planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Jul 17, 2018 12:21 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23034
mds wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mds wrote:
Zoue wrote:
BIB: I would suggest it's more naïve to think otherwise. None of the drivers can significantly influence a car's development, not these days. It was Vettel's good fortune that he joined Red Bull just before they hit the big time


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

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


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

yeah, I suppose that there is something in that, that a team will try and create a car to a driver's strengths. But I think that's more in tweaking what's there, rather than a complete design philosophy. But I don't think a driver actively influences things as much as designers just trying to take advantage of particular strengths.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:04 pm
Posts: 723
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
BIB: I would suggest it's more naïve to think otherwise. None of the drivers can significantly influence a car's development, not these days. It was Vettel's good fortune that he joined Red Bull just before they hit the big time; it was Hamilton's that he did likewise with Mercedes; and it was Alonso's poor fortune that Honda didn't deliver on the promises they made. Any of that triumvirate would likely have had similar success to the other if they had enjoyed each other's equipment at the time.


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

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


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

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

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


RedBull has dominated and gave Vettel his 4 WDCs but have not been popular like Mercedes with Hamilton.
Vettel has ZERO social media presence and he is not interested in doing galas or promoting sponsors at events.
Hamilton has been the PERFECT driver for Mercedes at the time in term of marketability and competition and no other top driver would have fitted the bill better. Just have a look at their instagram pages or Mercedes youtube channel to see what I mean.
Mercedes without Hamilton would have been a very DULL team, just like today's McLaren.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23034
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
It is again naive to think the way you do.
The teams choose and pick who to put in their cars and you will not achieve LONG TERM success if you are not made of the right thing( a combination of talent, marketability and sharing of the company's ethos).
You can luck into 1 or 2 WDC but that's it.

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


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

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

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


RedBull has dominated and gave Vettel his 4 WDCs but have not been popular like Mercedes with Hamilton.
Vettel has ZERO social media presence and he is not interested in doing galas or promoting sponsors at events.
Hamilton has been the PERFECT driver for Mercedes at the time in term of marketability and competition and no other top driver would have fitted the bill better. Just have a look at their instagram pages or Mercedes youtube channel to see what I mean.
Mercedes without Hamilton would have been a very DULL team, just like today's McLaren.

well you're moving the goalposts a bit. I've never said that Hamilton's not doing a good job or that other drivers would have been a better choice. The original discussion was how much luck played a part and whether the Big Three could be interchangeable from a success perspective. And in that respect Hamilton's been fortunate that Mercedes have provided him with a top car, in much the same way that Alonso's been unfortunate that McHonda haven't delivered the goods for him. Any of the top three drivers today would have enjoyed similar success levels in each other's cars and the equipment they've enjoyed does owe a large slice to fortune. Hamilton and Vettel haven't enjoyed more success than Alonso because they've driven better


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:04 pm
Posts: 723
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
No-one's suggesting the teams don't choose their drivers. But several factors contribute to that choice. Hamilton went knocking on Red Bull's door but was rejected. Does that mean they think he wasn't good enough? Or - more likely IMO - were they just happy with the lineup they had and didn't feel the need for another superstar driver? And wasn't Hamilton fortunate that they didn't take him on? Because otherwise he likely would never have sat in the Mercedes seat. So yes, good fortune does play a part in things.


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

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

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


RedBull has dominated and gave Vettel his 4 WDCs but have not been popular like Mercedes with Hamilton.
Vettel has ZERO social media presence and he is not interested in doing galas or promoting sponsors at events.
Hamilton has been the PERFECT driver for Mercedes at the time in term of marketability and competition and no other top driver would have fitted the bill better. Just have a look at their instagram pages or Mercedes youtube channel to see what I mean.
Mercedes without Hamilton would have been a very DULL team, just like today's McLaren.

well you're moving the goalposts a bit. I've never said that Hamilton's not doing a good job or that other drivers would have been a better choice. The original discussion was how much luck played a part and whether the Big Three could be interchangeable from a success perspective.(1) And in that respect Hamilton's been fortunate that Mercedes have provided him with a top car, in much the same way that Alonso's been unfortunate that McHonda haven't delivered the goods for him(2). Any of the top three drivers today would have enjoyed similar success levels in each other's cars and the equipment they've enjoyed does owe a large slice to fortune. Hamilton and Vettel haven't enjoyed more success than Alonso because they've driven better


(1)I don't think so.
Alonso was unable to accept a very fast driver for more than a few months in McLaren, so why do you think he would have had a good battles with Rosberg for 3 years?
They are not interchangeable and some have MORE options than others. If it makes sense.

(2)The McLaren-Honda and now Renault fiasco is the result of many mistakes from team management to the drivers involved. The first BIG mistake was to ever allow Alonso to do Indy or Le Mans. They have basically made the same mistake Ferrari did during Alonso's tenure there where "all" he wanted was granted. He sucked the energy out of the team and his teammate and the few wins they got, people always said it was thanks to him. The only guy who is enjoying success now is Alonso not McLaren and I can not believe Zak , Boullier are paid to do this . They should pay McLaren for all the damage they have done. Absolutely appaling.


Last edited by Pullrod on Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23034
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Hamilton to RedBull in 2012 would have meant a stronger RedBull and a weaker McLaren with LESS poles and wins and an even lesser chance for Alonso to shine that season.
IMHO Hamilton would have found his way to the Mercedes car given his history with the German Brand and it doesn't matter if it would have been 2014, 2015 or 2016 he would have gone there. No doubt about it.

