planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:02 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 8:00 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26904
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
No testing ban and simulation tools weren't as good as today in 2006/7. Today designers know if a part will work and what effect it will have on the car if your simulation tools are up to snuff anyway.

It's post testing ban, CFD,full chassis dyno's and in the loop simulators that make the driver not as vital to development these days. Schumacher at Fiorano and Alonso with Micheln and Renault pumping in 1000's of KM's away from race weekends were obviously vital before those tools became so good.

But I think in this case it was rumoured he brought something specific from Renault rather than sorting out McLaren car problems but I can't recall what it was.


He brought nothing specific from Renault, other than the spy-gate documents which allowed Mclaren engineers have access to the Ferrari data.

After testing Mclaren looked to be in serious trouble and lo and behold they turn up to Melbourne 6/10th quicker, and instead of them enjoying their theft, they protested the Ferrari floor.

Hence Alonso saying the car he drove at the first test before his input was 6/10ths slower hence saying he brought 6/10th to the Mclaren.


He didn't bring spygate documents anywhere. I'll look for the article about what he said it was from Renault if you're genuinely interested.

McLaren didn't have the documents at that point but nice try. Stepney grassed the Ferrari floor up to the FIA before Australia but they ignored it and because they ignored it (and he was bitter about being passed over) he decided to sabotage them himself and that's when he approached Coughlin.

Alonso only found out later as the test driver running all the "Ferrari" improvements happened to be his mate so he was told about it and asked him requests like "we've got to test this etc.." in emails and that's the Spygate link to Alonso.

If it's a different test or development driver then he'd have been as clueless as Lewis was.

So the FIA ignored the fact that Kimi won the Australian race with an deliberate illegal car, knowing beforehand, nice.


According to Stepney anyway yeah. Excerpts from his letter to Max Mosely...


Quote:
Later on in February I was still not comfortable with this philosophy and contacted Peter Wright to ask him for his technical advice on the subject of the legality of the front floor system. He said he could give his own advice on the subject but I could only get an official clarification from Charlie Whiting, I said for now his own comments would be sufficient. Later on I sent Peter an e-mail on the details of the system and laid out my concerns on the Ferrari's front floor system. I described that for me it did not conform to Article 3.15 in the Technical Regulations and it could also possibly be conceived as being at the beginning of a crude lever type mass damper.

Peter came back to me a few days later saying it looked very suspicious and asked me how I wanted to handle the situation, I said he could inform Charlie Whiting but please don't mention where this information came from. Peter also asked me what I wanted and what was I trying to achieve from doing this and I replied I'm not looking for anything except a clean and fair championship.

Peter informed me about 10 days before the start of the Championship that he had discussed this system with Charlie Whiting, he had asked him where he had found the source of information but Peter would not tell him, Charlie Whiting said he was aware of some system but not to this extent and would look further into the subject at the Australian GP. Personally I would have thought that because of the seriousness of the claim that it should have been looked into BEFORE the event!




Quote:
On the Friday of the Australian GP I phoned up Mike Coughlan to ask him how things were going generally and if the FIA had taken any action on any issues, he told me no it was very quiet so far. I asked him if he had time to look at the other teams cars, he said he had a brief look and asked me why I wanted to know if the FIA had taken any actions on what issues, so I told him about the e-mail I had sent to the Peter Wright concerning the front floor system on the Ferrari, he asked me for a copy, so I said I'll send you a copy of the e-mail I sent to Peter Wright. He asked me what I wanted and I replied nothing but a clean and fair championship. I suggested he should make his own judgement and then talk to Charlie Whiting to seek clarification. The rest of the story which unfolded during the event of which I'm sure you're aware of.

I also sent an e-mail to Jo Bauer around the same time of the first e-mail sent to Peter Wright but on another subject. I wanted the FIA to be aware of what was going on again and treated with the same confidentiality as the other issue.

