can be relatively controlled until its at least settled?

Sounds simple enough but I think its something I could buy into if I was Ron.

EDIT: Though I still can't think why Max would be so keen, unless he was enjoying the turmoil, thought it was good for Ferrari (tin foil hat I know) or even just thought it was better for F1 and the championship if the two remained team mates?

_________________
"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 Nov 22, 2018 8:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9398
Lotus49 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
According to the article Dennis and Whitmarsh had basically agreed to not let Alonso drive for them anymore after the Hungary quali fiasco, but Mosley convinced them otherwise. Would be interesting to hear why they agreed to this.


This was the most interesting bit for me too. ((And the Singapore 2018 bit).

I can't work out why Max would want him to stay there or why Ron of all people would listen to Max's advice on it. They supposedly hated each other.


I've had a thought. What if Max merely suggested a cut off,angry Alonso now sacked and outside the team could cause a lot more trouble during the Spygate hearings than an apologetic Alonso that was still in house and can be relatively controlled until its at least settled?

Sounds simple enough but I think its something I could buy into if I was Ron.

EDIT: Though I still can't think why Max would be so keen, unless he was enjoying the turmoil, thought it was good for Ferrari (tin foil hat I know) or even just thought it was better for F1 and the championship if the two remained team mates?

Perhaps he was mostly looking after his own interests and trying to minimize the approaching sh!t-storm. Who knows how this story would have unfolded had Alonso been sacked mid-season? My guess is this was the "harmonious" solution.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2018 8:51 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5024
Covalent wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
According to the article Dennis and Whitmarsh had basically agreed to not let Alonso drive for them anymore after the Hungary quali fiasco, but Mosley convinced them otherwise. Would be interesting to hear why they agreed to this.


This was the most interesting bit for me too. ((And the Singapore 2018 bit).

I can't work out why Max would want him to stay there or why Ron of all people would listen to Max's advice on it. They supposedly hated each other.


I've had a thought. What if Max merely suggested a cut off,angry Alonso now sacked and outside the team could cause a lot more trouble during the Spygate hearings than an apologetic Alonso that was still in house and can be relatively controlled until its at least settled?

Sounds simple enough but I think its something I could buy into if I was Ron.

EDIT: Though I still can't think why Max would be so keen, unless he was enjoying the turmoil, thought it was good for Ferrari (tin foil hat I know) or even just thought it was better for F1 and the championship if the two remained team mates?

Perhaps he was mostly looking after his own interests and trying to minimize the approaching sh!t-storm. Who knows how this story would have unfolded had Alonso been sacked mid-season? My guess is this was the "harmonious" solution.


That could well be it, yeah.

_________________
"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 Nov 22, 2018 9:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6670
Lotus49 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Very nice 5 part article(s) about Alonso and his career. Contributions from Dennis,Luca,Domenicalli and Stella as well as some anon contributions. Some things some might know, might not know, it fleshes out some things we already knew and Stella gives a nice comparison insight into Fernando and Michael and their differences.

Something for everyone is touched upon, 2007,his technical feedback, behaviour within a team and interestingly his fathers role in one of his decisions. It hints a few times Alonso was getting bad advice throughout.

Well worth a read whatever your opinion of him, its not a glossed over hard luck story but neither is it a bash fest.

Part 1 and you can click on the next part at the bottom of part 1...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/46225204

For me, this is a puff piece; basically glossing over Alonso's most insidious actions and trying to put a positive spin on his conflicts over the years. The choice of words is really amusing; like when they say that Alonso argued that he and Hamilton "should not be racing each other". Why not just say that he wanted Hamilton to not be permitted to race him? The way the article is written is decidedly defensive of Alonso. It doesn't really go into the blackmail or the Crashgate debacle. It trips over itself to defend his performance relative to Hamilton as his teammate without mentioning the favoritism that he received during the first third of the season.

As much though I think Alonso is great and, in terms of his driving ability, he's one of the all-time greats; I am very tired of all the grand-standing and pomp from him. Now that his opportunities have dried up in F1, he has nothing positive to say about the sport and just seems to want to drag everyone down; as though the sport can't be great without him winning. Too bad he can't walk away more gracefully like JB, without the bitterness and attention-seeking.


Pretty much this. It is expected up to a point, there is always a certain element of romanticism when a driver retires, passes away, etc.

But yeah, to gloss over the bad stuff is a bit poor. Schumacher and Senna are always remembered for both sides of their character, this should be for all drivers.


How does it gloss over the blackmail, it goes into it in detail even naming the people present for the first time, that they were going to pull Alonso from the car and I assume sack him, the specific threat made and Mosley advising not to pull him which is also new afaik.

Crashgate yeah but again what can they say other than it was for his benefit? No-ones come out and said he knew about it, no off the record sources that I know of like they have with the blackmail/Spygate stuff so what is there to say.

Senna and Schumacher's on track actions were all to see and undeniable, just like holding Lewis in the pit lane from Alonso, which was absolutely covered and not glossed over, quite the opposite, it revealed more.

I think people expecting a conspiracy theory handbook of everything I think Alonso's done behind closed doors should be looking elsewhere tbh.


