planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:25 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 10:21 pm
Posts: 346
In no order:

Prost 1986
Senna 1993
Hamilton 2018
Schumacher 1997
Alonso 2012


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5903
Fiki wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
1. Hamilton 2018
2. Senna 1991
3. Schumacher 1995
4. Schumacher 1998
5. Senna 1993
6. Vettel 2011
7. Hamilton 2015
8. Schumacher 2002
9. Alonso 2012
10. Schumacher 1997

I'm surprised, sandman, that you don't include Senna's 1988 season. That year he shared the best car in the field, with one of the all-time best drivers and won.
Another surprise is not seeing Alonso's 2006 season, when the arguably main advantage his car had held was taken away by the FIA mid-season. He still held his own and won the title.

I considered Senna's 88' season but I actually think he was stronger in 89'. The car just let him down too much. Prost proved to not really be that close in terms of speed at any point during their time as teammates. That said, I do think I should have included Prost's 1986 season within my top 5. That year he won the title in the 3rd or 4th fastest car. It would be like if Alonso actually won the title in 2012 instead of just putting up a good fight.

As for Alonso in 2006; a very good and very consistent performance but really nothing particularly special from an all-time context IMO. He won 6 of the first 9 races when Renault had the strongest package and then won only a single race from that point onwards as Ferrari became stronger. By comparison; years like Schumacher's 1995 and Hamilton's 2018 included multiple wins while not driving the quickest car.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5095
Johnson wrote:
Fiki wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
1. Hamilton 2018
2. Senna 1991
3. Schumacher 1995
4. Schumacher 1998
5. Senna 1993
6. Vettel 2011
7. Hamilton 2015
8. Schumacher 2002
9. Alonso 2012
10. Schumacher 1997

I'm surprised, sandman, that you don't include Senna's 1988 season. That year he shared the best car in the field, with one of the all-time best drivers and won.
Another surprise is not seeing Alonso's 2006 season, when the arguably main advantage his car had held was taken away by the FIA mid-season. He still held his own and won the title.


Alonso had a great year. But as soon as he didn’t have the best car he won 1 race in 9. He also only won that because Schumacher blew up in front of him.


BIB- What about Alonso's lost win in Hungary and the DNF in Monza?

If Michael had driven as poorly as Seb did then I'm sure Alonso would've won several races in not the best car in the run in.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5903
Lotus49 wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Fiki wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
1. Hamilton 2018
2. Senna 1991
3. Schumacher 1995
4. Schumacher 1998
5. Senna 1993
6. Vettel 2011
7. Hamilton 2015
8. Schumacher 2002
9. Alonso 2012
10. Schumacher 1997

I'm surprised, sandman, that you don't include Senna's 1988 season. That year he shared the best car in the field, with one of the all-time best drivers and won.
Another surprise is not seeing Alonso's 2006 season, when the arguably main advantage his car had held was taken away by the FIA mid-season. He still held his own and won the title.


Alonso had a great year. But as soon as he didn’t have the best car he won 1 race in 9. He also only won that because Schumacher blew up in front of him.


BIB- What about Alonso's lost win in Hungary and the DNF in Monza?

If Michael had driven as poorly as Seb did then I'm sure Alonso would've won several races in not the best car in the run in.

Are you now? Funny how only Alonso gets these kinds of arguments made for him in this forum. Always about what he "would have done" and so forth.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 5:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5095
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Fiki wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
1. Hamilton 2018
2. Senna 1991
3. Schumacher 1995
4. Schumacher 1998
5. Senna 1993
6. Vettel 2011
7. Hamilton 2015
8. Schumacher 2002
9. Alonso 2012
10. Schumacher 1997

I'm surprised, sandman, that you don't include Senna's 1988 season. That year he shared the best car in the field, with one of the all-time best drivers and won.
Another surprise is not seeing Alonso's 2006 season, when the arguably main advantage his car had held was taken away by the FIA mid-season. He still held his own and won the title.


Alonso had a great year. But as soon as he didn’t have the best car he won 1 race in 9. He also only won that because Schumacher blew up in front of him.


BIB- What about Alonso's lost win in Hungary and the DNF in Monza?

If Michael had driven as poorly as Seb did then I'm sure Alonso would've won several races in not the best car in the run in.

Are you now? Funny how only Alonso gets these kinds of arguments made for him in this forum. Always about what he "would have done" and so forth.


Well yeah because he finished runner up to Michael in a few of them did he not?

You're getting obsessed with this "would've done" stuff, and your're ignoring your own love of using it.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 5:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5903
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

BIB- What about Alonso's lost win in Hungary and the DNF in Monza?