This e-mail contained points relevant to Articles 2.5 and 3.2 in the technical regulations. I pointed out that there was a possibility of the car when sitting statically on the 3 reference plane points was not sitting parallel to the FIA's flat horizontal surface. The advantage from doing this is that you can gain in height relative to the ground on all bodywork facing the ground because by offsetting the 2 front points by -1mm below the reference plane and the rear point that is +1mm above the reference plane. This in terms of height and advantages gained lowers the front wing between 2-3mm towards the ground. This may seem a very small number but any way to reduce the front wing and turning vane height to the ground is a performance advantage. This was subsequently delt with by Charlie Whiting AFTER the Australian GP, but it would have been possible to have modified the cars prior to the Australian GP.


http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns19721.html

You have just become the new go to guy. :) :thumbup:

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 8:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23213
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I'm sure it's common knowledge that the car had an illegal flexible floor controlled by a spring system?

so then the quote would be easy to find?

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/57650 ... ontroversy

So no, then?

Did you not miss the part that Stepney had already told the FIA what Ferrari were doing but they ignored him?

Ferrari had to remove the system for the next race because it allowed the floor to flex beyond what was legal when out on the track.

Interesting how you would differentiate between this and oil burning, does this just come under being cleverer than the stewards?

Ignoring your attempt (once again!) to deflect back to the oil burning thing (seriously, when will you let that go?), the whole article is full of words like "alleged" and "potential." There is nothing in there to substantiate your claim that "the FIA ignored the fact that Kimi won the Australian race with an deliberate illegal car, knowing beforehand,"

I'm trying to find a way to say this that doesn't come across as rude or patronising but I'm really struggling with how you appear wholly unable to differentiate between allegations and judgements. It seems that all anyone has to do to prove guilt for you is to simply point a finger. Well, for any team other than Mercedes, that is. How is it that actual proof of wrongdoing is such an alien concept to you?

This isn't an isolated occurrence, either. Lately you appear to be jumping on almost every bandwagon you can find. It derails threads because so much time is spent on clarifying that what you claim is proof is actually just another bit of mud throwing

To come back to the point in hand, the article you have provided in no way proves that Ferrari ran an illegal car in Australia, let alone that the FIA were aware of it beforehand. It simply states that the system had the potential to fool the regs and the FIA then took steps to close that loophole


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 9:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1505
Lotus49 wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
kleefton wrote:


So one driver thinks he could help bring 6 tenths and yet people refuse to believe that drivers have an effect at developing cars. Yeah sure, it's baloney.


No testing ban and simulation tools weren't as good as today in 2006/7. Today designers know if a part will work and what effect it will have on the car if your simulation tools are up to snuff anyway.

It's post testing ban, CFD,full chassis dyno's and in the loop simulators that make the driver not as vital to development these days. Schumacher at Fiorano and Alonso with Micheln and Renault pumping in 1000's of KM's away from race weekends were obviously vital before those tools became so good.

But I think in this case it was rumoured he brought something specific from Renault rather than sorting out McLaren car problems but I can't recall what it was.


He brought nothing specific from Renault, other than the spy-gate documents which allowed Mclaren engineers have access to the Ferrari data.

After testing Mclaren looked to be in serious trouble and lo and behold they turn up to Melbourne 6/10th quicker, and instead of them enjoying their theft, they protested the Ferrari floor.

Hence Alonso saying the car he drove at the first test before his input was 6/10ths slower hence saying he brought 6/10th to the Mclaren.


He didn't bring spygate documents anywhere. I'll look for the article about what he said it was from Renault if you're genuinely interested.

McLaren didn't have the documents at that point but nice try. Stepney grassed the Ferrari floor up to the FIA before Australia but they ignored it and because they ignored it (and he was bitter about being passed over) he decided to sabotage them himself and that's when he approached Coughlin.

Alonso only found out later as the test driver running all the "Ferrari" improvements happened to be his mate so he was told about it and asked him requests like "we've got to test this etc.." in emails and that's the Spygate link to Alonso.

If it's a different test or development driver then he'd have been as clueless as Lewis was.


I didn't say he brought the Ferrari documents maybe you misread what I wrote above hence why I put the comma in there.

Maybe look up Pedro and Alonso exchanging emails during testing.

Also it was Mclaren who went to protest after the Australian grandprix after seeing the Ferrari drawings.

Stepney and Coughlan were passing information freely between themselves.

If he had the 6/10th he would have taken it back with him to Renault, but alas we gonna keep on with this Alonso myth.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 9:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1505
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
kleefton wrote:


So one driver thinks he could help bring 6 tenths and yet people refuse to believe that drivers have an effect at developing cars. Yeah sure, it's baloney.