I see your point, but I think you are getting this wrong Lotus my friend. I am not looking for a trash piece that airs everyone's dirty laundry myself. Just mentioning that a few things are glossed over and it is expected to a point. Exactly as you said, they cover the big story that was there for everyone to see, the 2007 story, you can't escape that if you are talking about Alonso. And the bad decisions are also there. But they miss a lot of good and bad stuff about him, it would always be the case when trying to cram 18 years of racing in 5 pages.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2018 9:33 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5024
Siao7 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Very nice 5 part article(s) about Alonso and his career. Contributions from Dennis,Luca,Domenicalli and Stella as well as some anon contributions. Some things some might know, might not know, it fleshes out some things we already knew and Stella gives a nice comparison insight into Fernando and Michael and their differences.

Something for everyone is touched upon, 2007,his technical feedback, behaviour within a team and interestingly his fathers role in one of his decisions. It hints a few times Alonso was getting bad advice throughout.

Well worth a read whatever your opinion of him, its not a glossed over hard luck story but neither is it a bash fest.

Part 1 and you can click on the next part at the bottom of part 1...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/46225204

For me, this is a puff piece; basically glossing over Alonso's most insidious actions and trying to put a positive spin on his conflicts over the years. The choice of words is really amusing; like when they say that Alonso argued that he and Hamilton "should not be racing each other". Why not just say that he wanted Hamilton to not be permitted to race him? The way the article is written is decidedly defensive of Alonso. It doesn't really go into the blackmail or the Crashgate debacle. It trips over itself to defend his performance relative to Hamilton as his teammate without mentioning the favoritism that he received during the first third of the season.

As much though I think Alonso is great and, in terms of his driving ability, he's one of the all-time greats; I am very tired of all the grand-standing and pomp from him. Now that his opportunities have dried up in F1, he has nothing positive to say about the sport and just seems to want to drag everyone down; as though the sport can't be great without him winning. Too bad he can't walk away more gracefully like JB, without the bitterness and attention-seeking.


Pretty much this. It is expected up to a point, there is always a certain element of romanticism when a driver retires, passes away, etc.

But yeah, to gloss over the bad stuff is a bit poor. Schumacher and Senna are always remembered for both sides of their character, this should be for all drivers.


How does it gloss over the blackmail, it goes into it in detail even naming the people present for the first time, that they were going to pull Alonso from the car and I assume sack him, the specific threat made and Mosley advising not to pull him which is also new afaik.

Crashgate yeah but again what can they say other than it was for his benefit? No-ones come out and said he knew about it, no off the record sources that I know of like they have with the blackmail/Spygate stuff so what is there to say.

Senna and Schumacher's on track actions were all to see and undeniable, just like holding Lewis in the pit lane from Alonso, which was absolutely covered and not glossed over, quite the opposite, it revealed more.

I think people expecting a conspiracy theory handbook of everything I think Alonso's done behind closed doors should be looking elsewhere tbh.


I see your point, but I think you are getting this wrong Lotus my friend. I am not looking for a trash piece that airs everyone's dirty laundry myself. Just mentioning that a few things are glossed over and it is expected to a point. Exactly as you said, they cover the big story that was there for everyone to see, the 2007 story, you can't escape that if you are talking about Alonso. And the bad decisions are also there. But they miss a lot of good and bad stuff about him, it would always be the case when trying to cram 18 years of racing in 5 pages.


Crashgate certainly should've got a shout so overall I agree, yeah.

_________________
"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 Nov 22, 2018 9:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6670
Lotus49 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
According to the article Dennis and Whitmarsh had basically agreed to not let Alonso drive for them anymore after the Hungary quali fiasco, but Mosley convinced them otherwise. Would be interesting to hear why they agreed to this.


This was the most interesting bit for me too. ((And the Singapore 2018 bit).

I can't work out why Max would want him to stay there or why Ron of all people would listen to Max's advice on it. They supposedly hated each other.


I've had a thought. What if Max merely suggested a cut off,angry Alonso now sacked and outside the team could cause a lot more trouble during the Spygate hearings than an apologetic Alonso that was still in house and can be relatively controlled until its at least settled?

Sounds simple enough but I think its something I could buy into if I was Ron.

EDIT: Though I still can't think why Max would be so keen, unless he was enjoying the turmoil, thought it was good for Ferrari (tin foil hat I know) or even just thought it was better for F1 and the championship if the two remained team mates?

Perhaps he was mostly looking after his own interests and trying to minimize the approaching sh!t-storm. Who knows how this story would have unfolded had Alonso been sacked mid-season? My guess is this was the "harmonious" solution.


That could well be it, yeah.


Or exactly the opposite. Two explosive characters in a team is good for the sport, Senna-Prost style, two drivers cutting it in the fastest car, making no friends of each other, all the drama F1 wanted after Schumacher retiring. It hints that Bernie was involved, he was the one that talked to Flavio and then Max, wasn't he. Things behind the scenes and Bernie makes me think that the ultimate game is $$, the big name is out of the game but we have a new contender and a new rivalry, drama, shenanigans, they would not lose too many of Schumacher's followers if F1 is interesting enough.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2018 12:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2637
Siao7 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
This was the most interesting bit for me too. ((And the Singapore 2018 bit).

I can't work out why Max would want him to stay there or why Ron of all people would listen to Max's advice on it. They supposedly hated each other.


I've had a thought. What if Max merely suggested a cut off,angry Alonso now sacked and outside the team could cause a lot more trouble during the Spygate hearings than an apologetic Alonso that was still in house and can be relatively controlled until its at least settled?