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

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


RedBull has dominated and gave Vettel his 4 WDCs but have not been popular like Mercedes with Hamilton.
Vettel has ZERO social media presence and he is not interested in doing galas or promoting sponsors at events.
Hamilton has been the PERFECT driver for Mercedes at the time in term of marketability and competition and no other top driver would have fitted the bill better. Just have a look at their instagram pages or Mercedes youtube channel to see what I mean.
Mercedes without Hamilton would have been a very DULL team, just like today's McLaren.

well you're moving the goalposts a bit. I've never said that Hamilton's not doing a good job or that other drivers would have been a better choice. The original discussion was how much luck played a part and whether the Big Three could be interchangeable from a success perspective. And in that respect Hamilton's been fortunate that Mercedes have provided him with a top car, in much the same way that Alonso's been unfortunate that McHonda haven't delivered the goods for him. Any of the top three drivers today would have enjoyed similar success levels in each other's cars and the equipment they've enjoyed does owe a large slice to fortune. Hamilton and Vettel haven't enjoyed more success than Alonso because they've driven better


I don't think so.
Alonso was unable to accept a very fast driver for more than a few months in McLaren, so why do you think he would have had a good battles with Rosberg for 3 years?
They are not interchangeable and some have MORE options than others. If it makes sense.

Here's the quote for you:

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

And I think Alonso potentially clashing with Rosberg is not the greatest example, since Hamilton and Rosberg didn't exactly get along, either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:04 pm
Posts: 723
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Of course there's doubt. It depends who else would have been sitting in the seat at the time. Say, for example, that Hamilton went to Red Bull in 2013 and Vettel went to Mercedes. It's likely that Vettel would still be there now and Hamilton wouldn't have had a look in. Why aren't Ferrari and Mercedes breaking Ricciardo's door down to join them? Because they are happy with their line ups, that's why, not because Ricciardo's not good enough. And just because Hamilton won his first title with a Mercedes engine doesn't mean he's destined to be with them forever.

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


RedBull has dominated and gave Vettel his 4 WDCs but have not been popular like Mercedes with Hamilton.
Vettel has ZERO social media presence and he is not interested in doing galas or promoting sponsors at events.
Hamilton has been the PERFECT driver for Mercedes at the time in term of marketability and competition and no other top driver would have fitted the bill better. Just have a look at their instagram pages or Mercedes youtube channel to see what I mean.
Mercedes without Hamilton would have been a very DULL team, just like today's McLaren.

well you're moving the goalposts a bit. I've never said that Hamilton's not doing a good job or that other drivers would have been a better choice. The original discussion was how much luck played a part and whether the Big Three could be interchangeable from a success perspective. And in that respect Hamilton's been fortunate that Mercedes have provided him with a top car, in much the same way that Alonso's been unfortunate that McHonda haven't delivered the goods for him. Any of the top three drivers today would have enjoyed similar success levels in each other's cars and the equipment they've enjoyed does owe a large slice to fortune. Hamilton and Vettel haven't enjoyed more success than Alonso because they've driven better


I don't think so.
Alonso was unable to accept a very fast driver for more than a few months in McLaren, so why do you think he would have had a good battles with Rosberg for 3 years?
They are not interchangeable and some have MORE options than others. If it makes sense.

Here's the quote for you:

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

And I think Alonso potentially clashing with Rosberg is not the greatest example, since Hamilton and Rosberg didn't exactly get along, either.

Yet they were teammates for 3 years, and Hamilton was looking for the 4th year to take his revenge only for Rosberg to quit.
Hamilton is used to competitive teammates, more so than Alonso. And in Mercedes the racing protocol was very rigid.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23034
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:

RedBull has dominated and gave Vettel his 4 WDCs but have not been popular like Mercedes with Hamilton.
Vettel has ZERO social media presence and he is not interested in doing galas or promoting sponsors at events.
Hamilton has been the PERFECT driver for Mercedes at the time in term of marketability and competition and no other top driver would have fitted the bill better. Just have a look at their instagram pages or Mercedes youtube channel to see what I mean.
Mercedes without Hamilton would have been a very DULL team, just like today's McLaren.

well you're moving the goalposts a bit. I've never said that Hamilton's not doing a good job or that other drivers would have been a better choice. The original discussion was how much luck played a part and whether the Big Three could be interchangeable from a success perspective. And in that respect Hamilton's been fortunate that Mercedes have provided him with a top car, in much the same way that Alonso's been unfortunate that McHonda haven't delivered the goods for him. Any of the top three drivers today would have enjoyed similar success levels in each other's cars and the equipment they've enjoyed does owe a large slice to fortune. Hamilton and Vettel haven't enjoyed more success than Alonso because they've driven better


I don't think so.
Alonso was unable to accept a very fast driver for more than a few months in McLaren, so why do you think he would have had a good battles with Rosberg for 3 years?
They are not interchangeable and some have MORE options than others. If it makes sense.

Here's the quote for you:

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

And I think Alonso potentially clashing with Rosberg is not the greatest example, since Hamilton and Rosberg didn't exactly get along, either.

Yet they were teammates for 3 years, and Hamilton was looking for the 4th year to take his revenge only for Rosberg to quit.
Hamilton is used to competitive teammates, more so than Alonso. And in Mercedes the racing protocol was very rigid.

