planetf1.com

It is currently Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:48 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 4:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4530
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Yeah I think there is more of a point now for Alonso, he's keen to point out his position in the WDC and I think the goal for him is to win the mini WDC, best of the rest behind the top 3 teams.

Maybe the stories coming out from McLaren are not true, but then again last year the cars never seemed to be identical, do the other top teams run like this, I don't think so, so are McLaren truely a top team, I don't recall them running like this when Hamilton was there apart from the 2009 season when they were trying to improve the silver donkey.

Maybe It's unfortunate that Alonso always finds himself is this position were teams don't back their drivers equally, maybe questions should be asked more about how McLaren themselves are operating in terms of fairness to drivers if the stories are true?

Also there maybe some truth in Mercedes and Ferrari not wanting to upset the apple cart, but stories surrounding Alonso often talk of burnt bridges.


He seemed just as keen in the McHonda years to do that so I still don't see what's different?

The story from Stoff was about Monaco and the front wing, they only had two so both went to Alonso. They do that in case of damage so they don't have to start again with set up work. You might recall them doing it with a floor last year in Monaco with JB and Stoff where Stoff wrote his off so they took JB's away from him and he got a penalty so now both parts go to one driver.

Last year they alternated until the Americas. Stoff had engine advantages in China,Austria and Baku. Alonso had chassis advantages in Australia,Malaysia,US and Mexico.

McLaren only didn't run this policy with JB-Lewis and JB-Alonso. Lewis had full number 1 status against Kova. He got fuel preference in 90% of the quali's and got every new part first, both years.

They do talk of burnt bridges but they did so with both teams he returned to as well funnily enough and I still don't recall Danny burning any bridges and he doesn't look like getting a seat at Merc/Ferrari either. It's almost like they're both perfectly happy with their No.1-2 situation rather than stick another rooster in there.

The gist of it all seems that Alonso gets all the new parts first now so the performance differential is exaggerated which seems to be what Vandoorne is saying.

I can understand what you say about set up issues but you don't get a penalty for putting a different kind of front wing on, when comparing with Heikki I know this happened in 2009 when they were rushing new developments because the car started out so bad but also the writing was on the wall for Heikki at that point, are McLaren starting to write Vandoorne off?

Regarding Ferrari and Mercedes they could be very well be happy with the status quo with the drivers but still Ricciardo is mooted as a possibility whereas Alonso is not.


That's the gist for Monaco and some races at the end of last year yeah. Except he also said it won't make too much difference (the Monaco part) so it's a little contradictory.

No penalty for front wing but you would still have to change everything behind the front wing as that is what dictates the air flow. It's a nightmare so both go to the same driver. It happened with Heikki both years according to him, he never received a new part first and was giving the worse fuel strategy in something like 28 out of 35 quali sessions or something like that. I thought you kept quali data so you can correct me if it's wrong. I can't speak for McLaren's state of mind on Stoff but it doesn't sound like he's getting written off.

Talk is cheap, we'll see where Dan ends up. I hope he ends up at either but I'm just not convinced they or the drivers there are interested in changing it up.

The front wing was worth 1 to 2 tenths, Vandoorne was out qualified by 0.177s, it does make quite a difference.

As for the Heikki situation all I can say is thank the Lord race fuel qualifying no longer exists, I'm not aware this happened in 2008 but his qualifying was always strong, however in the race he was often a second a lap slower than Hamilton, this was when team orders were not allowed and McLaren I think decided they couldn't risk Heikki starting in front of Hamilton.

Anyway it seems that Vandoorne is still wanted and his situation is understood.

http://www.onestopstrategy.com/article/ ... +seat.html


Just repeating what Stoff said, take it up with him.

Teams don't tend to back the slower driver so there's always good reason why preferential treatment is given and yes it was both years.

I hope he stays so that's good news.

_________________
"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 May 31, 2018 4:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26115
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
He seemed just as keen in the McHonda years to do that so I still don't see what's different?

The story from Stoff was about Monaco and the front wing, they only had two so both went to Alonso. They do that in case of damage so they don't have to start again with set up work. You might recall them doing it with a floor last year in Monaco with JB and Stoff where Stoff wrote his off so they took JB's away from him and he got a penalty so now both parts go to one driver.

Last year they alternated until the Americas. Stoff had engine advantages in China,Austria and Baku. Alonso had chassis advantages in Australia,Malaysia,US and Mexico.

McLaren only didn't run this policy with JB-Lewis and JB-Alonso. Lewis had full number 1 status against Kova. He got fuel preference in 90% of the quali's and got every new part first, both years.

They do talk of burnt bridges but they did so with both teams he returned to as well funnily enough and I still don't recall Danny burning any bridges and he doesn't look like getting a seat at Merc/Ferrari either. It's almost like they're both perfectly happy with their No.1-2 situation rather than stick another rooster in there.

The gist of it all seems that Alonso gets all the new parts first now so the performance differential is exaggerated which seems to be what Vandoorne is saying.

I can understand what you say about set up issues but you don't get a penalty for putting a different kind of front wing on, when comparing with Heikki I know this happened in 2009 when they were rushing new developments because the car started out so bad but also the writing was on the wall for Heikki at that point, are McLaren starting to write Vandoorne off?

Regarding Ferrari and Mercedes they could be very well be happy with the status quo with the drivers but still Ricciardo is mooted as a possibility whereas Alonso is not.


That's the gist for Monaco and some races at the end of last year yeah. Except he also said it won't make too much difference (the Monaco part) so it's a little contradictory.

No penalty for front wing but you would still have to change everything behind the front wing as that is what dictates the air flow. It's a nightmare so both go to the same driver. It happened with Heikki both years according to him, he never received a new part first and was giving the worse fuel strategy in something like 28 out of 35 quali sessions or something like that. I thought you kept quali data so you can correct me if it's wrong. I can't speak for McLaren's state of mind on Stoff but it doesn't sound like he's getting written off.

Talk is cheap, we'll see where Dan ends up. I hope he ends up at either but I'm just not convinced they or the drivers there are interested in changing it up.

The front wing was worth 1 to 2 tenths, Vandoorne was out qualified by 0.177s, it does make quite a difference.