No testing ban and simulation tools weren't as good as today in 2006/7. Today designers know if a part will work and what effect it will have on the car if your simulation tools are up to snuff anyway.

It's post testing ban, CFD,full chassis dyno's and in the loop simulators that make the driver not as vital to development these days. Schumacher at Fiorano and Alonso with Micheln and Renault pumping in 1000's of KM's away from race weekends were obviously vital before those tools became so good.

But I think in this case it was rumoured he brought something specific from Renault rather than sorting out McLaren car problems but I can't recall what it was.


He brought nothing specific from Renault, other than the spy-gate documents which allowed Mclaren engineers have access to the Ferrari data.

After testing Mclaren looked to be in serious trouble and lo and behold they turn up to Melbourne 6/10th quicker, and instead of them enjoying their theft, they protested the Ferrari floor.

Hence Alonso saying the car he drove at the first test before his input was 6/10ths slower hence saying he brought 6/10th to the Mclaren.

I think your time line might be out of line somewhat and Alonso brought no documents from a team who at that point he had never driven for.


Never said he did!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 10:20 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4729
Rockie wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
kleefton wrote:


So one driver thinks he could help bring 6 tenths and yet people refuse to believe that drivers have an effect at developing cars. Yeah sure, it's baloney.


No testing ban and simulation tools weren't as good as today in 2006/7. Today designers know if a part will work and what effect it will have on the car if your simulation tools are up to snuff anyway.

It's post testing ban, CFD,full chassis dyno's and in the loop simulators that make the driver not as vital to development these days. Schumacher at Fiorano and Alonso with Micheln and Renault pumping in 1000's of KM's away from race weekends were obviously vital before those tools became so good.

But I think in this case it was rumoured he brought something specific from Renault rather than sorting out McLaren car problems but I can't recall what it was.


He brought nothing specific from Renault, other than the spy-gate documents which allowed Mclaren engineers have access to the Ferrari data.

After testing Mclaren looked to be in serious trouble and lo and behold they turn up to Melbourne 6/10th quicker, and instead of them enjoying their theft, they protested the Ferrari floor.

Hence Alonso saying the car he drove at the first test before his input was 6/10ths slower hence saying he brought 6/10th to the Mclaren.


He didn't bring spygate documents anywhere. I'll look for the article about what he said it was from Renault if you're genuinely interested.

McLaren didn't have the documents at that point but nice try. Stepney grassed the Ferrari floor up to the FIA before Australia but they ignored it and because they ignored it (and he was bitter about being passed over) he decided to sabotage them himself and that's when he approached Coughlin.

Alonso only found out later as the test driver running all the "Ferrari" improvements happened to be his mate so he was told about it and asked him requests like "we've got to test this etc.." in emails and that's the Spygate link to Alonso.

If it's a different test or development driver then he'd have been as clueless as Lewis was.


I didn't say he brought the Ferrari documents maybe you misread what I wrote above hence why I put the comma in there.

Maybe look up Pedro and Alonso exchanging emails during testing.

Also it was Mclaren who went to protest after the Australian grandprix after seeing the Ferrari drawings.

Stepney and Coughlan were passing information freely between themselves.

If he had the 6/10th he would have taken it back with him to Renault, but alas we gonna keep on with this Alonso myth.


No I read it fine, maybe English isn't your native language but you said...."He brought nothing specific from Renault, other than the spy-gate documents which allowed Mclaren engineers have access to the Ferrari data"......That's very much you saying he brought the spygate documents so what were you trying to say if not that?

Maybe look up the date of the emails. I'll save you the bother, it's late March (25th) and after the Australian Grand Prix on the 18th. Coughlin and Stepney had only exchanged texts at that point, like telling him when Kimi was going to stop. He didn't need to look at drawings, Stepney emailed him about the floor on the Friday before the GP.

That is true that they were exchanging info at least from the Australian GP.

No-one's claiming he did bring 6ths to the car except Alonso in one interview in Spain 11 years ago. And we managed to turn it into several myths over the years, to mock him rather than make him look good. Even his fans get the blame as demonstrated by the start of this conversation.

As I said, it's a pretty standard amount to improve over the winter regardless and I don't particularly care if he did or didn't. Just sounded like the whinge of someone feeling under appreciated and screwed over to me.