It's not really relevant though, is it? There were fireworks between Hamilton and Rosberg, in the same way that there were fireworks between Alonso and Hamilton. This has no relevance as to what OPTIONS they might have.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:04 pm
Posts: 723
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
well you're moving the goalposts a bit. I've never said that Hamilton's not doing a good job or that other drivers would have been a better choice. The original discussion was how much luck played a part and whether the Big Three could be interchangeable from a success perspective. And in that respect Hamilton's been fortunate that Mercedes have provided him with a top car, in much the same way that Alonso's been unfortunate that McHonda haven't delivered the goods for him. Any of the top three drivers today would have enjoyed similar success levels in each other's cars and the equipment they've enjoyed does owe a large slice to fortune. Hamilton and Vettel haven't enjoyed more success than Alonso because they've driven better


I don't think so.
Alonso was unable to accept a very fast driver for more than a few months in McLaren, so why do you think he would have had a good battles with Rosberg for 3 years?
They are not interchangeable and some have MORE options than others. If it makes sense.

Here's the quote for you:

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

And I think Alonso potentially clashing with Rosberg is not the greatest example, since Hamilton and Rosberg didn't exactly get along, either.

Yet they were teammates for 3 years, and Hamilton was looking for the 4th year to take his revenge only for Rosberg to quit.
Hamilton is used to competitive teammates, more so than Alonso. And in Mercedes the racing protocol was very rigid.

It's not really relevant though, is it? There were fireworks between Hamilton and Rosberg, in the same way that there were fireworks between Alonso and Hamilton. This has no relevance as to what OPTIONS they might have.

It is relevant.
The fireworks between Alonso and Hamilton were nothing like those between Hamilton and Rosberg.
It lasted just a few races before Alonso went to Ron to ask for the #1 tag. If not for this, Alonso would have stayed in McLaren in 2008 and his career would/could have been different.
Hamilton was looking forward to a 4th year against Rosberg and was prepared to hit stronger.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23034
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
I don't think so.
Alonso was unable to accept a very fast driver for more than a few months in McLaren, so why do you think he would have had a good battles with Rosberg for 3 years?
They are not interchangeable and some have MORE options than others. If it makes sense.

Here's the quote for you:

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

And I think Alonso potentially clashing with Rosberg is not the greatest example, since Hamilton and Rosberg didn't exactly get along, either.

Yet they were teammates for 3 years, and Hamilton was looking for the 4th year to take his revenge only for Rosberg to quit.
Hamilton is used to competitive teammates, more so than Alonso. And in Mercedes the racing protocol was very rigid.

It's not really relevant though, is it? There were fireworks between Hamilton and Rosberg, in the same way that there were fireworks between Alonso and Hamilton. This has no relevance as to what OPTIONS they might have.

It is relevant.
The fireworks between Alonso and Hamilton lasted just for a few races then Alonso had a talk with Ron to get the #1 role. If not for this, Alonso would have stayed in McLaren in 2008 and his career would/could have been different.

Agree with that part. The relationship breakdown with McLaren scuppered his chances with them for 2008, but let's not pretend he was the only guilty party there. But that has nothing to do with how well it turned out for Hamilton at Mercedes compared with how well it didn't work out for Alonso at Ferrari or McLaren (part II), nor how Vettel ended up with a top car back in his title winning years.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4733
I thought this was a thread about Le Mans.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4869
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:

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

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

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


RedBull has dominated and gave Vettel his 4 WDCs but have not been popular like Mercedes with Hamilton.
Vettel has ZERO social media presence and he is not interested in doing galas or promoting sponsors at events.
Hamilton has been the PERFECT driver for Mercedes at the time in term of marketability and competition and no other top driver would have fitted the bill better. Just have a look at their instagram pages or Mercedes youtube channel to see what I mean.
Mercedes without Hamilton would have been a very DULL team, just like today's McLaren.

well you're moving the goalposts a bit. I've never said that Hamilton's not doing a good job or that other drivers would have been a better choice. The original discussion was how much luck played a part and whether the Big Three could be interchangeable from a success perspective. And in that respect Hamilton's been fortunate that Mercedes have provided him with a top car, in much the same way that Alonso's been unfortunate that McHonda haven't delivered the goods for him. Any of the top three drivers today would have enjoyed similar success levels in each other's cars and the equipment they've enjoyed does owe a large slice to fortune. Hamilton and Vettel haven't enjoyed more success than Alonso because they've driven better

There's a whole lot of assumptions being made here. You are putting forth these assertions with such confidence but without even a stitch of factual support for them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23034
sandman1347 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:

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

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

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


RedBull has dominated and gave Vettel his 4 WDCs but have not been popular like Mercedes with Hamilton.
Vettel has ZERO social media presence and he is not interested in doing galas or promoting sponsors at events.
Hamilton has been the PERFECT driver for Mercedes at the time in term of marketability and competition and no other top driver would have fitted the bill better. Just have a look at their instagram pages or Mercedes youtube channel to see what I mean.
Mercedes without Hamilton would have been a very DULL team, just like today's McLaren.

well you're moving the goalposts a bit. I've never said that Hamilton's not doing a good job or that other drivers would have been a better choice. The original discussion was how much luck played a part and whether the Big Three could be interchangeable from a success perspective. And in that respect Hamilton's been fortunate that Mercedes have provided him with a top car, in much the same way that Alonso's been unfortunate that McHonda haven't delivered the goods for him. Any of the top three drivers today would have enjoyed similar success levels in each other's cars and the equipment they've enjoyed does owe a large slice to fortune. Hamilton and Vettel haven't enjoyed more success than Alonso because they've driven better

There's a whole lot of assumptions being made here. You are putting forth these assertions with such confidence but without even a stitch of factual support for them.

how can you offer factual support on a hypothetical?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 3:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26406
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Regarding Alonso then what did he mean by all the trophies that drivers have that they don't deserve and every trophy he has he has deserved?