Sounds simple enough but I think its something I could buy into if I was Ron.

EDIT: Though I still can't think why Max would be so keen, unless he was enjoying the turmoil, thought it was good for Ferrari (tin foil hat I know) or even just thought it was better for F1 and the championship if the two remained team mates?

Perhaps he was mostly looking after his own interests and trying to minimize the approaching sh!t-storm. Who knows how this story would have unfolded had Alonso been sacked mid-season? My guess is this was the "harmonious" solution.


That could well be it, yeah.


Or exactly the opposite. Two explosive characters in a team is good for the sport, Senna-Prost style, two drivers cutting it in the fastest car, making no friends of each other, all the drama F1 wanted after Schumacher retiring. It hints that Bernie was involved, he was the one that talked to Flavio and then Max, wasn't he. Things behind the scenes and Bernie makes me think that the ultimate game is $$, the big name is out of the game but we have a new contender and a new rivalry, drama, shenanigans, they would not lose too many of Schumacher's followers if F1 is interesting enough.
This seems more likely to me. I'd hazard a guess that Ron Dennis was persuaded to keep Alonso on, on the basis that F1 would not want to lose the reigning WDC from the grid. Perhaps there was some incentive in the form of a promise to minimise the punishment that would be dished out for Spygate (though the fine and exclusion from the WCC seems a pretty damned large sanction!).

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 2:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28746
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Very nice 5 part article(s) about Alonso and his career. Contributions from Dennis,Luca,Domenicalli and Stella as well as some anon contributions. Some things some might know, might not know, it fleshes out some things we already knew and Stella gives a nice comparison insight into Fernando and Michael and their differences.

Something for everyone is touched upon, 2007,his technical feedback, behaviour within a team and interestingly his fathers role in one of his decisions. It hints a few times Alonso was getting bad advice throughout.

Well worth a read whatever your opinion of him, its not a glossed over hard luck story but neither is it a bash fest.

Part 1 and you can click on the next part at the bottom of part 1...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/46225204

For me, this is a puff piece; basically glossing over Alonso's most insidious actions and trying to put a positive spin on his conflicts over the years. The choice of words is really amusing; like when they say that Alonso argued that he and Hamilton "should not be racing each other". Why not just say that he wanted Hamilton to not be permitted to race him? The way the article is written is decidedly defensive of Alonso. It doesn't really go into the blackmail or the Crashgate debacle. It trips over itself to defend his performance relative to Hamilton as his teammate without mentioning the favoritism that he received during the first third of the season.

As much though I think Alonso is great and, in terms of his driving ability, he's one of the all-time greats; I am very tired of all the grand-standing and pomp from him. Now that his opportunities have dried up in F1, he has nothing positive to say about the sport and just seems to want to drag everyone down; as though the sport can't be great without him winning. Too bad he can't walk away more gracefully like JB, without the bitterness and attention-seeking.


I think that's pretty unfair on the article, it leaves plenty out of 2007 from both sides as its not just a 2007 piece. It says Lewis was on pace immediately, he wasn't. He was half a second slower on Michelins in testing. It doesn't mention Alonso not being allowed to run Hitco brakes until the summer or the whole racing Alonso thing, tyre blanket suspicion and independent steward request. All things that would be included in any puff piece and they'd certainly not "reveal" the full extent of the running out of fuel story a few days before has to sit and likely answer questions about it on his last weekend.

I do think Crashgate should've been mentioned though,but then they should've noted him being cleared as well but he's left out the second Renault stint entirely.

But the piece criticises his decision making, the people he kept around him, his attitude and ultimately how he couldn't achieve what he should've. That's not a puff piece, its just not an all out bash piece either like I said. It will make Alonso fans uncomfortable reading it in places but also apparently those wanting more shots at him too so it does about as good a job as you can do I think.

Just one point I would take up with you, what has testing on Michelins got to do what was said in the article, on the pace from day 1 clearly is referencing from race 1.

_________________
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: Fri Nov 23, 2018 4:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5635
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Very nice 5 part article(s) about Alonso and his career. Contributions from Dennis,Luca,Domenicalli and Stella as well as some anon contributions. Some things some might know, might not know, it fleshes out some things we already knew and Stella gives a nice comparison insight into Fernando and Michael and their differences.

Something for everyone is touched upon, 2007,his technical feedback, behaviour within a team and interestingly his fathers role in one of his decisions. It hints a few times Alonso was getting bad advice throughout.

Well worth a read whatever your opinion of him, its not a glossed over hard luck story but neither is it a bash fest.

Part 1 and you can click on the next part at the bottom of part 1...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/46225204

For me, this is a puff piece; basically glossing over Alonso's most insidious actions and trying to put a positive spin on his conflicts over the years. The choice of words is really amusing; like when they say that Alonso argued that he and Hamilton "should not be racing each other". Why not just say that he wanted Hamilton to not be permitted to race him? The way the article is written is decidedly defensive of Alonso. It doesn't really go into the blackmail or the Crashgate debacle. It trips over itself to defend his performance relative to Hamilton as his teammate without mentioning the favoritism that he received during the first third of the season.

As much though I think Alonso is great and, in terms of his driving ability, he's one of the all-time greats; I am very tired of all the grand-standing and pomp from him. Now that his opportunities have dried up in F1, he has nothing positive to say about the sport and just seems to want to drag everyone down; as though the sport can't be great without him winning. Too bad he can't walk away more gracefully like JB, without the bitterness and attention-seeking.