As for the Heikki situation all I can say is thank the Lord race fuel qualifying no longer exists, I'm not aware this happened in 2008 but his qualifying was always strong, however in the race he was often a second a lap slower than Hamilton, this was when team orders were not allowed and McLaren I think decided they couldn't risk Heikki starting in front of Hamilton.

Anyway it seems that Vandoorne is still wanted and his situation is understood.

http://www.onestopstrategy.com/article/ ... +seat.html


Just repeating what Stoff said, take it up with him.

Teams don't tend to back the slower driver so there's always good reason why preferential treatment is given and yes it was both years.

I hope he stays so that's good news.

Yeah I can appreciate that just that I'm sure most people might have been unaware of his situation, to all and sundry he is 3 tenths slower than Alonso but perhaps the actual gap is not quite as big as that?

I would be guessing that of all the drivers presently on the grid he may well be being disadvantaged the most?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 4th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 4:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4530
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
When he first joined McLaren some of his supporters actually believed he was doing such things, the 6 tenths he brings.


Not his supporters. Alonso himself said over a winter he could help make 5-6ths improvement to a team's car (pretty standard amount to gain over a winter) and that got twisted into the whole I bring 6ths, I'm 6ths faster than anyone else, and every other version under the sun and now apparently it was his fans that said it/claimed it/believed it or whatever.

Got to love the British press and the Internet.

No he was interviewed during the Silverstone GP then he said that he brought 6 tenths to the team and maybe McLaren are not respecting that, this being he should be leading the team driver wise.


It was an interview in Spanish between Hungary and Turkey where he talked about from driving the car in December to driving it in Australia and that those 6ths he helped bring aren't being respected in his fight with Lewis.

Yes it's a nudge or a poke about having his No.1 status revoked. The translated British article left it a little unclear as it says...

Quote:
"My belief is that last year McLaren were nowhere,” he said.

“I remember how the car was going when I tested it in December and how it went in Australia.

“Those sixth tenths of a second that I have brought when I got in the car for the first time haven’t been reflected at any time when we two drivers have been competing against each other.

“That is basically the quarrel I have had for the whole season but who doesn’t have problems with their boss?”

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-moto ... 6920070825

Which because he had half a second on Lewis in testing on the Michelins, got interpreted as the 6ths he brought (over Lewis) had suddenly disappeared.

Was it (the 6ths he had over Lewis) not being reflected in results between them, or is it (the 6ths he brought to the car) not being reflected in the treatment he's received from the team.

The beginning of the quote suggests the latter but it really needs a "from" between brought and when in the second part of the quote to make it clearer.

I think it's well known that Hamilton wasn't quick on the Michelins but they raced on the Bridgestones, this 6 tenths comparison with Hamilton really makes no sense to the performance of the 2006 McLaren because Hamilton didn't race it, the lead driver was Kimi who wasn't still there as a comparitor so Alonso's logic that in his hands the 2006 car would have been a winner because he was 6 tenths quicker than Hamilton in testing is somewhat flawed.

The reality is that in 2007 on the Bridgestones Hamilton was a match for him, I've no doubt that Dennis may well have broken a promise to Alonso about preferential treatment but then again this is my point about the politics of Alonso.


Good job that's not his logic then and thanks for proving the point about how easily that daft quote gets taken completely out of context.

To be clear for the 3rd time, he's saying the 6ths he helped bring to the car from December to Australia isn't being respected by the team during his fight with Lewis.

i.e if it wasn't for me you'd still be nowhere like 2006 and we'd be scrapping over 5th and 6th instead of 1st and 2nd so show me some respect and remember that next time me and Lewis are squabbling.

A very arrogant statement of course but it's got nothing to do with being 6ths quicker than anyone, it's about car development, McLaren's sudden change in competitiveness over the winter and how he's not getting the credit or leeway perhaps he feels he deserves during this battle with Lewis in the team for his role in the turnaround of the cars performance from when he first sat in it in December to what they had in Australia.

_________________
"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


Last edited by Lotus49 on Thu May 31, 2018 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 4:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4530
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
For me he's talking about the times the car is different yeah but he's not saying it's always different at all. Like I said in a previous post, he has no trouble letting us know when he doesn't have an equal car. Monaco the latest example and Oz and the America's leg last year the other examples. Even Zak tells everyone when the car is different.

I'm sure some would love to turn that into it's always different but there's no indication it is at all.

I don't think he is only talking about just 1 race when he says the gap isn't always as big as it looks, being Alonso's teammate is difficult as it is, sometimes having an inferior car makes it even more difficult, do other teams operate like this?


No, I'd imagine he's talking about the other times at the end of last year it happened as well.

Well there's talk of only Gasly getting the Honda upgrade and Red Bull at least used to employ a whoever's highest in the table gets the new stuff first if only one can be brought. No idea about this year but they actually broke that rule last year when Max got the one upgraded engine that Renault brought 3 of (Max,Hulk and Hartley got them) but Dan had just taken one I think. Year before that Dan got the only Renault upgrade in Monaco.

Seems more common with engine than chassis parts.

Has Hartley not already had an engine blow up so he would have been on his second engine already?


Think that was Gasly in Australia wasn't 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: Thu May 31, 2018 4:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4530
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
-ZeroGravityToilet- wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Yeah I think there is more of a point now for Alonso, he's keen to point out his position in the WDC and I think the goal for him is to win the mini WDC, best of the rest behind the top 3 teams.

Maybe the stories coming out from McLaren are not true, but then again last year the cars never seemed to be identical, do the other top teams run like this, I don't think so, so are McLaren truely a top team, I don't recall them running like this when Hamilton was there apart from the 2009 season when they were trying to improve the silver donkey.

Maybe It's unfortunate that Alonso always finds himself is this position were teams don't back their drivers equally, maybe questions should be asked more about how McLaren themselves are operating in terms of fairness to drivers if the stories are true?

Also there maybe some truth in Mercedes and Ferrari not wanting to upset the apple cart, but stories surrounding Alonso often talk of burnt bridges.


From what I know Alonso is the only driver in a long time to have been able to come back to two teams. Talk about burnt bridges...

Back to two what are basically midfield teams, also I believe it was Honda in particular that wanted Alonso, they paid his wages after all.