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

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

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

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

So basically it's just his ongoing slighting of Vettel, it's quite a sense of entitlement that he's the best so everything should revolve around him, I think the best drivers should find themselves in race winning cars but Alonso himself is quite happy to be on the other end of any unfairness in that respect to top line drivers being signed up alongside him.

In respect to Hamilton he also tried to join Ferrari but guess what that was never going to happen with Alonso being there which takes me back to what I said above.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, Hamilton never expected any success with Mercedes in 2013, comparing him with Alonso and Toyota is far removed in terms of immediate success and joining a dominant situation.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 6th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 3:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26406
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Mercedes didn't know they were going to be dominant when they signed Hamilton so they needed his on track performance unlike Toyota with Alonso.

Also why would we perceive that Alonso was the best driver at Le Mans because he was the best Toyota driver and thus deserved the win, given their one and only chance Nick Tandy and Earl Bamber won Le Mans for Porsche against 5 other competitive cars and 2 Toyotas, they were driving once again in lesser machinery, former Audi driver and Le Mans winner Andre Lotterer is a feted Le Mans driver but had to drive in lesser machinery.

I already said this, Hamilton also got rebuffed at Ferrari because Alonso was there, Alonso wants to be in the best car but also wants #1 status, so he expects his privileged position within a team whilst other drivers should be expected to relinquish their strong position, Alonso himself tried to join both Red Bull and Mercedes.

The best drivers should be in the best cars but Alonso himself is very much part of the blocking, vetoing system in F1, but I guess because Alonso sees himself as the best driver then everything should revolve around him so he always gets the upper hand in any given situation.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 6th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 3:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26406
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
I too see double standards at play from Alonso, particularly in light of his comments on undeserved titles, but I also think there is not a great deal of difference between what he did at Le Mans and what the Mercedes drivers did between 2014-2016. They both had limited opposition and basically had to beat only reliability and their sister car.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No I included both Vettel and Hamilton and then you left out Vettel when its ever so obvious that Vettel always tends to be Alonso's target, so I was even handed even if I believed Vettel was the primary target, it's you that wanted to focus on Hamilton and Mercedes.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 6th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 3:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26406
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Regarding Alonso then what did he mean by all the trophies that drivers have that they don't deserve and every trophy he has he has deserved?

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

People need to make their mind up, you say it was Hamilton's good fortune, others say that he knew he was walking into a dominant car so was gifted the situation.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 6th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11393
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Regarding Alonso then what did he mean by all the trophies that drivers have that they don't deserve and every trophy he has he has deserved?

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

People need to make their mind up, you say it was Hamilton's good fortune, others say that he knew he was walking into a dominant car so was gifted the situation.


So everybody needs to reach a common point of view to which you can argue? :lol:

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11393
Anyway: http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/238 ... eatest-all

Quote:
It was a great challenge. I put this victory in a higher level than any other victory in Le Mans.


I'm trying to make sense of this. Failing miserably though.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26406
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Of course there's doubt. It depends who else would have been sitting in the seat at the time. Say, for example, that Hamilton went to Red Bull in 2013 and Vettel went to Mercedes. It's likely that Vettel would still be there now and Hamilton wouldn't have had a look in. Why aren't Ferrari and Mercedes breaking Ricciardo's door down to join them? Because they are happy with their line ups, that's why, not because Ricciardo's not good enough. And just because Hamilton won his first title with a Mercedes engine doesn't mean he's destined to be with them forever.

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


RedBull has dominated and gave Vettel his 4 WDCs but have not been popular like Mercedes with Hamilton.
Vettel has ZERO social media presence and he is not interested in doing galas or promoting sponsors at events.
Hamilton has been the PERFECT driver for Mercedes at the time in term of marketability and competition and no other top driver would have fitted the bill better. Just have a look at their instagram pages or Mercedes youtube channel to see what I mean.
Mercedes without Hamilton would have been a very DULL team, just like today's McLaren.

well you're moving the goalposts a bit. I've never said that Hamilton's not doing a good job or that other drivers would have been a better choice. The original discussion was how much luck played a part and whether the Big Three could be interchangeable from a success perspective. And in that respect Hamilton's been fortunate that Mercedes have provided him with a top car, in much the same way that Alonso's been unfortunate that McHonda haven't delivered the goods for him. Any of the top three drivers today would have enjoyed similar success levels in each other's cars and the equipment they've enjoyed does owe a large slice to fortune. Hamilton and Vettel haven't enjoyed more success than Alonso because they've driven better


I don't think so.
Alonso was unable to accept a very fast driver for more than a few months in McLaren, so why do you think he would have had a good battles with Rosberg for 3 years?
They are not interchangeable and some have MORE options than others. If it makes sense.