If Michael had driven as poorly as Seb did then I'm sure Alonso would've won several races in not the best car in the run in.

Are you now? Funny how only Alonso gets these kinds of arguments made for him in this forum. Always about what he "would have done" and so forth.


Well yeah because he finished runner up to Michael in a few of them did he not?

You're getting obsessed with this "would've done" stuff, and your're ignoring your own love of using it.

No that's incorrect. I don't use hypothetical possibilities to justify my choices at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6552
Location: Michigan, USA
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

BIB- What about Alonso's lost win in Hungary and the DNF in Monza?

If Michael had driven as poorly as Seb did then I'm sure Alonso would've won several races in not the best car in the run in.

Are you now? Funny how only Alonso gets these kinds of arguments made for him in this forum. Always about what he "would have done" and so forth.


Well yeah because he finished runner up to Michael in a few of them did he not?

You're getting obsessed with this "would've done" stuff, and your're ignoring your own love of using it.

No that's incorrect. I don't use hypothetical possibilities to justify my choices at all.

Yeah, because you don't need to. Your favorite driver happens to sit in a car with a chance to win at any given race.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5903
Exediron wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

BIB- What about Alonso's lost win in Hungary and the DNF in Monza?

If Michael had driven as poorly as Seb did then I'm sure Alonso would've won several races in not the best car in the run in.

Are you now? Funny how only Alonso gets these kinds of arguments made for him in this forum. Always about what he "would have done" and so forth.


Well yeah because he finished runner up to Michael in a few of them did he not?

You're getting obsessed with this "would've done" stuff, and your're ignoring your own love of using it.

No that's incorrect. I don't use hypothetical possibilities to justify my choices at all.

Yeah, because you don't need to. Your favorite driver happens to sit in a car with a chance to win at any given race.

Favorite has nothing to do with it. We're not arguing about favorites. This thread is about best individual seasons. Hamilton this year did have a very competitive car but it certainly was far from dominant and, by most assessments, was second best overall on the year. Alonso has had cars of the same competitiveness in 2005-2007 and has never had a season to match what Hamilton did this year. Both raced against elite drivers in top cars but the fact is that only Hamilton dominated to such a level. Whichever driver happens to be your favorite should not obscure the facts nor should it even come into the discussion.

Michael Schumacher similarly dominated in 1995 with a car that was IMO clearly second best, however, I personally do not rate Damon Hill as an equal for the likes of Vettel. I see the same 3-4 posters extolling Alonso's 2012 season for putting up a great fight in a car that wasn't the best but Schumacher's 1997 and 1998 were more impressive in that regard for me and certainly Alain Prost's 1986 was superior as well. All of the arguments for Hamilton, Schumacher, Senna, Prost, etc. are based solely on what they actually achieved but, in this forum, I consistently see arguments for Alonso full of "woulda/coulda/shoulda".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 8:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5095
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

BIB- What about Alonso's lost win in Hungary and the DNF in Monza?

If Michael had driven as poorly as Seb did then I'm sure Alonso would've won several races in not the best car in the run in.

Are you now? Funny how only Alonso gets these kinds of arguments made for him in this forum. Always about what he "would have done" and so forth.


Well yeah because he finished runner up to Michael in a few of them did he not?

You're getting obsessed with this "would've done" stuff, and your're ignoring your own love of using it.

No that's incorrect. I don't use hypothetical possibilities to justify my choices at all.


No you use them to underrate other performances by just assuming any top driver could do what Alonso did in any given year or wondering perhaps if they'd do more, as evidenced by the other thread.

Which is just as much about leaning on hypothetical's as the reverse is.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 8:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5903
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

BIB- What about Alonso's lost win in Hungary and the DNF in Monza?

If Michael had driven as poorly as Seb did then I'm sure Alonso would've won several races in not the best car in the run in.

Are you now? Funny how only Alonso gets these kinds of arguments made for him in this forum. Always about what he "would have done" and so forth.


Well yeah because he finished runner up to Michael in a few of them did he not?

You're getting obsessed with this "would've done" stuff, and your're ignoring your own love of using it.

No that's incorrect. I don't use hypothetical possibilities to justify my choices at all.


No you use them to underrate other performances by just assuming any top driver could do what Alonso did in any given year or wondering perhaps if they'd do more, as evidenced by the other thread.

Which is just as much about leaning on hypothetical's as the reverse is.