If McLaren were midfield when he joined then Ferrari were midfield when he left too. No-one was thinking they were a midfield outfit back then rather than a team with good reasons to have struggled recently with no Mercedes help in 2014 and poor decision to start a new concept when everyone else had well developed ones in 2013.

Hindsight is wonderful but no chance they were viewed as midfield then. And Honda contributing to wages was never confirmed.

Well I was specifically talking about the situation of the teams he rejoined, they were not race winners plus the teams were not overly confident about the drivers they had, so they very much needed Alonso.


Which just highlights that needs are what matters when it comes to repairing so called burnt bridges and neither Mercedes and Ferrari need him.

If that changed, like it did for McLaren, then their opinions can change. Dealing in absolutes is silly after everything we've seen.

_________________
"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 May 31, 2018 4:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4530
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
The gist of it all seems that Alonso gets all the new parts first now so the performance differential is exaggerated which seems to be what Vandoorne is saying.

I can understand what you say about set up issues but you don't get a penalty for putting a different kind of front wing on, when comparing with Heikki I know this happened in 2009 when they were rushing new developments because the car started out so bad but also the writing was on the wall for Heikki at that point, are McLaren starting to write Vandoorne off?

Regarding Ferrari and Mercedes they could be very well be happy with the status quo with the drivers but still Ricciardo is mooted as a possibility whereas Alonso is not.


That's the gist for Monaco and some races at the end of last year yeah. Except he also said it won't make too much difference (the Monaco part) so it's a little contradictory.

No penalty for front wing but you would still have to change everything behind the front wing as that is what dictates the air flow. It's a nightmare so both go to the same driver. It happened with Heikki both years according to him, he never received a new part first and was giving the worse fuel strategy in something like 28 out of 35 quali sessions or something like that. I thought you kept quali data so you can correct me if it's wrong. I can't speak for McLaren's state of mind on Stoff but it doesn't sound like he's getting written off.

Talk is cheap, we'll see where Dan ends up. I hope he ends up at either but I'm just not convinced they or the drivers there are interested in changing it up.

The front wing was worth 1 to 2 tenths, Vandoorne was out qualified by 0.177s, it does make quite a difference.

As for the Heikki situation all I can say is thank the Lord race fuel qualifying no longer exists, I'm not aware this happened in 2008 but his qualifying was always strong, however in the race he was often a second a lap slower than Hamilton, this was when team orders were not allowed and McLaren I think decided they couldn't risk Heikki starting in front of Hamilton.

Anyway it seems that Vandoorne is still wanted and his situation is understood.

http://www.onestopstrategy.com/article/ ... +seat.html


Just repeating what Stoff said, take it up with him.

Teams don't tend to back the slower driver so there's always good reason why preferential treatment is given and yes it was both years.

I hope he stays so that's good news.

Yeah I can appreciate that just that I'm sure most people might have been unaware of his situation, to all and sundry he is 3 tenths slower than Alonso but perhaps the actual gap is not quite as big as that?

I would be guessing that of all the drivers presently on the grid he may well be being disadvantaged the most?


That's the gist as I took it yeah and that the decision makers are well aware of these instances so he's relaxed about it.

I've no idea, it's certainly happened at least half a dozen times over 20 odd races. Not sure anyone's paying much attention elsewhere and if there's no journo's asking there's not going to be many answers floating around.

_________________
"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 May 31, 2018 5:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1723
Location: Miami, Florida
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
During the race DC said that in the chicane there is no white line exactly, so it is difficult to say if Max had crossed it or not.

So I was wondering, how do they police this on the apex where there are the bumps and no white line? is it under the kerbs in the centre? Or at the edge? Does anyone know?
I recall reading a clarification that said the white line, marking the edge of the track, is part of the track but the kerb stones arn't. But the white line disappearing down the middle of the kerbs lead me to believe that the drivers must have been briefed about how it would be policed. With young drivers coming in, that should surely be standard?

I remember the Nouvelle Chicane was modified a few times, but that doesn't explain how the track passed inspection without it present.


Thank you Fiki, but this is what I don't understand; check this pic and see how before the kerbs there are just very wide white and red lines. There is no white line at all. So what is the rule in this case? These white and red lines are not kerbs. I just don't see how they explain this.
I just had a quick look, most of the track at Monaco lacks white lines to mark the edge of the track, though there are plenty of other white lines for daily traffic. I suppose it's obvious enough to point to armco as a "hard substitute", but that doesn't answer our problem in any way.


Yeah, I take it they can't paint lines like that on a public road, although I have never been there to see the roads. But there's no point on the wall sections, I guess the edge of the track is blatant! The problem is on the chicane and the other few painted sections

This is entirely preposterous. The confines of the track next to apexes are the same for EVERY track.
Look at Spa, Nurburgring, Silverstone, ALL of them have the white line painted about 1.5" past the edge of the apex, designating the very edge of the track at about 6" past the edge of the apex.

This "ruling" or lack there of was nothing more than race control wanting to penalize their young superstar. Were it anyone else they would have issued a time penalty or forced the driver to give the place back.

_________________
HAMILTON :: ALONSO :: VETTEL :: RAIKKONEN :: RICCIARDO :: VERSTAPPEN
BOTTAS :: MAGNUSSEN :: OCON :: SAINZ :: PEREZ :: VANDOORNE :: HULKENBERG
GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: ERICSON :: LECLERC :: STROLL :: SEROTKIN :: HARTLEY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 5:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26115
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Not his supporters. Alonso himself said over a winter he could help make 5-6ths improvement to a team's car (pretty standard amount to gain over a winter) and that got twisted into the whole I bring 6ths, I'm 6ths faster than anyone else, and every other version under the sun and now apparently it was his fans that said it/claimed it/believed it or whatever.

Got to love the British press and the Internet.

No he was interviewed during the Silverstone GP then he said that he brought 6 tenths to the team and maybe McLaren are not respecting that, this being he should be leading the team driver wise.


It was an interview in Spanish between Hungary and Turkey where he talked about from driving the car in December to driving it in Australia and that those 6ths he helped bring aren't being respected in his fight with Lewis.

Yes it's a nudge or a poke about having his No.1 status revoked. The translated British article left it a little unclear as it says...