I think that's pretty unfair on the article, it leaves plenty out of 2007 from both sides as its not just a 2007 piece. It says Lewis was on pace immediately, he wasn't. He was half a second slower on Michelins in testing. It doesn't mention Alonso not being allowed to run Hitco brakes until the summer or the whole racing Alonso thing, tyre blanket suspicion and independent steward request. All things that would be included in any puff piece and they'd certainly not "reveal" the full extent of the running out of fuel story a few days before has to sit and likely answer questions about it on his last weekend.

I do think Crashgate should've been mentioned though,but then they should've noted him being cleared as well but he's left out the second Renault stint entirely.

But the piece criticises his decision making, the people he kept around him, his attitude and ultimately how he couldn't achieve what he should've. That's not a puff piece, its just not an all out bash piece either like I said. It will make Alonso fans uncomfortable reading it in places but also apparently those wanting more shots at him too so it does about as good a job as you can do I think.

"Half a second off in testing"? Really? We're talkinga bout testing pre-season; where we don't even know what fuel loads are bieng run and where Lewis was literally in an F1 car for the first time?

From the first race in Australia, Hamilton was able to live with Alonso's pace and by the time they went to North America, it was Alonso who needed to keep up. The tire warmer thing was BS and has never been substantiated in any way. Likewise the "racing Alonso" comment was not in any way impactful on the actual racing. Those were just words. I'm sure you would have loved for them to squeeze even more excuses for 2007 into this article but I think they had plenty and they were all on Alonso's side of things.

The article didn't mention what happened between him and Trulli in 2004; when Alonso was so angered by Jarno winning a race and competing against him that he escalated things with Flavio; ultimately resulting in Jarno's sacking (at a time when Trulli was ahead in the points). It also doesn't discuss the Crashgate debacle or the way that Alonso has left almost every team on bad terms.

Anyway, I don't expect you and I to agree on the article but it is FAR from being balanced. It's practically a love letter.


What rot. I was giving examples of what you would expect from a puff piece, not things I'd love to see. The half second thing was from Hughes, take it up with him. If the author had set out for a so called love letter these things would be in and we wouldn't be reading extensive coverage of his blackmail attempt, including new info for goodness sake. We spend more time reading about dumb career moves than any attempt to go into details of why each project failed. There's barely a mention of his best drives or career defining battle with Schumacher in 2006 and one of the atg titles either. What a weird puff piece.

Trulli was sacked for embarrassing Renault and Michelin in France while at the same time demanding a new bumper deal from Flavio and using Toyota's interest to do it but I guess those things are irrelevant and of course weren't mentioned either. Yet it doesn't make it a bash fest to exclude them from a summary of his career strangely.

The angst is ridiculous for a perfectly fair and balanced article about his retirement and talks extensively about his darkest moment so its the weirdest love letter I've ever read.

No bud, it's not a perfectly fair and balanced article. It's a farewell piece that is defensive of Alonso and pulls its punches in every instance where it discusses his many transgressions (or just doesn't discuss them at all). I'm not taking anything up with Hughes because it's totally irrelevant to compare pre-season testing times. Especially when you can compare times during the actual season when the times actually matter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 10:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6670
tootsie323 wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Covalent wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

I've had a thought. What if Max merely suggested a cut off,angry Alonso now sacked and outside the team could cause a lot more trouble during the Spygate hearings than an apologetic Alonso that was still in house and can be relatively controlled until its at least settled?

Sounds simple enough but I think its something I could buy into if I was Ron.

EDIT: Though I still can't think why Max would be so keen, unless he was enjoying the turmoil, thought it was good for Ferrari (tin foil hat I know) or even just thought it was better for F1 and the championship if the two remained team mates?

Perhaps he was mostly looking after his own interests and trying to minimize the approaching sh!t-storm. Who knows how this story would have unfolded had Alonso been sacked mid-season? My guess is this was the "harmonious" solution.


That could well be it, yeah.


Or exactly the opposite. Two explosive characters in a team is good for the sport, Senna-Prost style, two drivers cutting it in the fastest car, making no friends of each other, all the drama F1 wanted after Schumacher retiring. It hints that Bernie was involved, he was the one that talked to Flavio and then Max, wasn't he. Things behind the scenes and Bernie makes me think that the ultimate game is $$, the big name is out of the game but we have a new contender and a new rivalry, drama, shenanigans, they would not lose too many of Schumacher's followers if F1 is interesting enough.
This seems more likely to me. I'd hazard a guess that Ron Dennis was persuaded to keep Alonso on, on the basis that F1 would not want to lose the reigning WDC from the grid. Perhaps there was some incentive in the form of a promise to minimise the punishment that would be dished out for Spygate (though the fine and exclusion from the WCC seems a pretty damned large sanction!).

Well the fine was slashed in half, wasn't it? Maybe you are right and it did play into that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 3:21 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5024
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Very nice 5 part article(s) about Alonso and his career. Contributions from Dennis,Luca,Domenicalli and Stella as well as some anon contributions. Some things some might know, might not know, it fleshes out some things we already knew and Stella gives a nice comparison insight into Fernando and Michael and their differences.