I'm not assuming anything. I posed the question; how do you actually know that Alonso is performing beyond the level that any other top driver would in his situation? He is not teamed with a top driver (nor even a driver who you can peg in any meaningful way at all) and he isn't racing against top drivers on the other teams either back there. To rate his performance so highly, you must assume that there is something great about it relative to what a Hamilton, Verstappen or Vettel would do in the same spot because you don't actually have any way to know. Hamilton is actually competing against other top drivers so no such assumption must be made.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 8:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5095
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Are you now? Funny how only Alonso gets these kinds of arguments made for him in this forum. Always about what he "would have done" and so forth.


Well yeah because he finished runner up to Michael in a few of them did he not?

You're getting obsessed with this "would've done" stuff, and your're ignoring your own love of using it.

No that's incorrect. I don't use hypothetical possibilities to justify my choices at all.


No you use them to underrate other performances by just assuming any top driver could do what Alonso did in any given year or wondering perhaps if they'd do more, as evidenced by the other thread.

Which is just as much about leaning on hypothetical's as the reverse is.

I'm not assuming anything. I posed the question; how do you actually know that Alonso is performing beyond the level that any other top driver would in his situation? He is not teamed with a top driver (nor even a driver who you can peg in any meaningful way at all) and he isn't racing against top drivers on the other teams either back there. To rate his performance so highly, you must assume that there is something great about it relative to what a Hamilton, Verstappen or Vettel would do in the same spot because you don't actually have any way to know. Hamilton is actually competing against other top drivers so no such assumption must be made.


Why would no assumption have to be made just because they are "top drivers"? Form isn't permanent and they ain't robots so do you actually think Seb drove well this year because you'd be about the only one I've met that thought so, so why would this benchmark still exist irregardless of form? That makes no sense. Dan had reliability issues just about every session, you've routinely called Kimi one of the worst drivers on the grid and the less said about Bottas this year the better so what is this lack of needing assumption based on?

What you're really doing is refusing to give Alonso the same benefit of the doubt as you give Lewis in that he got the most from his package, that's all it boils down to really.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 9:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6552
Location: Michigan, USA
sandman1347 wrote:
Hamilton this year did have a very competitive car but it certainly was far from dominant and, by most assessments, was second best overall on the year.

First off, prove that. Autosport says the Mercedes was the best car. RaceFans says the Mercedes was the best car. Where's your evidence of a consensus to the opposite direction?

sandman1347 wrote:
Alonso has had cars of the same competitiveness in 2005-2007 and has never had a season to match what Hamilton did this year. Both raced against elite drivers in top cars but the fact is that only Hamilton dominated to such a level.

This is only relevant if you rate Vettel's 2018 season the same as Schumacher's 2006 season, which is the only year where I agree with you that the situation was similar. And frankly, if you believe that Vettel from 2018 was driving as well as Schumi in 2006, I believe you are delusional. Vettel was clearly on very poor form for the latter part of this year. You can point to his 4 WDCs all you want, but he didn't earn any of those driving like he did this year.

sandman1347 wrote:
All of the arguments for Hamilton, Schumacher, Senna, Prost, etc. are based solely on what they actually achieved

Not even remotely true. There is literally no argument for Senna being the greatest based on what he actually acheived, but such arguments abound.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 9:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5903
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

No you use them to underrate other performances by just assuming any top driver could do what Alonso did in any given year or wondering perhaps if they'd do more, as evidenced by the other thread.

Which is just as much about leaning on hypothetical's as the reverse is.

I'm not assuming anything. I posed the question; how do you actually know that Alonso is performing beyond the level that any other top driver would in his situation? He is not teamed with a top driver (nor even a driver who you can peg in any meaningful way at all) and he isn't racing against top drivers on the other teams either back there. To rate his performance so highly, you must assume that there is something great about it relative to what a Hamilton, Verstappen or Vettel would do in the same spot because you don't actually have any way to know. Hamilton is actually competing against other top drivers so no such assumption must be made.


Why would no assumption have to be made just because they are "top drivers"? Form isn't permanent and they ain't robots so do you actually think Seb drove well this year because you'd be about the only one I've met that thought so, so why would this benchmark still exist irregardless of form? That makes no sense. Dan had reliability issues just about every session, you've routinely called Kimi one of the worst drivers on the grid and the less said about Bottas this year the better so what is this lack of needing assumption based on?

What you're really doing is refusing to give Alonso the same benefit of the doubt as you give Lewis in that he got the most from his package, that's all it boils down to really.