_________________
"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 Jun 01, 2018 10:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1505
Lotus49 wrote:

No I read it fine, maybe English isn't your native language but you said...."He brought nothing specific from Renault, other than the spy-gate documents which allowed Mclaren engineers have access to the Ferrari data"......That's very much you saying he brought the spygate documents so what were you trying to say if not that?

Maybe look up the date of the emails. I'll save you the bother, it's late March (25th) and after the Australian Grand Prix on the 18th. Coughlin and Stepney had only exchanged texts at that point, like telling him when Kimi was going to stop. He didn't need to look at drawings, Stepney emailed him about the floor on the Friday before the GP.

That is true that they were exchanging info at least from the Australian GP.

No-one's claiming he did bring 6ths to the car except Alonso in one interview in Spain 11 years ago. And we managed to turn it into several myths over the years, to mock him rather than make him look good. Even his fans get the blame as demonstrated by the start of this conversation.

As I said, it's a pretty standard amount to improve over the winter regardless and I don't particularly care if he did or didn't. Just sounded like the whinge of someone feeling under appreciated and screwed over to me.


Maybe I should have started it in another sentence, what I was saying is basically it was the Ferrari data that helped Mclaren and not anything he brought from Renault.

You don't go from being almost a second behind to being just about 3/10ths behind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 11:14 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4729
Rockie wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

No I read it fine, maybe English isn't your native language but you said...."He brought nothing specific from Renault, other than the spy-gate documents which allowed Mclaren engineers have access to the Ferrari data"......That's very much you saying he brought the spygate documents so what were you trying to say if not that?

Maybe look up the date of the emails. I'll save you the bother, it's late March (25th) and after the Australian Grand Prix on the 18th. Coughlin and Stepney had only exchanged texts at that point, like telling him when Kimi was going to stop. He didn't need to look at drawings, Stepney emailed him about the floor on the Friday before the GP.

That is true that they were exchanging info at least from the Australian GP.

No-one's claiming he did bring 6ths to the car except Alonso in one interview in Spain 11 years ago. And we managed to turn it into several myths over the years, to mock him rather than make him look good. Even his fans get the blame as demonstrated by the start of this conversation.

As I said, it's a pretty standard amount to improve over the winter regardless and I don't particularly care if he did or didn't. Just sounded like the whinge of someone feeling under appreciated and screwed over to me.


Maybe I should have started it in another sentence, what I was saying is basically it was the Ferrari data that helped Mclaren and not anything he brought from Renault.

You don't go from being almost a second behind to being just about 3/10ths behind.


Well they didn't get the Ferrari data until March so it didn't do anything for the Australian GP. Of course it could have helped thereafter.

Poker mentioned the tyre change and I'm sure there could be lots of things that contributed to the improvement in form for Melbourne.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2018 1:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5563
Location: Michigan, USA
Rockie wrote:
You don't go from being almost a second behind to being just about 3/10ths behind.

You don't? I think Ferrari made up at least that much between 2016 and 2017. I'm sure I can find other instances as well - it's not that unprecedented.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2018 1:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1505
Lotus49 wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

No I read it fine, maybe English isn't your native language but you said...."He brought nothing specific from Renault, other than the spy-gate documents which allowed Mclaren engineers have access to the Ferrari data"......That's very much you saying he brought the spygate documents so what were you trying to say if not that?

Maybe look up the date of the emails. I'll save you the bother, it's late March (25th) and after the Australian Grand Prix on the 18th. Coughlin and Stepney had only exchanged texts at that point, like telling him when Kimi was going to stop. He didn't need to look at drawings, Stepney emailed him about the floor on the Friday before the GP.

That is true that they were exchanging info at least from the Australian GP.

No-one's claiming he did bring 6ths to the car except Alonso in one interview in Spain 11 years ago. And we managed to turn it into several myths over the years, to mock him rather than make him look good. Even his fans get the blame as demonstrated by the start of this conversation.

As I said, it's a pretty standard amount to improve over the winter regardless and I don't particularly care if he did or didn't. Just sounded like the whinge of someone feeling under appreciated and screwed over to me.


Maybe I should have started it in another sentence, what I was saying is basically it was the Ferrari data that helped Mclaren and not anything he brought from Renault.

You don't go from being almost a second behind to being just about 3/10ths behind.


Well they didn't get the Ferrari data until March so it didn't do anything for the Australian GP. Of course it could have helped thereafter.