Something for everyone is touched upon, 2007,his technical feedback, behaviour within a team and interestingly his fathers role in one of his decisions. It hints a few times Alonso was getting bad advice throughout.

Well worth a read whatever your opinion of him, its not a glossed over hard luck story but neither is it a bash fest.

Part 1 and you can click on the next part at the bottom of part 1...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/46225204

For me, this is a puff piece; basically glossing over Alonso's most insidious actions and trying to put a positive spin on his conflicts over the years. The choice of words is really amusing; like when they say that Alonso argued that he and Hamilton "should not be racing each other". Why not just say that he wanted Hamilton to not be permitted to race him? The way the article is written is decidedly defensive of Alonso. It doesn't really go into the blackmail or the Crashgate debacle. It trips over itself to defend his performance relative to Hamilton as his teammate without mentioning the favoritism that he received during the first third of the season.

As much though I think Alonso is great and, in terms of his driving ability, he's one of the all-time greats; I am very tired of all the grand-standing and pomp from him. Now that his opportunities have dried up in F1, he has nothing positive to say about the sport and just seems to want to drag everyone down; as though the sport can't be great without him winning. Too bad he can't walk away more gracefully like JB, without the bitterness and attention-seeking.


I think that's pretty unfair on the article, it leaves plenty out of 2007 from both sides as its not just a 2007 piece. It says Lewis was on pace immediately, he wasn't. He was half a second slower on Michelins in testing. It doesn't mention Alonso not being allowed to run Hitco brakes until the summer or the whole racing Alonso thing, tyre blanket suspicion and independent steward request. All things that would be included in any puff piece and they'd certainly not "reveal" the full extent of the running out of fuel story a few days before has to sit and likely answer questions about it on his last weekend.

I do think Crashgate should've been mentioned though,but then they should've noted him being cleared as well but he's left out the second Renault stint entirely.

But the piece criticises his decision making, the people he kept around him, his attitude and ultimately how he couldn't achieve what he should've. That's not a puff piece, its just not an all out bash piece either like I said. It will make Alonso fans uncomfortable reading it in places but also apparently those wanting more shots at him too so it does about as good a job as you can do I think.

Just one point I would take up with you, what has testing on Michelins got to do what was said in the article, on the pace from day 1 clearly is referencing from race 1.


They were referencing his confidence of beating the rookie and his concern for the WCC, I assume both of those things stemmed from Lewis writing off that tub trying to keep up in testing, so to mention the self confidence and concern for WCC but not mention where it might have stemmed from was a little iffy.

Not a big deal though and obviously in Australia he was clearly on pace right away.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 3:33 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5024
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
For me, this is a puff piece; basically glossing over Alonso's most insidious actions and trying to put a positive spin on his conflicts over the years. The choice of words is really amusing; like when they say that Alonso argued that he and Hamilton "should not be racing each other". Why not just say that he wanted Hamilton to not be permitted to race him? The way the article is written is decidedly defensive of Alonso. It doesn't really go into the blackmail or the Crashgate debacle. It trips over itself to defend his performance relative to Hamilton as his teammate without mentioning the favoritism that he received during the first third of the season.

As much though I think Alonso is great and, in terms of his driving ability, he's one of the all-time greats; I am very tired of all the grand-standing and pomp from him. Now that his opportunities have dried up in F1, he has nothing positive to say about the sport and just seems to want to drag everyone down; as though the sport can't be great without him winning. Too bad he can't walk away more gracefully like JB, without the bitterness and attention-seeking.


I think that's pretty unfair on the article, it leaves plenty out of 2007 from both sides as its not just a 2007 piece. It says Lewis was on pace immediately, he wasn't. He was half a second slower on Michelins in testing. It doesn't mention Alonso not being allowed to run Hitco brakes until the summer or the whole racing Alonso thing, tyre blanket suspicion and independent steward request. All things that would be included in any puff piece and they'd certainly not "reveal" the full extent of the running out of fuel story a few days before has to sit and likely answer questions about it on his last weekend.

I do think Crashgate should've been mentioned though,but then they should've noted him being cleared as well but he's left out the second Renault stint entirely.

But the piece criticises his decision making, the people he kept around him, his attitude and ultimately how he couldn't achieve what he should've. That's not a puff piece, its just not an all out bash piece either like I said. It will make Alonso fans uncomfortable reading it in places but also apparently those wanting more shots at him too so it does about as good a job as you can do I think.

"Half a second off in testing"? Really? We're talkinga bout testing pre-season; where we don't even know what fuel loads are bieng run and where Lewis was literally in an F1 car for the first time?

From the first race in Australia, Hamilton was able to live with Alonso's pace and by the time they went to North America, it was Alonso who needed to keep up. The tire warmer thing was BS and has never been substantiated in any way. Likewise the "racing Alonso" comment was not in any way impactful on the actual racing. Those were just words. I'm sure you would have loved for them to squeeze even more excuses for 2007 into this article but I think they had plenty and they were all on Alonso's side of things.

The article didn't mention what happened between him and Trulli in 2004; when Alonso was so angered by Jarno winning a race and competing against him that he escalated things with Flavio; ultimately resulting in Jarno's sacking (at a time when Trulli was ahead in the points). It also doesn't discuss the Crashgate debacle or the way that Alonso has left almost every team on bad terms.

Anyway, I don't expect you and I to agree on the article but it is FAR from being balanced. It's practically a love letter.