Quote:
"My belief is that last year McLaren were nowhere,” he said.

“I remember how the car was going when I tested it in December and how it went in Australia.

“Those sixth tenths of a second that I have brought when I got in the car for the first time haven’t been reflected at any time when we two drivers have been competing against each other.

“That is basically the quarrel I have had for the whole season but who doesn’t have problems with their boss?”

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-moto ... 6920070825

Which because he had half a second on Lewis in testing on the Michelins, got interpreted as the 6ths he brought (over Lewis) had suddenly disappeared.

Was it (the 6ths he had over Lewis) not being reflected in results between them, or is it (the 6ths he brought to the car) not being reflected in the treatment he's received from the team.

The beginning of the quote suggests the latter but it really needs a "from" between brought and when in the second part of the quote to make it clearer.

I think it's well known that Hamilton wasn't quick on the Michelins but they raced on the Bridgestones, this 6 tenths comparison with Hamilton really makes no sense to the performance of the 2006 McLaren because Hamilton didn't race it, the lead driver was Kimi who wasn't still there as a comparitor so Alonso's logic that in his hands the 2006 car would have been a winner because he was 6 tenths quicker than Hamilton in testing is somewhat flawed.

The reality is that in 2007 on the Bridgestones Hamilton was a match for him, I've no doubt that Dennis may well have broken a promise to Alonso about preferential treatment but then again this is my point about the politics of Alonso.


Good job that's not his logic then and thanks for proving the point about how easily that daft quote gets taken completely out of context.

To be clear for the 3rd time, he's saying the 6ths he helped bring to the car from December to Australia isn't being respected by the team during his fight with Lewis.

i.e if it wasn't for me you'd still be nowhere like 2006 and we'd be scrapping over 5th and 6th instead of 1st and 2nd so show me some respect and remember that next time me and Lewis are squabbling.

A very arrogant statement of course but it's got nothing to do with being 6ths quicker than anyone, it's about car development, McLaren's sudden change in competitiveness over the winter and how he's not getting the credit or leeway perhaps he feels he deserves during this battle with Lewis in the team for his role in the turnaround of the cars performance from when he first sat in it in December to what they had in Australia.

Fair enough I never quite knew what he meant in the first place when he said it, I believe that the improved performance was just because the car was that much better on the Bridgestones, that was said at the time, whereas the Renault struggled on the Bridgestones and went backwards.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 4th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 5:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26115
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
For me he's talking about the times the car is different yeah but he's not saying it's always different at all. Like I said in a previous post, he has no trouble letting us know when he doesn't have an equal car. Monaco the latest example and Oz and the America's leg last year the other examples. Even Zak tells everyone when the car is different.

I'm sure some would love to turn that into it's always different but there's no indication it is at all.

I don't think he is only talking about just 1 race when he says the gap isn't always as big as it looks, being Alonso's teammate is difficult as it is, sometimes having an inferior car makes it even more difficult, do other teams operate like this?


No, I'd imagine he's talking about the other times at the end of last year it happened as well.

Well there's talk of only Gasly getting the Honda upgrade and Red Bull at least used to employ a whoever's highest in the table gets the new stuff first if only one can be brought. No idea about this year but they actually broke that rule last year when Max got the one upgraded engine that Renault brought 3 of (Max,Hulk and Hartley got them) but Dan had just taken one I think. Year before that Dan got the only Renault upgrade in Monaco.

Seems more common with engine than chassis parts.

Has Hartley not already had an engine blow up so he would have been on his second engine already?


Think that was Gasly in Australia wasn't it?

So Gasly is on his third engine?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 4th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 5:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26115
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
-ZeroGravityToilet- wrote:
From what I know Alonso is the only driver in a long time to have been able to come back to two teams. Talk about burnt bridges...

Back to two what are basically midfield teams, also I believe it was Honda in particular that wanted Alonso, they paid his wages after all.


If McLaren were midfield when he joined then Ferrari were midfield when he left too. No-one was thinking they were a midfield outfit back then rather than a team with good reasons to have struggled recently with no Mercedes help in 2014 and poor decision to start a new concept when everyone else had well developed ones in 2013.

Hindsight is wonderful but no chance they were viewed as midfield then. And Honda contributing to wages was never confirmed.

Well I was specifically talking about the situation of the teams he rejoined, they were not race winners plus the teams were not overly confident about the drivers they had, so they very much needed Alonso.


Which just highlights that needs are what matters when it comes to repairing so called burnt bridges and neither Mercedes and Ferrari need him.

If that changed, like it did for McLaren, then their opinions can change. Dealing in absolutes is silly after everything we've seen.

Still when saying that Ferrari and Mercedes do not want two #1 drivers and that's why they don't want Alonso, Ricciardo still gets a mention whereas Alonso gets dismissed amongst talk of burnt bridges, so if either Vettel or Hamilton left then Ricciardo would be first choice, I don't believe that's because they see Ricciardo as being the better driver.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 4th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 6:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4530
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
No he was interviewed during the Silverstone GP then he said that he brought 6 tenths to the team and maybe McLaren are not respecting that, this being he should be leading the team driver wise.


It was an interview in Spanish between Hungary and Turkey where he talked about from driving the car in December to driving it in Australia and that those 6ths he helped bring aren't being respected in his fight with Lewis.

Yes it's a nudge or a poke about having his No.1 status revoked. The translated British article left it a little unclear as it says...

Quote:
"My belief is that last year McLaren were nowhere,” he said.

“I remember how the car was going when I tested it in December and how it went in Australia.

“Those sixth tenths of a second that I have brought when I got in the car for the first time haven’t been reflected at any time when we two drivers have been competing against each other.

“That is basically the quarrel I have had for the whole season but who doesn’t have problems with their boss?”

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-moto ... 6920070825

Which because he had half a second on Lewis in testing on the Michelins, got interpreted as the 6ths he brought (over Lewis) had suddenly disappeared.

Was it (the 6ths he had over Lewis) not being reflected in results between them, or is it (the 6ths he brought to the car) not being reflected in the treatment he's received from the team.

The beginning of the quote suggests the latter but it really needs a "from" between brought and when in the second part of the quote to make it clearer.