Here's the quote for you:

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

And I think Alonso potentially clashing with Rosberg is not the greatest example, since Hamilton and Rosberg didn't exactly get along, either.

They were still controllable were they could be sat down and told off, good luck trying to do that with Alonso.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 6th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26406
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Here's the quote for you:

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

And I think Alonso potentially clashing with Rosberg is not the greatest example, since Hamilton and Rosberg didn't exactly get along, either.

Yet they were teammates for 3 years, and Hamilton was looking for the 4th year to take his revenge only for Rosberg to quit.
Hamilton is used to competitive teammates, more so than Alonso. And in Mercedes the racing protocol was very rigid.

It's not really relevant though, is it? There were fireworks between Hamilton and Rosberg, in the same way that there were fireworks between Alonso and Hamilton. This has no relevance as to what OPTIONS they might have.

It is relevant.
The fireworks between Alonso and Hamilton lasted just for a few races then Alonso had a talk with Ron to get the #1 role. If not for this, Alonso would have stayed in McLaren in 2008 and his career would/could have been different.

Agree with that part. The relationship breakdown with McLaren scuppered his chances with them for 2008, but let's not pretend he was the only guilty party there. But that has nothing to do with how well it turned out for Hamilton at Mercedes compared with how well it didn't work out for Alonso at Ferrari or McLaren (part II), nor how Vettel ended up with a top car back in his title winning years.

The problem at McLaren was Alonso's continued insistence to be made the #1 driver.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 6th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4638
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Mercedes needed Hamilton when they signed him during their period as a midfield team, however after 2014 when they had a dominant car they would have no need to sign Hamilton to the team for their immediate success much like Toyota had no need of Alonso to win Le Mans, Hamilton made a commitment to Mercedes and later reaped the reward whilst Alonso just wanted to walk into a winning situation.

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


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

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

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

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

Mercedes didn't know they were going to be dominant when they signed Hamilton so they needed his on track performance unlike Toyota with Alonso.

Also why would we perceive that Alonso was the best driver at Le Mans because he was the best Toyota driver and thus deserved the win, given their one and only chance Nick Tandy and Earl Bamber won Le Mans for Porsche against 5 other competitive cars and 2 Toyotas, they were driving once again in lesser machinery, former Audi driver and Le Mans winner Andre Lotterer is a feted Le Mans driver but had to drive in lesser machinery.

I already said this, Hamilton also got rebuffed at Ferrari because Alonso was there, Alonso wants to be in the best car but also wants #1 status, so he expects his privileged position within a team whilst other drivers should be expected to relinquish their strong position, Alonso himself tried to join both Red Bull and Mercedes.

The best drivers should be in the best cars but Alonso himself is very much part of the blocking, vetoing system in F1, but I guess because Alonso sees himself as the best driver then everything should revolve around him so he always gets the upper hand in any given situation.


What is you think Lewis joined for? Mercedes were all in on the Turbo era, they outspent everyone on development of it and started in 2011. They were absolutely gearing themselves up to be champions in that era and that's what they sold Lewis on in his kitchen, they wanted Lewis to spearhead it. I still don't see what the big deal is if someone joins the year before or the year during, what difference does it make?

I don't understand what you mean with Tandy and Bamber? We're talking about Alonso being the quickest driver in the two cars that could win in 2018, hence deserved. If he'd been in the slower of the two Toyota's, was slow himself but they still won then it could be seen as undeserved. It's pretty straightforward.

Lewis got rebuffed at Red Bull too, he was doing no different than what you're losing your mind about Alonso doing with trying to join a dominant team. And Alonso "vetoing" Lewis is no different to Lewis saying he doesn't want Alonso at Mercedes when roles were reversed, they both know how it would end up because of how competitive they are. Only the one trying to get in a better car thinks it's worth it for obvious reasons, Lewis in 2012 and Alonso in 2014-.

Why this means Alonso is the devil and a part of the blocking vetoing culture in F1 (Wut!?) yet I assume Lewis isn't, is just weird. Who else has Alonso blocked in his career?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26406
mds wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Hamilton would have driven for Mercedes anyways... It could have been in 2015 or in 2016 but he would have gotten that car because he, Lewis Hamilton has ALWAYS been a Mercedes driver(Not Alonso, not Vettel or Raikkonen) since he was a kid and has won all of his championships with a Mercedes engine in the car.
And the 2014 car didn't become dominant by chance, they knew the engine was excellent and they "fixed" their tyres problems in 2013 with the help of Pirelli and Bernie Ecclestone.
It is also important to remember that Dr. Zetsche (and the Board) is a big fan of Hamilton, something we could not say of Alonso.

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

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

People need to make their mind up, you say it was Hamilton's good fortune, others say that he knew he was walking into a dominant car so was gifted the situation.


So everybody needs to reach a common point of view to which you can argue? :lol:

Well it is quite amusing, it shows how many different ways you can slice an onion. :lol:

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 6th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26406
mds wrote:
Anyway: http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/238 ... eatest-all

Quote:
It was a great challenge. I put this victory in a higher level than any other victory in Le Mans.


I'm trying to make sense of this. Failing miserably though.

Narcissism at it's finest, I rest my case M'Lord.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 6th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4638
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Regarding Alonso then what did he mean by all the trophies that drivers have that they don't deserve and every trophy he has he has deserved?