What rot. I was giving examples of what you would expect from a puff piece, not things I'd love to see. The half second thing was from Hughes, take it up with him. If the author had set out for a so called love letter these things would be in and we wouldn't be reading extensive coverage of his blackmail attempt, including new info for goodness sake. We spend more time reading about dumb career moves than any attempt to go into details of why each project failed. There's barely a mention of his best drives or career defining battle with Schumacher in 2006 and one of the atg titles either. What a weird puff piece.

Trulli was sacked for embarrassing Renault and Michelin in France while at the same time demanding a new bumper deal from Flavio and using Toyota's interest to do it but I guess those things are irrelevant and of course weren't mentioned either. Yet it doesn't make it a bash fest to exclude them from a summary of his career strangely.

The angst is ridiculous for a perfectly fair and balanced article about his retirement and talks extensively about his darkest moment so its the weirdest love letter I've ever read.

No bud, it's not a perfectly fair and balanced article. It's a farewell piece that is defensive of Alonso and pulls its punches in every instance where it discusses his many transgressions (or just doesn't discuss them at all). I'm not taking anything up with Hughes because it's totally irrelevant to compare pre-season testing times. Especially when you can compare times during the actual season when the times actually matter.


How does it pull its punches in regards to Hungary?

I think it did as good a job as you can balancing between being a love letter or a bash piece for a farewell. I don't expect Lewis's farewell to be entirely about liegate,twittergate,the toxic Rosberg relationship or his own role in Hungary 2007 with no context offered in any of them in case someone thinks its a love letter either.

If neither fans or haters are entirely happy with it I think its done a good enough job tbh.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 4:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 28746
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Very nice 5 part article(s) about Alonso and his career. Contributions from Dennis,Luca,Domenicalli and Stella as well as some anon contributions. Some things some might know, might not know, it fleshes out some things we already knew and Stella gives a nice comparison insight into Fernando and Michael and their differences.

Something for everyone is touched upon, 2007,his technical feedback, behaviour within a team and interestingly his fathers role in one of his decisions. It hints a few times Alonso was getting bad advice throughout.

Well worth a read whatever your opinion of him, its not a glossed over hard luck story but neither is it a bash fest.

Part 1 and you can click on the next part at the bottom of part 1...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/46225204

For me, this is a puff piece; basically glossing over Alonso's most insidious actions and trying to put a positive spin on his conflicts over the years. The choice of words is really amusing; like when they say that Alonso argued that he and Hamilton "should not be racing each other". Why not just say that he wanted Hamilton to not be permitted to race him? The way the article is written is decidedly defensive of Alonso. It doesn't really go into the blackmail or the Crashgate debacle. It trips over itself to defend his performance relative to Hamilton as his teammate without mentioning the favoritism that he received during the first third of the season.

As much though I think Alonso is great and, in terms of his driving ability, he's one of the all-time greats; I am very tired of all the grand-standing and pomp from him. Now that his opportunities have dried up in F1, he has nothing positive to say about the sport and just seems to want to drag everyone down; as though the sport can't be great without him winning. Too bad he can't walk away more gracefully like JB, without the bitterness and attention-seeking.


I think that's pretty unfair on the article, it leaves plenty out of 2007 from both sides as its not just a 2007 piece. It says Lewis was on pace immediately, he wasn't. He was half a second slower on Michelins in testing. It doesn't mention Alonso not being allowed to run Hitco brakes until the summer or the whole racing Alonso thing, tyre blanket suspicion and independent steward request. All things that would be included in any puff piece and they'd certainly not "reveal" the full extent of the running out of fuel story a few days before has to sit and likely answer questions about it on his last weekend.

I do think Crashgate should've been mentioned though,but then they should've noted him being cleared as well but he's left out the second Renault stint entirely.

But the piece criticises his decision making, the people he kept around him, his attitude and ultimately how he couldn't achieve what he should've. That's not a puff piece, its just not an all out bash piece either like I said. It will make Alonso fans uncomfortable reading it in places but also apparently those wanting more shots at him too so it does about as good a job as you can do I think.

Just one point I would take up with you, what has testing on Michelins got to do what was said in the article, on the pace from day 1 clearly is referencing from race 1.


They were referencing his confidence of beating the rookie and his concern for the WCC, I assume both of those things stemmed from Lewis writing off that tub trying to keep up in testing, so to mention the self confidence and concern for WCC but not mention where it might have stemmed from was a little iffy.

Not a big deal though and obviously in Australia he was clearly on pace right away.

I was just questioning your interpretation of Hamilton not being on the pace from day 1 in respect to the article.

When referencing Hamilton being half a second off the pace on Michelins was that not in respect to Kimi, did Alonso ever test the McLaren on Michelins?

Hamilton did crash the McLaren on a wet/damp track, you seem to have entwined this in with Hamilton trying to make up the half a second deficit to Alonso and trying to hard?

_________________
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: Fri Nov 23, 2018 6:09 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5024
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
For me, this is a puff piece; basically glossing over Alonso's most insidious actions and trying to put a positive spin on his conflicts over the years. The choice of words is really amusing; like when they say that Alonso argued that he and Hamilton "should not be racing each other". Why not just say that he wanted Hamilton to not be permitted to race him? The way the article is written is decidedly defensive of Alonso. It doesn't really go into the blackmail or the Crashgate debacle. It trips over itself to defend his performance relative to Hamilton as his teammate without mentioning the favoritism that he received during the first third of the season.