I think it's well known that Hamilton wasn't quick on the Michelins but they raced on the Bridgestones, this 6 tenths comparison with Hamilton really makes no sense to the performance of the 2006 McLaren because Hamilton didn't race it, the lead driver was Kimi who wasn't still there as a comparitor so Alonso's logic that in his hands the 2006 car would have been a winner because he was 6 tenths quicker than Hamilton in testing is somewhat flawed.

The reality is that in 2007 on the Bridgestones Hamilton was a match for him, I've no doubt that Dennis may well have broken a promise to Alonso about preferential treatment but then again this is my point about the politics of Alonso.


Good job that's not his logic then and thanks for proving the point about how easily that daft quote gets taken completely out of context.

To be clear for the 3rd time, he's saying the 6ths he helped bring to the car from December to Australia isn't being respected by the team during his fight with Lewis.

i.e if it wasn't for me you'd still be nowhere like 2006 and we'd be scrapping over 5th and 6th instead of 1st and 2nd so show me some respect and remember that next time me and Lewis are squabbling.

A very arrogant statement of course but it's got nothing to do with being 6ths quicker than anyone, it's about car development, McLaren's sudden change in competitiveness over the winter and how he's not getting the credit or leeway perhaps he feels he deserves during this battle with Lewis in the team for his role in the turnaround of the cars performance from when he first sat in it in December to what they had in Australia.

Fair enough I never quite knew what he meant in the first place when he said it, I believe that the improved performance was just because the car was that much better on the Bridgestones, that was said at the time, whereas the Renault struggled on the Bridgestones and went backwards.


I'd hope there was more development work done over a winter than just changing the tyres but it's not important anyway.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 6:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4530
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I don't think he is only talking about just 1 race when he says the gap isn't always as big as it looks, being Alonso's teammate is difficult as it is, sometimes having an inferior car makes it even more difficult, do other teams operate like this?


No, I'd imagine he's talking about the other times at the end of last year it happened as well.

Well there's talk of only Gasly getting the Honda upgrade and Red Bull at least used to employ a whoever's highest in the table gets the new stuff first if only one can be brought. No idea about this year but they actually broke that rule last year when Max got the one upgraded engine that Renault brought 3 of (Max,Hulk and Hartley got them) but Dan had just taken one I think. Year before that Dan got the only Renault upgrade in Monaco.

Seems more common with engine than chassis parts.

Has Hartley not already had an engine blow up so he would have been on his second engine already?


Think that was Gasly in Australia wasn't it?

So Gasly is on his third engine?


I honestly don't know. I think it was the 'H' that failed but unsure what else they had to change if anything.

It's not certain only Gasly will get the upgrade, it was just floated in the Honda power unit thread on f1technical based on a Japanese article I believe.

There was also some talk of Kimi not getting the Ferrari one because of being out of sync because of previous failures but until Canada we're probably going to get a lot of rumours with not much substance.

_________________
"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 May 31, 2018 6:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26115
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I think it's well known that Hamilton wasn't quick on the Michelins but they raced on the Bridgestones, this 6 tenths comparison with Hamilton really makes no sense to the performance of the 2006 McLaren because Hamilton didn't race it, the lead driver was Kimi who wasn't still there as a comparitor so Alonso's logic that in his hands the 2006 car would have been a winner because he was 6 tenths quicker than Hamilton in testing is somewhat flawed.

The reality is that in 2007 on the Bridgestones Hamilton was a match for him, I've no doubt that Dennis may well have broken a promise to Alonso about preferential treatment but then again this is my point about the politics of Alonso.


Good job that's not his logic then and thanks for proving the point about how easily that daft quote gets taken completely out of context.

To be clear for the 3rd time, he's saying the 6ths he helped bring to the car from December to Australia isn't being respected by the team during his fight with Lewis.

i.e if it wasn't for me you'd still be nowhere like 2006 and we'd be scrapping over 5th and 6th instead of 1st and 2nd so show me some respect and remember that next time me and Lewis are squabbling.

A very arrogant statement of course but it's got nothing to do with being 6ths quicker than anyone, it's about car development, McLaren's sudden change in competitiveness over the winter and how he's not getting the credit or leeway perhaps he feels he deserves during this battle with Lewis in the team for his role in the turnaround of the cars performance from when he first sat in it in December to what they had in Australia.

Fair enough I never quite knew what he meant in the first place when he said it, I believe that the improved performance was just because the car was that much better on the Bridgestones, that was said at the time, whereas the Renault struggled on the Bridgestones and went backwards.


I'd hope there was more development work done over a winter than just changing the tyres but it's not important anyway.

Of course but it was mentioned that the car suited the tyres better.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 4th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 6:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4530
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Back to two what are basically midfield teams, also I believe it was Honda in particular that wanted Alonso, they paid his wages after all.


If McLaren were midfield when he joined then Ferrari were midfield when he left too. No-one was thinking they were a midfield outfit back then rather than a team with good reasons to have struggled recently with no Mercedes help in 2014 and poor decision to start a new concept when everyone else had well developed ones in 2013.

Hindsight is wonderful but no chance they were viewed as midfield then. And Honda contributing to wages was never confirmed.

Well I was specifically talking about the situation of the teams he rejoined, they were not race winners plus the teams were not overly confident about the drivers they had, so they very much needed Alonso.


Which just highlights that needs are what matters when it comes to repairing so called burnt bridges and neither Mercedes and Ferrari need him.

If that changed, like it did for McLaren, then their opinions can change. Dealing in absolutes is silly after everything we've seen.

Still when saying that Ferrari and Mercedes do not want two #1 drivers and that's why they don't want Alonso, Ricciardo still gets a mention whereas Alonso gets dismissed amongst talk of burnt bridges, so if either Vettel or Hamilton left then Ricciardo would be first choice, I don't believe that's because they see Ricciardo as being the better driver.


And like I said talk is cheap so who gets mentioned doesn't really matter much, actions are all that matters and it doesn't seem to be looking like Dan will be at either of them but I could see the argument for picking Dan over Alonso even on performance anyway, he's 7 or so years younger and apart from the starts and the wet I'm not so sure there'd be much in it anyway, I think those top 5 guys are pretty tight all in all.