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

People need to make their mind up, you say it was Hamilton's good fortune, others say that he knew he was walking into a dominant car so was gifted the situation.


Who said that?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4638
mds wrote:
Anyway: http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/238 ... eatest-all

Quote:
It was a great challenge. I put this victory in a higher level than any other victory in Le Mans.


I'm trying to make sense of this. Failing miserably though.


He can't stop himself biting to leading questions, it's silly for a 36yr old.

As pointed out in the article his initial description was the complete opposite but as soon as he's asked a bit of a cheeky question, like the last one with the deserved/undeserved thing, he just can't help himself biting back with ott statements.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26406
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
BIB: I would suggest it's more naïve to think otherwise. None of the drivers can significantly influence a car's development, not these days. It was Vettel's good fortune that he joined Red Bull just before they hit the big time; it was Hamilton's that he did likewise with Mercedes; and it was Alonso's poor fortune that Honda didn't deliver on the promises they made. Any of that triumvirate would likely have had similar success to the other if they had enjoyed each other's equipment at the time.

People need to make their mind up, you say it was Hamilton's good fortune, others say that he knew he was walking into a dominant car so was gifted the situation.


Who said that?

Making comparisons with Alonso's win at Le Mans for starters.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 6th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4638
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:

RedBull has dominated and gave Vettel his 4 WDCs but have not been popular like Mercedes with Hamilton.
Vettel has ZERO social media presence and he is not interested in doing galas or promoting sponsors at events.
Hamilton has been the PERFECT driver for Mercedes at the time in term of marketability and competition and no other top driver would have fitted the bill better. Just have a look at their instagram pages or Mercedes youtube channel to see what I mean.
Mercedes without Hamilton would have been a very DULL team, just like today's McLaren.

well you're moving the goalposts a bit. I've never said that Hamilton's not doing a good job or that other drivers would have been a better choice. The original discussion was how much luck played a part and whether the Big Three could be interchangeable from a success perspective. And in that respect Hamilton's been fortunate that Mercedes have provided him with a top car, in much the same way that Alonso's been unfortunate that McHonda haven't delivered the goods for him. Any of the top three drivers today would have enjoyed similar success levels in each other's cars and the equipment they've enjoyed does owe a large slice to fortune. Hamilton and Vettel haven't enjoyed more success than Alonso because they've driven better


I don't think so.
Alonso was unable to accept a very fast driver for more than a few months in McLaren, so why do you think he would have had a good battles with Rosberg for 3 years?
They are not interchangeable and some have MORE options than others. If it makes sense.

Here's the quote for you:

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

And I think Alonso potentially clashing with Rosberg is not the greatest example, since Hamilton and Rosberg didn't exactly get along, either.

They were still controllable were they could be sat down and told off, good luck trying to do that with Alonso.


They were? I thought one quit the team mid-season because he got a share of the blame of a collision and Nikki had to go to Ibiza to talk him out of it and come back?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23034
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Yet they were teammates for 3 years, and Hamilton was looking for the 4th year to take his revenge only for Rosberg to quit.
Hamilton is used to competitive teammates, more so than Alonso. And in Mercedes the racing protocol was very rigid.

It's not really relevant though, is it? There were fireworks between Hamilton and Rosberg, in the same way that there were fireworks between Alonso and Hamilton. This has no relevance as to what OPTIONS they might have.

It is relevant.
The fireworks between Alonso and Hamilton lasted just for a few races then Alonso had a talk with Ron to get the #1 role. If not for this, Alonso would have stayed in McLaren in 2008 and his career would/could have been different.

Agree with that part. The relationship breakdown with McLaren scuppered his chances with them for 2008, but let's not pretend he was the only guilty party there. But that has nothing to do with how well it turned out for Hamilton at Mercedes compared with how well it didn't work out for Alonso at Ferrari or McLaren (part II), nor how Vettel ended up with a top car back in his title winning years.

The problem at McLaren was Alonso's continued insistence to be made the #1 driver.

I think that's simplifying things somewhat


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23034
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I wonder why you didn't include Vettel who I mentioned and who clearly is Alonso's main target?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No I included both Vettel and Hamilton and then you left out Vettel when its ever so obvious that Vettel always tends to be Alonso's target, so I was even handed even if I believed Vettel was the primary target, it's you that wanted to focus on Hamilton and Mercedes.

I'm not focusing on Hamilton and Mercedes. You're once again getting defensive as soon as Hamilton's name comes up, which means you can't actually see what is being discussed.

When discussing the situation with Alonso at Le Mans, where the only other car he had to worry about was his stablemate, then the only apt comparison in F1 is the Mercedes of 2014-2016. You're insistence on trying to shoehorn Vettel into the equation is bizarre


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4638
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
BIB: I would suggest it's more naïve to think otherwise. None of the drivers can significantly influence a car's development, not these days. It was Vettel's good fortune that he joined Red Bull just before they hit the big time; it was Hamilton's that he did likewise with Mercedes; and it was Alonso's poor fortune that Honda didn't deliver on the promises they made. Any of that triumvirate would likely have had similar success to the other if they had enjoyed each other's equipment at the time.

People need to make their mind up, you say it was Hamilton's good fortune, others say that he knew he was walking into a dominant car so was gifted the situation.


Who said that?

Making comparisons with Alonso's win at Le Mans for starters.


So no-one then.