Poker mentioned the tyre change and I'm sure there could be lots of things that contributed to the improvement in form for Melbourne.


The final test was in March and the race two weeks later.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2018 1:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1505
Exediron wrote:
Rockie wrote:
You don't go from being almost a second behind to being just about 3/10ths behind.

You don't? I think Ferrari made up at least that much between 2016 and 2017. I'm sure I can find other instances as well - it's not that unprecedented.


Ferrari made that up over the winter and not between testing and race one, would be really interested in you finding an example.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2018 1:22 am 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26904
Rockie wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
kleefton wrote:


So one driver thinks he could help bring 6 tenths and yet people refuse to believe that drivers have an effect at developing cars. Yeah sure, it's baloney.


No testing ban and simulation tools weren't as good as today in 2006/7. Today designers know if a part will work and what effect it will have on the car if your simulation tools are up to snuff anyway.

It's post testing ban, CFD,full chassis dyno's and in the loop simulators that make the driver not as vital to development these days. Schumacher at Fiorano and Alonso with Micheln and Renault pumping in 1000's of KM's away from race weekends were obviously vital before those tools became so good.

But I think in this case it was rumoured he brought something specific from Renault rather than sorting out McLaren car problems but I can't recall what it was.


He brought nothing specific from Renault, other than the spy-gate documents which allowed Mclaren engineers have access to the Ferrari data.

After testing Mclaren looked to be in serious trouble and lo and behold they turn up to Melbourne 6/10th quicker, and instead of them enjoying their theft, they protested the Ferrari floor.

Hence Alonso saying the car he drove at the first test before his input was 6/10ths slower hence saying he brought 6/10th to the Mclaren.

I think your time line might be out of line somewhat and Alonso brought no documents from a team who at that point he had never driven for.


Never said he did!

You said that Alonso brought the spy gate documents.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2018 1:24 am 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26904
Rockie wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

No I read it fine, maybe English isn't your native language but you said...."He brought nothing specific from Renault, other than the spy-gate documents which allowed Mclaren engineers have access to the Ferrari data"......That's very much you saying he brought the spygate documents so what were you trying to say if not that?

Maybe look up the date of the emails. I'll save you the bother, it's late March (25th) and after the Australian Grand Prix on the 18th. Coughlin and Stepney had only exchanged texts at that point, like telling him when Kimi was going to stop. He didn't need to look at drawings, Stepney emailed him about the floor on the Friday before the GP.

That is true that they were exchanging info at least from the Australian GP.

No-one's claiming he did bring 6ths to the car except Alonso in one interview in Spain 11 years ago. And we managed to turn it into several myths over the years, to mock him rather than make him look good. Even his fans get the blame as demonstrated by the start of this conversation.

As I said, it's a pretty standard amount to improve over the winter regardless and I don't particularly care if he did or didn't. Just sounded like the whinge of someone feeling under appreciated and screwed over to me.


Maybe I should have started it in another sentence, what I was saying is basically it was the Ferrari data that helped Mclaren and not anything he brought from Renault.

You don't go from being almost a second behind to being just about 3/10ths behind.

You think that the McLaren was designed and built within a week?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2018 2:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1505
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

No I read it fine, maybe English isn't your native language but you said...."He brought nothing specific from Renault, other than the spy-gate documents which allowed Mclaren engineers have access to the Ferrari data"......That's very much you saying he brought the spygate documents so what were you trying to say if not that?

Maybe look up the date of the emails. I'll save you the bother, it's late March (25th) and after the Australian Grand Prix on the 18th. Coughlin and Stepney had only exchanged texts at that point, like telling him when Kimi was going to stop. He didn't need to look at drawings, Stepney emailed him about the floor on the Friday before the GP.

That is true that they were exchanging info at least from the Australian GP.

No-one's claiming he did bring 6ths to the car except Alonso in one interview in Spain 11 years ago. And we managed to turn it into several myths over the years, to mock him rather than make him look good. Even his fans get the blame as demonstrated by the start of this conversation.

As I said, it's a pretty standard amount to improve over the winter regardless and I don't particularly care if he did or didn't. Just sounded like the whinge of someone feeling under appreciated and screwed over to me.


Maybe I should have started it in another sentence, what I was saying is basically it was the Ferrari data that helped Mclaren and not anything he brought from Renault.