Ah, so now we're back to the "we can't say anything for sure" argument. In fact you seem to be suggesting that racing the likes of Vettel, Raikkonen, Verstappen, Ricciardo and Bottas is the equivalent of racing the likes of Hartley, Vandoorne, Stroll and Sirotkin. This, for me, is too irrational of a place to even have the conversation from.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 9:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6552
Location: Michigan, USA
sandman1347 wrote:
Ah, so now we're back to the "we can't say anything for sure" argument. In fact you seem to be suggesting that racing the likes of Vettel, Raikkonen, Verstappen, Ricciardo and Bottas is the equivalent of racing the likes of Hartley, Vandoorne, Stroll and Sirotkin. This, for me, is too irrational of a place to even have the conversation from.

Alonso was also racing Hulk, Sainz, Perez and Ocon. According to most of the forum (and many professionals), those drivers are just as good as Bottas or Raikkonen. And considering how Vettel drove, I'd say better than him in the latter half of the season.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5903
Exediron wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Hamilton this year did have a very competitive car but it certainly was far from dominant and, by most assessments, was second best overall on the year.

First off, prove that. Autosport says the Mercedes was the best car. RaceFans says the Mercedes was the best car. Where's your evidence of a consensus to the opposite direction?

sandman1347 wrote:
Alonso has had cars of the same competitiveness in 2005-2007 and has never had a season to match what Hamilton did this year. Both raced against elite drivers in top cars but the fact is that only Hamilton dominated to such a level.

This is only relevant if you rate Vettel's 2018 season the same as Schumacher's 2006 season, which is the only year where I agree with you that the situation was similar. And frankly, if you believe that Vettel from 2018 was driving as well as Schumi in 2006, I believe you are delusional. Vettel was clearly on very poor form for the latter part of this year. You can point to his 4 WDCs all you want, but he didn't earn any of those driving like he did this year.

sandman1347 wrote:
All of the arguments for Hamilton, Schumacher, Senna, Prost, etc. are based solely on what they actually achieved

Not even remotely true. There is literally no argument for Senna being the greatest based on what he actually acheived, but such arguments abound.

1. Ferrari had the faster car more often than Mercedes. I did a quick check and found that there are sources that have claimed one or the other was better. Autosport claims Mercedes, Sky claims Ferrari, etc. It was close. I'm simply going by which car was faster more often and that was the Ferrari. It's also important to note that the analysis provided by Autosport did little more than looking at qualifying times; not taking into consideration differences in driver performance, mistakes on the laps, etc.

2. So now you claim the 2005 Renault was not comparable to this year's Mercedes? You claim the 2007 Mclaren wasn't either? That's an interesting take but even in 2006; Alonso was mostly not able to achieve victories in races where Renault was not the fastest car. You can point to Vettel's mistakes all you want but Michael also clearly had a scruffy season in 2006 (not as bad as Vettel) and Alonso didn't best him down the stretch. In fact, performing poorly in the second half of the season has been a consistent theme for Alonso and his teams. In 2005 he had to hang on down the stretch while Kimi won most of the races late in the year. In 2006 it was the same with Michael. He also watched Vettel take the title from him in 2010 by winning 4 of the last 5 down the stretch and watched Vettel do it again in 2012; a year when Alonso won 3 of the first 10 races and then never won again.

3. To say "not even remotely true" while taking issue only with one of the 4 drivers I named is dubious. I would also vehemently disagree with the idea that people don't think Senna is the greatest based on what he did. Not sure what you're even talking about to be honest. Being MUCH faster than the driver who was supposed to be the best in the sport (Prost) in the same car is Senna's biggest claim to fame. He actually did that. Out-qualifying Prost in Monaco by 1.5 seconds in the same car is also something he did as is winning 5 races against an absurdly dominant Williams in 1993 (a performance that dwarfs Alonso's 2012 IMO). People who praise Senna rely on his actual achievements. There are some who speculate about what he might have added to his list had he not died prematurely but that isn't the argument that is used to justify his greatness.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2091
Alonso 2012
Hamilton 2018
Villeneuve 1979
Peterson 1973
Schumacher 1995
Prost 1984
Lauda 1975
Prost 1990
Peterson 1974
Senna 1993
Villeneuve 1981
Clark 1965
Fangio 1957
Alonso 2006
Schumacher 1996
Clark 1964

.... to start with ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5903
Exediron wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Ah, so now we're back to the "we can't say anything for sure" argument. In fact you seem to be suggesting that racing the likes of Vettel, Raikkonen, Verstappen, Ricciardo and Bottas is the equivalent of racing the likes of Hartley, Vandoorne, Stroll and Sirotkin. This, for me, is too irrational of a place to even have the conversation from.

Alonso was also racing Hulk, Sainz, Perez and Ocon. According to most of the forum (and many professionals), those drivers are just as good as Bottas or Raikkonen. And considering how Vettel drove, I'd say better than him in the latter half of the season.