And it's your own view on Alonso's win at Lemans that makes that comparison insulting to you. The comparison that was made here was it was a fight between 2 cars that were team mates. Which it was.

It's you that's gone on about walking into dominant situations vs being there a year before as if it makes a blind bit of difference, that's all you.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26406
Lotus49 wrote:
mds wrote:
Anyway: http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/238 ... eatest-all

Quote:
It was a great challenge. I put this victory in a higher level than any other victory in Le Mans.


I'm trying to make sense of this. Failing miserably though.


He can't stop himself biting to leading questions, it's silly for a 36yr old.

As pointed out in the article his initial description was the complete opposite but as soon as he's asked a bit of a cheeky question, like the last one with the deserved/undeserved thing, he just can't help himself biting back with ott statements.

So I wasn't the only one to flag up what Alonso said. :lol:

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 6th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23034
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Because he thinks he's the best driver, and any time he wins he deserved it because he was the best anyway. I don't think it's hard to figure out, whether or not you agree with him. It's the same reason he considered Lewis a deserving champion in 2014 despite having virtually no opposition - he thinks Hamilton deserves to be a champion, whereas for whatever reason he clearly does not have the same opinion of Vettel. In his mindset, the fact that he drove faster than any of the other Toyota drivers at Le Mans would confirm that he deserved the win, because he was the best driver there.

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

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

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


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

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

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

People need to make their mind up, you say it was Hamilton's good fortune, others say that he knew he was walking into a dominant car so was gifted the situation.

I've always been consistent on it, so my mind doesn't need making up. What others may feel is out of my control, but people are entitled to different opinions, surely?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4638
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
mds wrote:
Anyway: http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/238 ... eatest-all

Quote:
It was a great challenge. I put this victory in a higher level than any other victory in Le Mans.


I'm trying to make sense of this. Failing miserably though.


He can't stop himself biting to leading questions, it's silly for a 36yr old.

As pointed out in the article his initial description was the complete opposite but as soon as he's asked a bit of a cheeky question, like the last one with the deserved/undeserved thing, he just can't help himself biting back with ott statements.

So I wasn't the only one to flag up what Alonso said. :lol:


Sorry?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26406
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
well you're moving the goalposts a bit. I've never said that Hamilton's not doing a good job or that other drivers would have been a better choice. The original discussion was how much luck played a part and whether the Big Three could be interchangeable from a success perspective. And in that respect Hamilton's been fortunate that Mercedes have provided him with a top car, in much the same way that Alonso's been unfortunate that McHonda haven't delivered the goods for him. Any of the top three drivers today would have enjoyed similar success levels in each other's cars and the equipment they've enjoyed does owe a large slice to fortune. Hamilton and Vettel haven't enjoyed more success than Alonso because they've driven better


I don't think so.
Alonso was unable to accept a very fast driver for more than a few months in McLaren, so why do you think he would have had a good battles with Rosberg for 3 years?
They are not interchangeable and some have MORE options than others. If it makes sense.

Here's the quote for you:

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

And I think Alonso potentially clashing with Rosberg is not the greatest example, since Hamilton and Rosberg didn't exactly get along, either.

They were still controllable were they could be sat down and told off, good luck trying to do that with Alonso.


They were? I thought one quit the team mid-season because he got a share of the blame of a collision and Nikki had to go to Ibiza to talk him out of it and come back?

It got sorted in a few days, do things ever get sorted with Alonso?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 6th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23034
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
RedBull has dominated and gave Vettel his 4 WDCs but have not been popular like Mercedes with Hamilton.
Vettel has ZERO social media presence and he is not interested in doing galas or promoting sponsors at events.
Hamilton has been the PERFECT driver for Mercedes at the time in term of marketability and competition and no other top driver would have fitted the bill better. Just have a look at their instagram pages or Mercedes youtube channel to see what I mean.
Mercedes without Hamilton would have been a very DULL team, just like today's McLaren.

well you're moving the goalposts a bit. I've never said that Hamilton's not doing a good job or that other drivers would have been a better choice. The original discussion was how much luck played a part and whether the Big Three could be interchangeable from a success perspective. And in that respect Hamilton's been fortunate that Mercedes have provided him with a top car, in much the same way that Alonso's been unfortunate that McHonda haven't delivered the goods for him. Any of the top three drivers today would have enjoyed similar success levels in each other's cars and the equipment they've enjoyed does owe a large slice to fortune. Hamilton and Vettel haven't enjoyed more success than Alonso because they've driven better


I don't think so.
Alonso was unable to accept a very fast driver for more than a few months in McLaren, so why do you think he would have had a good battles with Rosberg for 3 years?
They are not interchangeable and some have MORE options than others. If it makes sense.

Here's the quote for you:

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

And I think Alonso potentially clashing with Rosberg is not the greatest example, since Hamilton and Rosberg didn't exactly get along, either.

They were still controllable were they could be sat down and told off, good luck trying to do that with Alonso.

Seriously? Both Hamilton and Alonso played petty games in 2007. I don't think either were controllable. Didn't Hamilton once famously tell Ron to "go swivel?" How is that controllable?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26406
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:
Zoue wrote:
It's not really relevant though, is it? There were fireworks between Hamilton and Rosberg, in the same way that there were fireworks between Alonso and Hamilton. This has no relevance as to what OPTIONS they might have.