He would do more than a good enough job leading one of those teams I think and being younger,cheaper and proven against two of the top 5 counts for a lot. I mean he's yet to lose to one of those guys over a season and has the most convincing win over a top 5 guy on the grid so it's hard to argue against if they went for him over Alonso.

For me anyway.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 6:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26115
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
No, I'd imagine he's talking about the other times at the end of last year it happened as well.

Well there's talk of only Gasly getting the Honda upgrade and Red Bull at least used to employ a whoever's highest in the table gets the new stuff first if only one can be brought. No idea about this year but they actually broke that rule last year when Max got the one upgraded engine that Renault brought 3 of (Max,Hulk and Hartley got them) but Dan had just taken one I think. Year before that Dan got the only Renault upgrade in Monaco.

Seems more common with engine than chassis parts.

Has Hartley not already had an engine blow up so he would have been on his second engine already?


Think that was Gasly in Australia wasn't it?

So Gasly is on his third engine?


I honestly don't know. I think it was the 'H' that failed but unsure what else they had to change if anything.

It's not certain only Gasly will get the upgrade, it was just floated in the Honda power unit thread on f1technical based on a Japanese article I believe.

There was also some talk of Kimi not getting the Ferrari one because of being out of sync because of previous failures but until Canada we're probably going to get a lot of rumours with not much substance.

Yeah I think it's more to do with drivers being out of synch with engine usage.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 4th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 6:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4530
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I think it's well known that Hamilton wasn't quick on the Michelins but they raced on the Bridgestones, this 6 tenths comparison with Hamilton really makes no sense to the performance of the 2006 McLaren because Hamilton didn't race it, the lead driver was Kimi who wasn't still there as a comparitor so Alonso's logic that in his hands the 2006 car would have been a winner because he was 6 tenths quicker than Hamilton in testing is somewhat flawed.

The reality is that in 2007 on the Bridgestones Hamilton was a match for him, I've no doubt that Dennis may well have broken a promise to Alonso about preferential treatment but then again this is my point about the politics of Alonso.


Good job that's not his logic then and thanks for proving the point about how easily that daft quote gets taken completely out of context.

To be clear for the 3rd time, he's saying the 6ths he helped bring to the car from December to Australia isn't being respected by the team during his fight with Lewis.

i.e if it wasn't for me you'd still be nowhere like 2006 and we'd be scrapping over 5th and 6th instead of 1st and 2nd so show me some respect and remember that next time me and Lewis are squabbling.

A very arrogant statement of course but it's got nothing to do with being 6ths quicker than anyone, it's about car development, McLaren's sudden change in competitiveness over the winter and how he's not getting the credit or leeway perhaps he feels he deserves during this battle with Lewis in the team for his role in the turnaround of the cars performance from when he first sat in it in December to what they had in Australia.

Fair enough I never quite knew what he meant in the first place when he said it, I believe that the improved performance was just because the car was that much better on the Bridgestones, that was said at the time, whereas the Renault struggled on the Bridgestones and went backwards.


I'd hope there was more development work done over a winter than just changing the tyres but it's not important anyway.

Of course but it was mentioned that the car suited the tyres better.


Good to know.

_________________
"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 May 31, 2018 6:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4530
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Has Hartley not already had an engine blow up so he would have been on his second engine already?


Think that was Gasly in Australia wasn't it?

So Gasly is on his third engine?


I honestly don't know. I think it was the 'H' that failed but unsure what else they had to change if anything.

It's not certain only Gasly will get the upgrade, it was just floated in the Honda power unit thread on f1technical based on a Japanese article I believe.

There was also some talk of Kimi not getting the Ferrari one because of being out of sync because of previous failures but until Canada we're probably going to get a lot of rumours with not much substance.

Yeah I think it's more to do with drivers being out of synch with engine usage.


Except in the Gasly case I think, if it happened, which is why it stood out but until we get any info there's not a lot to go on.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 6:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26115
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
If McLaren were midfield when he joined then Ferrari were midfield when he left too. No-one was thinking they were a midfield outfit back then rather than a team with good reasons to have struggled recently with no Mercedes help in 2014 and poor decision to start a new concept when everyone else had well developed ones in 2013.

Hindsight is wonderful but no chance they were viewed as midfield then. And Honda contributing to wages was never confirmed.

Well I was specifically talking about the situation of the teams he rejoined, they were not race winners plus the teams were not overly confident about the drivers they had, so they very much needed Alonso.


Which just highlights that needs are what matters when it comes to repairing so called burnt bridges and neither Mercedes and Ferrari need him.

If that changed, like it did for McLaren, then their opinions can change. Dealing in absolutes is silly after everything we've seen.

Still when saying that Ferrari and Mercedes do not want two #1 drivers and that's why they don't want Alonso, Ricciardo still gets a mention whereas Alonso gets dismissed amongst talk of burnt bridges, so if either Vettel or Hamilton left then Ricciardo would be first choice, I don't believe that's because they see Ricciardo as being the better driver.


And like I said talk is cheap so who gets mentioned doesn't really matter much, actions are all that matters and it doesn't seem to be looking like Dan will be at either of them but I could see the argument for picking Dan over Alonso even on performance anyway, he's 7 or so years younger and apart from the starts and the wet I'm not so sure there'd be much in it anyway, I think those top 5 guys are pretty tight all in all.

He would do more than a good enough job leading one of those teams I think and being younger,cheaper and proven against two of the top 5 counts for a lot. I mean he's yet to lose to one of those guys over a season and has the most convincing win over a top 5 guy on the grid so it's hard to argue against if they went for him over Alonso.

For me anyway.

Fair enough but for me on pure performance I would take Alonso but in terms of team harmony I would take Ricciardo.

As for the teams themselves talk is of past histories.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 4th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 6:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4530
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Well I was specifically talking about the situation of the teams he rejoined, they were not race winners plus the teams were not overly confident about the drivers they had, so they very much needed Alonso.


Which just highlights that needs are what matters when it comes to repairing so called burnt bridges and neither Mercedes and Ferrari need him.

If that changed, like it did for McLaren, then their opinions can change. Dealing in absolutes is silly after everything we've seen.