First of all, I think that's a stretch. It's not an outlandish assertion but I'm in no way convinced that any of the drivers you've listed would have done better than Vettel, Bottas or Raikkonen. Secondly, the drivers you named mostly finished ahead of Alonso in the points. Hamilton wasn't just racing top drivers; he was besting them (in fact put a wide gulf between himself and the rest). I tried to stick to guys that Alonso actually beat but I supposed that, because it's Alonso, he gets full marks simply for showing up and participating?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 10:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:04 pm
Posts: 759
sandman1347 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Are you now? Funny how only Alonso gets these kinds of arguments made for him in this forum. Always about what he "would have done" and so forth.


Well yeah because he finished runner up to Michael in a few of them did he not?

You're getting obsessed with this "would've done" stuff, and your're ignoring your own love of using it.

No that's incorrect. I don't use hypothetical possibilities to justify my choices at all.

Yeah, because you don't need to. Your favorite driver happens to sit in a car with a chance to win at any given race.

Favorite has nothing to do with it. We're not arguing about favorites. This thread is about best individual seasons. Hamilton this year did have a very competitive car but it certainly was far from dominant and, by most assessments, was second best overall on the year. Alonso has had cars of the same competitiveness in 2005-2007 and has never had a season to match what Hamilton did this year. Both raced against elite drivers in top cars but the fact is that only Hamilton dominated to such a level. Whichever driver happens to be your favorite should not obscure the facts nor should it even come into the discussion.

Michael Schumacher similarly dominated in 1995 with a car that was IMO clearly second best, however, I personally do not rate Damon Hill as an equal for the likes of Vettel. I see the same 3-4 posters extolling Alonso's 2012 season for putting up a great fight in a car that wasn't the best but Schumacher's 1997 and 1998 were more impressive in that regard for me and certainly Alain Prost's 1986 was superior as well. All of the arguments for Hamilton, Schumacher, Senna, Prost, etc. are based solely on what they actually achieved but, in this forum, I consistently see arguments for Alonso full of "woulda/coulda/shoulda".


This is the biggest Alonso "forum" if you were to exclude Spain and Mexico so don't expect very good and fair arguments where Fernando is involved.

2012 and 2006 seasons are so overrated it is not even funny.

You made very good points for 2006.

2012 was simply a lottery(and McLaren f*ck*d up big time) and to be honest, despite Ferrari and Massa bending left and right to favour Alonso, he went "missing" for a few races at the end of the season.
Hamilton that year drove at least at Alonso's level if not better. But hey we are talking about Alonso here so it must have been magical. Let's create the legend and look back at the 2005 and 2006 seasons with rose-tinted glasses.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2018 3:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:20 am
Posts: 781
Lotus49 wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Fiki wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
1. Hamilton 2018
2. Senna 1991
3. Schumacher 1995
4. Schumacher 1998
5. Senna 1993
6. Vettel 2011
7. Hamilton 2015
8. Schumacher 2002
9. Alonso 2012
10. Schumacher 1997

I'm surprised, sandman, that you don't include Senna's 1988 season. That year he shared the best car in the field, with one of the all-time best drivers and won.
Another surprise is not seeing Alonso's 2006 season, when the arguably main advantage his car had held was taken away by the FIA mid-season. He still held his own and won the title.


Alonso had a great year. But as soon as he didn’t have the best car he won 1 race in 9. He also only won that because Schumacher blew up in front of him.


BIB- What about Alonso's lost win in Hungary and the DNF in Monza?

If Michael had driven as poorly as Seb did then I'm sure Alonso would've won several races in not the best car in the run in.


Alonso was running 4th in Monza, he wasn’t going to win. But you are correct, he would have won Hungary but he did have the best car again that day as the Michelin wet was vastly superior to the Bridgestone.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2018 3:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6552
Location: Michigan, USA
sandman1347 wrote:
2. So now you claim the 2005 Renault was not comparable to this year's Mercedes? You claim the 2007 Mclaren wasn't either? That's an interesting take but even in 2006; Alonso was mostly not able to achieve victories in races where Renault was not the fastest car. You can point to Vettel's mistakes all you want but Michael also clearly had a scruffy season in 2006 (not as bad as Vettel) and Alonso didn't best him down the stretch. In fact, performing poorly in the second half of the season has been a consistent theme for Alonso and his teams. In 2005 he had to hang on down the stretch while Kimi won most of the races late in the year. In 2006 it was the same with Michael. He also watched Vettel take the title from him in 2010 by winning 4 of the last 5 down the stretch and watched Vettel do it again in 2012; a year when Alonso won 3 of the first 10 races and then never won again.