As much though I think Alonso is great and, in terms of his driving ability, he's one of the all-time greats; I am very tired of all the grand-standing and pomp from him. Now that his opportunities have dried up in F1, he has nothing positive to say about the sport and just seems to want to drag everyone down; as though the sport can't be great without him winning. Too bad he can't walk away more gracefully like JB, without the bitterness and attention-seeking.


I think that's pretty unfair on the article, it leaves plenty out of 2007 from both sides as its not just a 2007 piece. It says Lewis was on pace immediately, he wasn't. He was half a second slower on Michelins in testing. It doesn't mention Alonso not being allowed to run Hitco brakes until the summer or the whole racing Alonso thing, tyre blanket suspicion and independent steward request. All things that would be included in any puff piece and they'd certainly not "reveal" the full extent of the running out of fuel story a few days before has to sit and likely answer questions about it on his last weekend.

I do think Crashgate should've been mentioned though,but then they should've noted him being cleared as well but he's left out the second Renault stint entirely.

But the piece criticises his decision making, the people he kept around him, his attitude and ultimately how he couldn't achieve what he should've. That's not a puff piece, its just not an all out bash piece either like I said. It will make Alonso fans uncomfortable reading it in places but also apparently those wanting more shots at him too so it does about as good a job as you can do I think.

Just one point I would take up with you, what has testing on Michelins got to do what was said in the article, on the pace from day 1 clearly is referencing from race 1.


They were referencing his confidence of beating the rookie and his concern for the WCC, I assume both of those things stemmed from Lewis writing off that tub trying to keep up in testing, so to mention the self confidence and concern for WCC but not mention where it might have stemmed from was a little iffy.

Not a big deal though and obviously in Australia he was clearly on pace right away.

I was just questioning your interpretation of Hamilton not being on the pace from day 1 in respect to the article.

When referencing Hamilton being half a second off the pace on Michelins was that not in respect to Kimi, did Alonso ever test the McLaren on Michelins?

Hamilton did crash the McLaren on a wet/damp track, you seem to have entwined this in with Hamilton trying to make up the half a second deficit to Alonso and trying to hard?


And I explained my interpretation.

It's not my entwining, it was a Mark Hughes comment on the recent team mate comparison article. From the comments section and in reply to a question about what would've happened if they'd remained with Michelin...

Mark Hughes wrote:
I'm pretty sure it would've taken Hamilton a few races to reach Alonso's level if they were still on Michelins (which Alonso had raced for years while the Bridgestones they did race on were new to Alonso but quite similar to what Hamilton was used to in GP2). The early testing was done on Michelins and Alonso was consistently 0.5-6s faster, with Hamilton actually writing a tub off trying to get within half a second. So yes,I think it would've been different but Hamilton would've got there eventually.

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opin ... on-f1-2017

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 6:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:14 am
Posts: 513
Location: Stratford
It surprises me that early testing was done on the Michelins. What was the point if they weren't to be used in 2007?

https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... hamiltons/

The link above says that all pre-season testing that Alonso was involved in were on Bridgestones.

(sorry if this is off topic)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 6:47 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5024
JN23 wrote:
It surprises me that early testing was done on the Michelins. What was the point if they weren't to be used in 2007?

https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comme ... hamiltons/

The link above says that all pre-season testing that Alonso was involved in were on Bridgestones.

(sorry if this is off topic)


I haven't a clue tbh, I just remember the comment. Not sure where Mark Hughes or the The F1Judge got their respective info from.

I thought Lewis's crash was in a closed testing session?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 7:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5635
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

I think that's pretty unfair on the article, it leaves plenty out of 2007 from both sides as its not just a 2007 piece. It says Lewis was on pace immediately, he wasn't. He was half a second slower on Michelins in testing. It doesn't mention Alonso not being allowed to run Hitco brakes until the summer or the whole racing Alonso thing, tyre blanket suspicion and independent steward request. All things that would be included in any puff piece and they'd certainly not "reveal" the full extent of the running out of fuel story a few days before has to sit and likely answer questions about it on his last weekend.

I do think Crashgate should've been mentioned though,but then they should've noted him being cleared as well but he's left out the second Renault stint entirely.

But the piece criticises his decision making, the people he kept around him, his attitude and ultimately how he couldn't achieve what he should've. That's not a puff piece, its just not an all out bash piece either like I said. It will make Alonso fans uncomfortable reading it in places but also apparently those wanting more shots at him too so it does about as good a job as you can do I think.

"Half a second off in testing"? Really? We're talkinga bout testing pre-season; where we don't even know what fuel loads are bieng run and where Lewis was literally in an F1 car for the first time?

From the first race in Australia, Hamilton was able to live with Alonso's pace and by the time they went to North America, it was Alonso who needed to keep up. The tire warmer thing was BS and has never been substantiated in any way. Likewise the "racing Alonso" comment was not in any way impactful on the actual racing. Those were just words. I'm sure you would have loved for them to squeeze even more excuses for 2007 into this article but I think they had plenty and they were all on Alonso's side of things.