Still when saying that Ferrari and Mercedes do not want two #1 drivers and that's why they don't want Alonso, Ricciardo still gets a mention whereas Alonso gets dismissed amongst talk of burnt bridges, so if either Vettel or Hamilton left then Ricciardo would be first choice, I don't believe that's because they see Ricciardo as being the better driver.


And like I said talk is cheap so who gets mentioned doesn't really matter much, actions are all that matters and it doesn't seem to be looking like Dan will be at either of them but I could see the argument for picking Dan over Alonso even on performance anyway, he's 7 or so years younger and apart from the starts and the wet I'm not so sure there'd be much in it anyway, I think those top 5 guys are pretty tight all in all.

He would do more than a good enough job leading one of those teams I think and being younger,cheaper and proven against two of the top 5 counts for a lot. I mean he's yet to lose to one of those guys over a season and has the most convincing win over a top 5 guy on the grid so it's hard to argue against if they went for him over Alonso.

For me anyway.

Fair enough but for me on pure performance I would take Alonso but in terms of team harmony I would take Ricciardo.

As for the teams themselves talk is of past histories.


And it's still cheap and nothing McLaren wouldn't have said pre 2013.

_________________
"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 1:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 3192
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Agree - Alonso should spend more time in the wind tunnel designing these cars.

When he first joined McLaren some of his supporters actually believed he was doing such things, the 6 tenths he brings.


Not his supporters. Alonso himself said over a winter he could help make 5-6ths improvement to a team's car (pretty standard amount to gain over a winter) and that got twisted into the whole I bring 6ths, I'm 6ths faster than anyone else, and every other version under the sun and now apparently it was his fans that said it/claimed it/believed it or whatever.

Got to love the British press and the Internet.

No he was interviewed during the Silverstone GP then he said that he brought 6 tenths to the team and maybe McLaren are not respecting that, this being he should be leading the team driver wise.



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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 1:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4530
kleefton wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
davidheath461 wrote:
Agree - Alonso should spend more time in the wind tunnel designing these cars.

When he first joined McLaren some of his supporters actually believed he was doing such things, the 6 tenths he brings.


Not his supporters. Alonso himself said over a winter he could help make 5-6ths improvement to a team's car (pretty standard amount to gain over a winter) and that got twisted into the whole I bring 6ths, I'm 6ths faster than anyone else, and every other version under the sun and now apparently it was his fans that said it/claimed it/believed it or whatever.

Got to love the British press and the Internet.

No he was interviewed during the Silverstone GP then he said that he brought 6 tenths to the team and maybe McLaren are not respecting that, this being he should be leading the team driver wise.



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.

_________________
"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 2:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 3192
Lotus49 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.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

No it still matters. The drivers are what help the engineers understand the cars. The cars don't drive themselves. Chassis dynos and wind tunnels are also important. But they are far from being everything you need even in today's F1. You still need that human input to find out where you can get a few more tenths out of the package. Of course, not all drivers have the same driving style and their inputs will vary, so it's critical to have a driver that gives the right sort of input. Imo that driver is not Alonso.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 3:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4530
kleefton wrote:

No it still matters. The drivers are what help the engineers understand the cars. The cars don't drive themselves. Chassis dynos and wind tunnels are also important. But they are far from being everything you need even in today's F1. You still need that human input to find out where you can get a few more tenths out of the package. Of course, not all drivers have the same driving style and their inputs will vary, so it's critical to have a driver that gives the right sort of input. Imo that driver is not Alonso.


A driver confirms changes perfected in the sim tools are being translated on track. The fact teams have development drivers who work in the sim separate to the drivers who take it out on track highlights the interchangeable nature of the driver now. He's there to answer yes or no, as in are we getting what was projected by the sim tools or not. But even then his word isn't taken as final, they strap sensors and aero rigs to the car and use flow vis instead.

You're entitle to your opinion of course but I think his Renault days show very different in the last era we had before the testing ban and advanced simulation tools. As test and lead driver he took a team from 5th to the double double. Since then and the testing ban your sim tools are where it's at and he hasn't been in a team with the biggest and best infrastructure since McLaren 2007 which completely coincidentally of course was the last time he had the best car.

_________________
"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 3:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 3192
Lotus49 wrote:
kleefton wrote:

No it still matters. The drivers are what help the engineers understand the cars. The cars don't drive themselves. Chassis dynos and wind tunnels are also important. But they are far from being everything you need even in today's F1. You still need that human input to find out where you can get a few more tenths out of the package. Of course, not all drivers have the same driving style and their inputs will vary, so it's critical to have a driver that gives the right sort of input. Imo that driver is not Alonso.


A driver confirms changes perfected in the sim tools are being translated on track. The fact teams have development drivers who work in the sim separate to the drivers who take it out on track highlights the interchangeable nature of the driver now. He's there to answer yes or no, as in are we getting what was projected by the sim tools or not. But even then his word isn't taken as final, they strap sensors and aero rigs to the car and use flow vis instead.

You're entitle to your opinion of course but I think his Renault days show very different in the last era we had before the testing ban and advanced simulation tools. As test and lead driver he took a team from 5th to the double double. Since then and the testing ban your sim tools are where it's at and he hasn't been in a team with the biggest and best infrastructure since McLaren 2007 which completely coincidentally of course was the last time he had the best car.


To the renault years I will say that was an era where his sheer driving skills could make more of a difference. He was also relatively young and not as experienced as he is today obviously. His input probably weighs a whole lot more now than it did back then.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 3:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4530
kleefton wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
kleefton wrote:

No it still matters. The drivers are what help the engineers understand the cars. The cars don't drive themselves. Chassis dynos and wind tunnels are also important. But they are far from being everything you need even in today's F1. You still need that human input to find out where you can get a few more tenths out of the package. Of course, not all drivers have the same driving style and their inputs will vary, so it's critical to have a driver that gives the right sort of input. Imo that driver is not Alonso.


A driver confirms changes perfected in the sim tools are being translated on track. The fact teams have development drivers who work in the sim separate to the drivers who take it out on track highlights the interchangeable nature of the driver now. He's there to answer yes or no, as in are we getting what was projected by the sim tools or not. But even then his word isn't taken as final, they strap sensors and aero rigs to the car and use flow vis instead.