You are aware that the Ferrari was the better car after Renault's mass damper was outlawed in the middle of the season, right? That has a lot to do with why Alonso faded in the latter half of the season...

You're right about 2010, though. That was a sub-par performance from Alonso, and he should have won that title considering how many points Red Bull threw away.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2018 6:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5095
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

No you use them to underrate other performances by just assuming any top driver could do what Alonso did in any given year or wondering perhaps if they'd do more, as evidenced by the other thread.

Which is just as much about leaning on hypothetical's as the reverse is.

I'm not assuming anything. I posed the question; how do you actually know that Alonso is performing beyond the level that any other top driver would in his situation? He is not teamed with a top driver (nor even a driver who you can peg in any meaningful way at all) and he isn't racing against top drivers on the other teams either back there. To rate his performance so highly, you must assume that there is something great about it relative to what a Hamilton, Verstappen or Vettel would do in the same spot because you don't actually have any way to know. Hamilton is actually competing against other top drivers so no such assumption must be made.


Why would no assumption have to be made just because they are "top drivers"? Form isn't permanent and they ain't robots so do you actually think Seb drove well this year because you'd be about the only one I've met that thought so, so why would this benchmark still exist irregardless of form? That makes no sense. Dan had reliability issues just about every session, you've routinely called Kimi one of the worst drivers on the grid and the less said about Bottas this year the better so what is this lack of needing assumption based on?

What you're really doing is refusing to give Alonso the same benefit of the doubt as you give Lewis in that he got the most from his package, that's all it boils down to really.

Ah, so now we're back to the "we can't say anything for sure" argument. In fact you seem to be suggesting that racing the likes of Vettel, Raikkonen, Verstappen, Ricciardo and Bottas is the equivalent of racing the likes of Hartley, Vandoorne, Stroll and Sirotkin. This, for me, is too irrational of a place to even have the conversation from.


Its not the equivalent in a spec series no but obviously there are a lot of factors involved in F1 you seem to ignore when it suits like driver form,car strength etc. Racing Hulk,Perez and Ocon with a 4/5th deficit in car performance is far more trickier than racing Bottas this year with equal cars or Max and Dan with a 4/5th car advantage over them.

You just seem to treat F1 like a spec series for everyone but Lewis who can be on pole by 6ths and you'll still say he had a car disadvantage. Yes Alonso was facing largely inferior drivers outside of those mentioned above and by Exediron, but he was doing so with an inferior car with inherent aero problems.

Something you take into account for Lewis in the case of racing Seb and Kimi with marginally inferior equipment but completely ignore for Alonso as if he had the best car in the midfield and was racing everyone there on an equal footing.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2018 6:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5095
Johnson wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
Johnson wrote:
Fiki wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
1. Hamilton 2018
2. Senna 1991
3. Schumacher 1995
4. Schumacher 1998
5. Senna 1993
6. Vettel 2011
7. Hamilton 2015
8. Schumacher 2002
9. Alonso 2012
10. Schumacher 1997

I'm surprised, sandman, that you don't include Senna's 1988 season. That year he shared the best car in the field, with one of the all-time best drivers and won.
Another surprise is not seeing Alonso's 2006 season, when the arguably main advantage his car had held was taken away by the FIA mid-season. He still held his own and won the title.


Alonso had a great year. But as soon as he didn’t have the best car he won 1 race in 9. He also only won that because Schumacher blew up in front of him.


BIB- What about Alonso's lost win in Hungary and the DNF in Monza?

If Michael had driven as poorly as Seb did then I'm sure Alonso would've won several races in not the best car in the run in.


Alonso was running 4th in Monza, he wasn’t going to win. But you are correct, he would have won Hungary but he did have the best car again that day as the Michelin wet was vastly superior to the Bridgestone.


Just mentioned Monza as it was a DNF and he lost some points to go along with Hungary's lost points so I didn't think saying he only won because of Michael's blow up was very fair but now I've realised you didn't mean won the title but that he won the race Schumi blew up in I think, lol, so my bad.

I think starting 15th on a track like Hungary balanced the advantage somewhat but yeah it was the better tyre.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2018 6:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5903
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

No you use them to underrate other performances by just assuming any top driver could do what Alonso did in any given year or wondering perhaps if they'd do more, as evidenced by the other thread.

Which is just as much about leaning on hypothetical's as the reverse is.