The article didn't mention what happened between him and Trulli in 2004; when Alonso was so angered by Jarno winning a race and competing against him that he escalated things with Flavio; ultimately resulting in Jarno's sacking (at a time when Trulli was ahead in the points). It also doesn't discuss the Crashgate debacle or the way that Alonso has left almost every team on bad terms.

Anyway, I don't expect you and I to agree on the article but it is FAR from being balanced. It's practically a love letter.


What rot. I was giving examples of what you would expect from a puff piece, not things I'd love to see. The half second thing was from Hughes, take it up with him. If the author had set out for a so called love letter these things would be in and we wouldn't be reading extensive coverage of his blackmail attempt, including new info for goodness sake. We spend more time reading about dumb career moves than any attempt to go into details of why each project failed. There's barely a mention of his best drives or career defining battle with Schumacher in 2006 and one of the atg titles either. What a weird puff piece.

Trulli was sacked for embarrassing Renault and Michelin in France while at the same time demanding a new bumper deal from Flavio and using Toyota's interest to do it but I guess those things are irrelevant and of course weren't mentioned either. Yet it doesn't make it a bash fest to exclude them from a summary of his career strangely.

The angst is ridiculous for a perfectly fair and balanced article about his retirement and talks extensively about his darkest moment so its the weirdest love letter I've ever read.

No bud, it's not a perfectly fair and balanced article. It's a farewell piece that is defensive of Alonso and pulls its punches in every instance where it discusses his many transgressions (or just doesn't discuss them at all). I'm not taking anything up with Hughes because it's totally irrelevant to compare pre-season testing times. Especially when you can compare times during the actual season when the times actually matter.


How does it pull its punches in regards to Hungary?

I think it did as good a job as you can balancing between being a love letter or a bash piece for a farewell. I don't expect Lewis's farewell to be entirely about liegate,twittergate,the toxic Rosberg relationship or his own role in Hungary 2007 with no context offered in any of them in case someone thinks its a love letter either.

If neither fans or haters are entirely happy with it I think its done a good enough job tbh.

That's funny. Lewis's career is nothing like Alonso's. No matter how much you would like to draw an equivalence there simply isn't a reasonable one to be drawn. Anyway, like I said a few posts ago, we don't agree on the article. I can leave it at that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 7:29 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5024
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
"Half a second off in testing"? Really? We're talkinga bout testing pre-season; where we don't even know what fuel loads are bieng run and where Lewis was literally in an F1 car for the first time?

From the first race in Australia, Hamilton was able to live with Alonso's pace and by the time they went to North America, it was Alonso who needed to keep up. The tire warmer thing was BS and has never been substantiated in any way. Likewise the "racing Alonso" comment was not in any way impactful on the actual racing. Those were just words. I'm sure you would have loved for them to squeeze even more excuses for 2007 into this article but I think they had plenty and they were all on Alonso's side of things.

The article didn't mention what happened between him and Trulli in 2004; when Alonso was so angered by Jarno winning a race and competing against him that he escalated things with Flavio; ultimately resulting in Jarno's sacking (at a time when Trulli was ahead in the points). It also doesn't discuss the Crashgate debacle or the way that Alonso has left almost every team on bad terms.

Anyway, I don't expect you and I to agree on the article but it is FAR from being balanced. It's practically a love letter.


What rot. I was giving examples of what you would expect from a puff piece, not things I'd love to see. The half second thing was from Hughes, take it up with him. If the author had set out for a so called love letter these things would be in and we wouldn't be reading extensive coverage of his blackmail attempt, including new info for goodness sake. We spend more time reading about dumb career moves than any attempt to go into details of why each project failed. There's barely a mention of his best drives or career defining battle with Schumacher in 2006 and one of the atg titles either. What a weird puff piece.

Trulli was sacked for embarrassing Renault and Michelin in France while at the same time demanding a new bumper deal from Flavio and using Toyota's interest to do it but I guess those things are irrelevant and of course weren't mentioned either. Yet it doesn't make it a bash fest to exclude them from a summary of his career strangely.

The angst is ridiculous for a perfectly fair and balanced article about his retirement and talks extensively about his darkest moment so its the weirdest love letter I've ever read.

No bud, it's not a perfectly fair and balanced article. It's a farewell piece that is defensive of Alonso and pulls its punches in every instance where it discusses his many transgressions (or just doesn't discuss them at all). I'm not taking anything up with Hughes because it's totally irrelevant to compare pre-season testing times. Especially when you can compare times during the actual season when the times actually matter.


How does it pull its punches in regards to Hungary?

I think it did as good a job as you can balancing between being a love letter or a bash piece for a farewell. I don't expect Lewis's farewell to be entirely about liegate,twittergate,the toxic Rosberg relationship or his own role in Hungary 2007 with no context offered in any of them in case someone thinks its a love letter either.

If neither fans or haters are entirely happy with it I think its done a good enough job tbh.

That's funny. Lewis's career is nothing like Alonso's. No matter how much you would like to draw an equivalence there simply isn't a reasonable one to be drawn. Anyway, like I said a few posts ago, we don't agree on the article. I can leave it at that.


The career doesn't have to be alike to be treated alike by the author when writing a farewell. You don't want all the negatives and no context or all the positives and no context but to try and strike a balance with as much context as you can get a hold of.

In finding a balance between the negatives and positives I think this one did as well as you can and gave us new information on his biggest negative even, but yeah happy to agree to disagree.

_________________
"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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: drhonk 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