You're entitle to your opinion of course but I think his Renault days show very different in the last era we had before the testing ban and advanced simulation tools. As test and lead driver he took a team from 5th to the double double. Since then and the testing ban your sim tools are where it's at and he hasn't been in a team with the biggest and best infrastructure since McLaren 2007 which completely coincidentally of course was the last time he had the best car.


To the renault years I will say that was an era where his sheer driving skills could make more of a difference. He was also relatively young and not as experienced as he is today obviously. His input probably weighs a whole lot more now than it did back then.


Certainly more experienced now but I think his advantage then over say Kimi and McLaren was he was the Michelin test driver too so his knowledge of the tyres and the cars behaviour on the tyres could be married more easily with Renault and Michelin working so closely together.

You've actually just reminded me of one area where today's drivers can make a difference is in the Pirelli tyre tests when they are testing future compounds and you can direct them towards favouring your own cars strengths. Seb did this in 2016 and Pirelli listened to him instead of Pascal for Mercedes and Toto said last year that it contributed to their early tyre woes last year and that they won't send a young driver next time as Pirelli are obviously going to listen to a driver like Seb over Pascal.

_________________
"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 5:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1209
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4530
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.

_________________
"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 6:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4530
Apparently it was procedural improvements from Renault according to a Google Group page but no link to the article I'm afraid.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... %5B1-25%5D

(AC 4th one down mentions it)

No idea what or how or on the validity of it all obviously. Don't think it's important anyway, point was he was talking about the car.

_________________
"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 7:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26115
Lotus49 wrote:
kleefton wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
When he first joined McLaren some of his supporters actually believed he was doing such things, the 6 tenths he brings.


Not his supporters. Alonso himself said over a winter he could help make 5-6ths improvement to a team's car (pretty standard amount to gain over a winter) and that got twisted into the whole I bring 6ths, I'm 6ths faster than anyone else, and every other version under the sun and now apparently it was his fans that said it/claimed it/believed it or whatever.

Got to love the British press and the Internet.

No he was interviewed during the Silverstone GP then he said that he brought 6 tenths to the team and maybe McLaren are not respecting that, this being he should be leading the team driver wise.



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 something from Renault?

That paints a far different slant on it away from Alonso's ego itself, so he's saying he didn't get fair pay back?

I still don't like the notion of a driver wanting preferential treatment over a driver that's his equal.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 4th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26115
Lotus49 wrote:
kleefton wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
kleefton wrote:

No it still matters. The drivers are what help the engineers understand the cars. The cars don't drive themselves. Chassis dynos and wind tunnels are also important. But they are far from being everything you need even in today's F1. You still need that human input to find out where you can get a few more tenths out of the package. Of course, not all drivers have the same driving style and their inputs will vary, so it's critical to have a driver that gives the right sort of input. Imo that driver is not Alonso.


A driver confirms changes perfected in the sim tools are being translated on track. The fact teams have development drivers who work in the sim separate to the drivers who take it out on track highlights the interchangeable nature of the driver now. He's there to answer yes or no, as in are we getting what was projected by the sim tools or not. But even then his word isn't taken as final, they strap sensors and aero rigs to the car and use flow vis instead.

You're entitle to your opinion of course but I think his Renault days show very different in the last era we had before the testing ban and advanced simulation tools. As test and lead driver he took a team from 5th to the double double. Since then and the testing ban your sim tools are where it's at and he hasn't been in a team with the biggest and best infrastructure since McLaren 2007 which completely coincidentally of course was the last time he had the best car.


To the renault years I will say that was an era where his sheer driving skills could make more of a difference. He was also relatively young and not as experienced as he is today obviously. His input probably weighs a whole lot more now than it did back then.


Certainly more experienced now but I think his advantage then over say Kimi and McLaren was he was the Michelin test driver too so his knowledge of the tyres and the cars behaviour on the tyres could be married more easily with Renault and Michelin working so closely together.

You've actually just reminded me of one area where today's drivers can make a difference is in the Pirelli tyre tests when they are testing future compounds and you can direct them towards favouring your own cars strengths. Seb did this in 2016 and Pirelli listened to him instead of Pascal for Mercedes and Toto said last year that it contributed to their early tyre woes last year and that they won't send a young driver next time as Pirelli are obviously going to listen to a driver like Seb over Pascal.

Wow that's good knowledge. :thumbup:

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 4th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26115
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.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 4th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26115
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.

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

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 4th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 22605
pokerman 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.

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

Do you have a quote confirming that the car was found to be illegal?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26115
Zoue 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.

Do you have a quote confirming that the car was found to be illegal?

I'm sure it's common knowledge that the car had an illegal flexible floor controlled by a spring system?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 4th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 22605
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Rockie wrote:

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.

Do you have a quote confirming that the car was found to be illegal?

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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4530
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
kleefton wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

Not his supporters. Alonso himself said over a winter he could help make 5-6ths improvement to a team's car (pretty standard amount to gain over a winter) and that got twisted into the whole I bring 6ths, I'm 6ths faster than anyone else, and every other version under the sun and now apparently it was his fans that said it/claimed it/believed it or whatever.

Got to love the British press and the Internet.

No he was interviewed during the Silverstone GP then he said that he brought 6 tenths to the team and maybe McLaren are not respecting that, this being he should be leading the team driver wise.



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 something from Renault?

That paints a far different slant on it away from Alonso's ego itself, so he's saying he didn't get fair pay back?

I still don't like the notion of a driver wanting preferential treatment over a driver that's his equal.


Apparently procedural improvements whatever that means.

I think the gist is he didn't feel he got enough of whatever it was, credit, payback or leeway from them with dealing with his behaviour maybe, I honestly don't know.

Neither do I but if I had it, they took it away and then I felt someone else is starting to get it then I can't say how I'd react in that situation.

_________________
"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 7:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26115
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
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.

Do you have a quote confirming that the car was found to be illegal?

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

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 4th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 22605
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
So the FIA ignored the fact that Kimi won the Australian race with an deliberate illegal car, knowing beforehand, nice.

Do you have a quote confirming that the car was found to be illegal?

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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4530
pokerman 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.

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

_________________
"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 7:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26115
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Do you have a quote confirming that the car was found to be illegal?

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?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 4th

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: Gumption, MB-BOB, mikeyg123 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