I'm not assuming anything. I posed the question; how do you actually know that Alonso is performing beyond the level that any other top driver would in his situation? He is not teamed with a top driver (nor even a driver who you can peg in any meaningful way at all) and he isn't racing against top drivers on the other teams either back there. To rate his performance so highly, you must assume that there is something great about it relative to what a Hamilton, Verstappen or Vettel would do in the same spot because you don't actually have any way to know. Hamilton is actually competing against other top drivers so no such assumption must be made.


Why would no assumption have to be made just because they are "top drivers"? Form isn't permanent and they ain't robots so do you actually think Seb drove well this year because you'd be about the only one I've met that thought so, so why would this benchmark still exist irregardless of form? That makes no sense. Dan had reliability issues just about every session, you've routinely called Kimi one of the worst drivers on the grid and the less said about Bottas this year the better so what is this lack of needing assumption based on?

What you're really doing is refusing to give Alonso the same benefit of the doubt as you give Lewis in that he got the most from his package, that's all it boils down to really.

Ah, so now we're back to the "we can't say anything for sure" argument. In fact you seem to be suggesting that racing the likes of Vettel, Raikkonen, Verstappen, Ricciardo and Bottas is the equivalent of racing the likes of Hartley, Vandoorne, Stroll and Sirotkin. This, for me, is too irrational of a place to even have the conversation from.


Its not the equivalent in a spec series no but obviously there are a lot of factors involved in F1 you seem to ignore when it suits like driver form,car strength etc. Racing Hulk,Perez and Ocon with a 4/5th deficit in car performance is far more trickier than racing Bottas this year with equal cars or Max and Dan with a 4/5th car advantage over them.

You just seem to treat F1 like a spec series for everyone but Lewis who can be on pole by 6ths and you'll still say he had a car disadvantage. Yes Alonso was facing largely inferior drivers outside of those mentioned above and by Exediron, but he was doing so with an inferior car with inherent aero problems.

Something you take into account for Lewis in the case of racing Seb and Kimi with marginally inferior equipment but completely ignore for Alonso as if he had the best car in the midfield and was racing everyone there on an equal footing.

It's disappointing to read made up nonsense like that Lotus. You're better than that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5095
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
I'm not assuming anything. I posed the question; how do you actually know that Alonso is performing beyond the level that any other top driver would in his situation? He is not teamed with a top driver (nor even a driver who you can peg in any meaningful way at all) and he isn't racing against top drivers on the other teams either back there. To rate his performance so highly, you must assume that there is something great about it relative to what a Hamilton, Verstappen or Vettel would do in the same spot because you don't actually have any way to know. Hamilton is actually competing against other top drivers so no such assumption must be made.


Why would no assumption have to be made just because they are "top drivers"? Form isn't permanent and they ain't robots so do you actually think Seb drove well this year because you'd be about the only one I've met that thought so, so why would this benchmark still exist irregardless of form? That makes no sense. Dan had reliability issues just about every session, you've routinely called Kimi one of the worst drivers on the grid and the less said about Bottas this year the better so what is this lack of needing assumption based on?

What you're really doing is refusing to give Alonso the same benefit of the doubt as you give Lewis in that he got the most from his package, that's all it boils down to really.

Ah, so now we're back to the "we can't say anything for sure" argument. In fact you seem to be suggesting that racing the likes of Vettel, Raikkonen, Verstappen, Ricciardo and Bottas is the equivalent of racing the likes of Hartley, Vandoorne, Stroll and Sirotkin. This, for me, is too irrational of a place to even have the conversation from.


Its not the equivalent in a spec series no but obviously there are a lot of factors involved in F1 you seem to ignore when it suits like driver form,car strength etc. Racing Hulk,Perez and Ocon with a 4/5th deficit in car performance is far more trickier than racing Bottas this year with equal cars or Max and Dan with a 4/5th car advantage over them.

You just seem to treat F1 like a spec series for everyone but Lewis who can be on pole by 6ths and you'll still say he had a car disadvantage. Yes Alonso was facing largely inferior drivers outside of those mentioned above and by Exediron, but he was doing so with an inferior car with inherent aero problems.

Something you take into account for Lewis in the case of racing Seb and Kimi with marginally inferior equipment but completely ignore for Alonso as if he had the best car in the midfield and was racing everyone there on an equal footing.

It's disappointing to read made up nonsense like that Lotus. You're better than that.


I genuinely could've sworn you said Belgium was in the second best car, apologies if not. Maybe it was Singapore and the gap over Seb?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2018 7:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5903
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

Its not the equivalent in a spec series no but obviously there are a lot of factors involved in F1 you seem to ignore when it suits like driver form,car strength etc. Racing Hulk,Perez and Ocon with a 4/5th deficit in car performance is far more trickier than racing Bottas this year with equal cars or Max and Dan with a 4/5th car advantage over them.