It is relevant.
The fireworks between Alonso and Hamilton lasted just for a few races then Alonso had a talk with Ron to get the #1 role. If not for this, Alonso would have stayed in McLaren in 2008 and his career would/could have been different.

Agree with that part. The relationship breakdown with McLaren scuppered his chances with them for 2008, but let's not pretend he was the only guilty party there. But that has nothing to do with how well it turned out for Hamilton at Mercedes compared with how well it didn't work out for Alonso at Ferrari or McLaren (part II), nor how Vettel ended up with a top car back in his title winning years.

The problem at McLaren was Alonso's continued insistence to be made the #1 driver.

I think that's simplifying things somewhat

No that was very much the essence of the problem and why Alonso fell out with Dennis over a broken promise.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 6th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4638
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Pullrod wrote:

I don't think so.
Alonso was unable to accept a very fast driver for more than a few months in McLaren, so why do you think he would have had a good battles with Rosberg for 3 years?
They are not interchangeable and some have MORE options than others. If it makes sense.

Here's the quote for you:

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

And I think Alonso potentially clashing with Rosberg is not the greatest example, since Hamilton and Rosberg didn't exactly get along, either.

They were still controllable were they could be sat down and told off, good luck trying to do that with Alonso.


They were? I thought one quit the team mid-season because he got a share of the blame of a collision and Nikki had to go to Ibiza to talk him out of it and come back?

It got sorted in a few days, do things ever get sorted with Alonso?


So not quite as easy to tell off as portrayed. It certainly didn't get sorted for Alonso in 2007.

Can't say I know of any team mate issue since. He and Kimi didn't get along but it never came to a head as far as I 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 Jun 21, 2018 4:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26406
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Because I don't see the Red Bull as being in the same dominant league as the F1 Mercedes and the WEC Toyota? Those have obvious similarities

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

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

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

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

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

No I included both Vettel and Hamilton and then you left out Vettel when its ever so obvious that Vettel always tends to be Alonso's target, so I was even handed even if I believed Vettel was the primary target, it's you that wanted to focus on Hamilton and Mercedes.

I'm not focusing on Hamilton and Mercedes. You're once again getting defensive as soon as Hamilton's name comes up, which means you can't actually see what is being discussed.

When discussing the situation with Alonso at Le Mans, where the only other car he had to worry about was his stablemate, then the only apt comparison in F1 is the Mercedes of 2014-2016. You're insistence on trying to shoehorn Vettel into the equation is bizarre

I mentioned both Hamilton and Vettel and then you just focused on Hamilton, do you really believe Alonso was not thinking about Vettel in his undeserved titles and wins jibe?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 6th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 26406
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
BIB: I would suggest it's more naïve to think otherwise. None of the drivers can significantly influence a car's development, not these days. It was Vettel's good fortune that he joined Red Bull just before they hit the big time; it was Hamilton's that he did likewise with Mercedes; and it was Alonso's poor fortune that Honda didn't deliver on the promises they made. Any of that triumvirate would likely have had similar success to the other if they had enjoyed each other's equipment at the time.

People need to make their mind up, you say it was Hamilton's good fortune, others say that he knew he was walking into a dominant car so was gifted the situation.


Who said that?

Making comparisons with Alonso's win at Le Mans for starters.


So no-one then.

And it's your own view on Alonso's win at Lemans that makes that comparison insulting to you. The comparison that was made here was it was a fight between 2 cars that were team mates. Which it was.

It's you that's gone on about walking into dominant situations vs being there a year before as if it makes a blind bit of difference, that's all you.

No I originally was referencing what Alonso said about undeserved titles and wins and then direct comparison was made with Mercedes like the Mercedes drivers both walked into a dominant car.

Now I have to read how totally deserved Alonso's win was because Alonso was the fastest Toyota driver, again bearing in mind what Alonso said previously the disassociation with those words are true Alonso like thinking.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

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

2017: 9th Place
2018: Currently 6th

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4638
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
People need to make their mind up, you say it was Hamilton's good fortune, others say that he knew he was walking into a dominant car so was gifted the situation.


Who said that?

Making comparisons with Alonso's win at Le Mans for starters.


So no-one then.

And it's your own view on Alonso's win at Lemans that makes that comparison insulting to you. The comparison that was made here was it was a fight between 2 cars that were team mates. Which it was.

It's you that's gone on about walking into dominant situations vs being there a year before as if it makes a blind bit of difference, that's all you.

No I originally was referencing what Alonso said about undeserved titles and wins and then direct comparison was made with Mercedes like the Mercedes drivers both walked into a dominant car.

Now I have to read how totally deserved Alonso's win was because Alonso was the fastest Toyota driver, again bearing in mind what Alonso said previously the disassociation with those words are true Alonso like thinking.


Yes you said he had no competition so it spoke to his earlier undeserved comments. We pointed out he had to fight his team mates and the comparison with Mercedes was brought up because it was also a fight between team mates. No-one insinuated Mercedes drivers were undeserved, it was your taking that as an insult that led to the when who joined what team.

It was then pointed out that being the fastest of the two cars and fastest driver out of both cars that could win in Lemans doesn't really qualify as undeserved anyway.

So he did have competition, the sister car, and he was the quickest driver in the quickest car, so deserved. Mercedes had a similar fight amongst themselves hence comparison. Forget about deserved/undeserved for Mercedes, that's all you, they were brought up as an example of a battle between team mates in a super dominant car, that's all.

Please read what's being written.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group