You don't go from being almost a second behind to being just about 3/10ths behind.

You think that the McLaren was designed and built within a week?


Give the Mercedes engine specs to Honda and you will see how quickly they can build a proper engine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2018 4:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:22 am
Posts: 3860
Rockie wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
kleefton wrote:


So one driver thinks he could help bring 6 tenths and yet people refuse to believe that drivers have an effect at developing cars. Yeah sure, it's baloney.


No testing ban and simulation tools weren't as good as today in 2006/7. Today designers know if a part will work and what effect it will have on the car if your simulation tools are up to snuff anyway.

It's post testing ban, CFD,full chassis dyno's and in the loop simulators that make the driver not as vital to development these days. Schumacher at Fiorano and Alonso with Micheln and Renault pumping in 1000's of KM's away from race weekends were obviously vital before those tools became so good.

But I think in this case it was rumoured he brought something specific from Renault rather than sorting out McLaren car problems but I can't recall what it was.


He brought nothing specific from Renault, other than the spy-gate documents which allowed Mclaren engineers have access to the Ferrari data.

After testing Mclaren looked to be in serious trouble and lo and behold they turn up to Melbourne 6/10th quicker, and instead of them enjoying their theft, they protested the Ferrari floor.

Hence Alonso saying the car he drove at the first test before his input was 6/10ths slower hence saying he brought 6/10th to the Mclaren.


He didn't bring spygate documents anywhere. I'll look for the article about what he said it was from Renault if you're genuinely interested.

McLaren didn't have the documents at that point but nice try. Stepney grassed the Ferrari floor up to the FIA before Australia but they ignored it and because they ignored it (and he was bitter about being passed over) he decided to sabotage them himself and that's when he approached Coughlin.

Alonso only found out later as the test driver running all the "Ferrari" improvements happened to be his mate so he was told about it and asked him requests like "we've got to test this etc.." in emails and that's the Spygate link to Alonso.

If it's a different test or development driver then he'd have been as clueless as Lewis was.


I didn't say he brought the Ferrari documents maybe you misread what I wrote above hence why I put the comma in there.

Maybe look up Pedro and Alonso exchanging emails during testing.

Also it was Mclaren who went to protest after the Australian grandprix after seeing the Ferrari drawings.

Stepney and Coughlan were passing information freely between themselves.

If he had the 6/10th he would have taken it back with him to Renault, but alas we gonna keep on with this Alonso myth.

It's not really a myth, as ONLY Alonso believes he brings (brought) 6/10ths to a team.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2018 5:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13762
LKS1 wrote:
It's not really a myth, as ONLY Alonso believes he brings (brought) 6/10ths to a team.


It depends who he is replacing to be honest.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:41 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4729
Rockie wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

No I read it fine, maybe English isn't your native language but you said...."He brought nothing specific from Renault, other than the spy-gate documents which allowed Mclaren engineers have access to the Ferrari data"......That's very much you saying he brought the spygate documents so what were you trying to say if not that?

Maybe look up the date of the emails. I'll save you the bother, it's late March (25th) and after the Australian Grand Prix on the 18th. Coughlin and Stepney had only exchanged texts at that point, like telling him when Kimi was going to stop. He didn't need to look at drawings, Stepney emailed him about the floor on the Friday before the GP.

That is true that they were exchanging info at least from the Australian GP.

No-one's claiming he did bring 6ths to the car except Alonso in one interview in Spain 11 years ago. And we managed to turn it into several myths over the years, to mock him rather than make him look good. Even his fans get the blame as demonstrated by the start of this conversation.

As I said, it's a pretty standard amount to improve over the winter regardless and I don't particularly care if he did or didn't. Just sounded like the whinge of someone feeling under appreciated and screwed over to me.


Maybe I should have started it in another sentence, what I was saying is basically it was the Ferrari data that helped Mclaren and not anything he brought from Renault.

You don't go from being almost a second behind to being just about 3/10ths behind.


Well they didn't get the Ferrari data until March so it didn't do anything for the Australian GP. Of course it could have helped thereafter.

Poker mentioned the tyre change and I'm sure there could be lots of things that contributed to the improvement in form for Melbourne.


The final test was in March and the race two weeks later.


There were no emails before the 21st. During Australia they only got when Kimi was going to pit and info on the floor. The WMSC covered all this, the emails talking about "the mole" in Ferrari were using the pit stop knowledge (He said he'd pit lap 18 and he pitted on 19) as proof the mole and info they were now getting AFTER Australia was legit.

That's when they talked about weight distribution,the braking system, the gas they use and something to do with the rear wing.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:46 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4729
LKS1 wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

No testing ban and simulation tools weren't as good as today in 2006/7. Today designers know if a part will work and what effect it will have on the car if your simulation tools are up to snuff anyway.

It's post testing ban, CFD,full chassis dyno's and in the loop simulators that make the driver not as vital to development these days. Schumacher at Fiorano and Alonso with Micheln and Renault pumping in 1000's of KM's away from race weekends were obviously vital before those tools became so good.

But I think in this case it was rumoured he brought something specific from Renault rather than sorting out McLaren car problems but I can't recall what it was.


He brought nothing specific from Renault, other than the spy-gate documents which allowed Mclaren engineers have access to the Ferrari data.

After testing Mclaren looked to be in serious trouble and lo and behold they turn up to Melbourne 6/10th quicker, and instead of them enjoying their theft, they protested the Ferrari floor.

Hence Alonso saying the car he drove at the first test before his input was 6/10ths slower hence saying he brought 6/10th to the Mclaren.


He didn't bring spygate documents anywhere. I'll look for the article about what he said it was from Renault if you're genuinely interested.

McLaren didn't have the documents at that point but nice try. Stepney grassed the Ferrari floor up to the FIA before Australia but they ignored it and because they ignored it (and he was bitter about being passed over) he decided to sabotage them himself and that's when he approached Coughlin.

Alonso only found out later as the test driver running all the "Ferrari" improvements happened to be his mate so he was told about it and asked him requests like "we've got to test this etc.." in emails and that's the Spygate link to Alonso.

If it's a different test or development driver then he'd have been as clueless as Lewis was.


I didn't say he brought the Ferrari documents maybe you misread what I wrote above hence why I put the comma in there.

Maybe look up Pedro and Alonso exchanging emails during testing.

Also it was Mclaren who went to protest after the Australian grandprix after seeing the Ferrari drawings.

Stepney and Coughlan were passing information freely between themselves.

If he had the 6/10th he would have taken it back with him to Renault, but alas we gonna keep on with this Alonso myth.

It's not really a myth, as ONLY Alonso believes he brought 6/10ths to McLaren between December 2006 and Australia GP 2007.


Fixed.

Not as snappy but accurate.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 6:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 6244
Location: Mumbai, India
Image
Source - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DeN8ch1WkAAb0a9.jpg:large

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 1:47 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26904
Rockie wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Rockie wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

No I read it fine, maybe English isn't your native language but you said...."He brought nothing specific from Renault, other than the spy-gate documents which allowed Mclaren engineers have access to the Ferrari data"......That's very much you saying he brought the spygate documents so what were you trying to say if not that?

Maybe look up the date of the emails. I'll save you the bother, it's late March (25th) and after the Australian Grand Prix on the 18th. Coughlin and Stepney had only exchanged texts at that point, like telling him when Kimi was going to stop. He didn't need to look at drawings, Stepney emailed him about the floor on the Friday before the GP.

That is true that they were exchanging info at least from the Australian GP.

No-one's claiming he did bring 6ths to the car except Alonso in one interview in Spain 11 years ago. And we managed to turn it into several myths over the years, to mock him rather than make him look good. Even his fans get the blame as demonstrated by the start of this conversation.

As I said, it's a pretty standard amount to improve over the winter regardless and I don't particularly care if he did or didn't. Just sounded like the whinge of someone feeling under appreciated and screwed over to me.


Maybe I should have started it in another sentence, what I was saying is basically it was the Ferrari data that helped Mclaren and not anything he brought from Renault.

You don't go from being almost a second behind to being just about 3/10ths behind.

You think that the McLaren was designed and built within a week?


Give the Mercedes engine specs to Honda and you will see how quickly they can build a proper engine.

I wouldn't know the logistics between building a car and an engine and just for accuracy the documents were sent after the season had started and I don't remember McLaren building a B spec car, then there's the fact that the McLaren looked nothing like the Ferrari, had totally different strengths and weaknesses, etc, etc.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 8th

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (5)


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: dompclarke, kleefton, Lotus49, MB-BOB, pokerman 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