You just seem to treat F1 like a spec series for everyone but Lewis who can be on pole by 6ths and you'll still say he had a car disadvantage. Yes Alonso was facing largely inferior drivers outside of those mentioned above and by Exediron, but he was doing so with an inferior car with inherent aero problems.

Something you take into account for Lewis in the case of racing Seb and Kimi with marginally inferior equipment but completely ignore for Alonso as if he had the best car in the midfield and was racing everyone there on an equal footing.

It's disappointing to read made up nonsense like that Lotus. You're better than that.


I genuinely could've sworn you said Belgium was in the second best car, apologies if not. Maybe it was Singapore and the gap over Seb?

The Mercedes was very clearly the second best car in Belgium. Pole was decided by rainfall and superior timing from Mercedes on Hamilton's final Q3 lap. In the race Vettel drove away and just coasted. In Singapore it was both Raikkonen and Vettel who claimed Ferrari had the car to set pole and Hamilton set pole there by a 3 tenths margin to Verstappen anyway. It's not like you to converse in this way. To so blatantly try to misrepresent my views as well as actual events.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2018 10:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5095
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

Its not the equivalent in a spec series no but obviously there are a lot of factors involved in F1 you seem to ignore when it suits like driver form,car strength etc. Racing Hulk,Perez and Ocon with a 4/5th deficit in car performance is far more trickier than racing Bottas this year with equal cars or Max and Dan with a 4/5th car advantage over them.

You just seem to treat F1 like a spec series for everyone but Lewis who can be on pole by 6ths and you'll still say he had a car disadvantage. Yes Alonso was facing largely inferior drivers outside of those mentioned above and by Exediron, but he was doing so with an inferior car with inherent aero problems.

Something you take into account for Lewis in the case of racing Seb and Kimi with marginally inferior equipment but completely ignore for Alonso as if he had the best car in the midfield and was racing everyone there on an equal footing.

It's disappointing to read made up nonsense like that Lotus. You're better than that.


I genuinely could've sworn you said Belgium was in the second best car, apologies if not. Maybe it was Singapore and the gap over Seb?

The Mercedes was very clearly the second best car in Belgium. Pole was decided by rainfall and superior timing from Mercedes on Hamilton's final Q3 lap. In the race Vettel drove away and just coasted. In Singapore it was both Raikkonen and Vettel who claimed Ferrari had the car to set pole and Hamilton set pole there by a 3 tenths margin to Verstappen anyway. It's not like you to converse in this way. To so blatantly try to misrepresent my views as well as actual events.


Right the Merc was better on Saturday because of the circumstances and the Ferrari better on Sunday, I agree. Its not like I made it up though, it was just an off the top of my head example of the type of thing we hear when it comes to Lewis but for Alonso its as simple as he was just racing the likes of Hartley with no mention of whether he himself was at a car disadvantage or not.

You can be racing worse drivers but if the car delta is greater than the difference between the two sets of drivers then your job can be just as, or even more difficult than racing the likes of Max with a car advantage but you don't take any of that into consideration when discussing Alonso's performances in the midfield was the point I as trying and maybe failing to make.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5903
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

Its not the equivalent in a spec series no but obviously there are a lot of factors involved in F1 you seem to ignore when it suits like driver form,car strength etc. Racing Hulk,Perez and Ocon with a 4/5th deficit in car performance is far more trickier than racing Bottas this year with equal cars or Max and Dan with a 4/5th car advantage over them.

You just seem to treat F1 like a spec series for everyone but Lewis who can be on pole by 6ths and you'll still say he had a car disadvantage. Yes Alonso was facing largely inferior drivers outside of those mentioned above and by Exediron, but he was doing so with an inferior car with inherent aero problems.

Something you take into account for Lewis in the case of racing Seb and Kimi with marginally inferior equipment but completely ignore for Alonso as if he had the best car in the midfield and was racing everyone there on an equal footing.

It's disappointing to read made up nonsense like that Lotus. You're better than that.


I genuinely could've sworn you said Belgium was in the second best car, apologies if not. Maybe it was Singapore and the gap over Seb?

The Mercedes was very clearly the second best car in Belgium. Pole was decided by rainfall and superior timing from Mercedes on Hamilton's final Q3 lap. In the race Vettel drove away and just coasted. In Singapore it was both Raikkonen and Vettel who claimed Ferrari had the car to set pole and Hamilton set pole there by a 3 tenths margin to Verstappen anyway. It's not like you to converse in this way. To so blatantly try to misrepresent my views as well as actual events.


Right the Merc was better on Saturday because of the circumstances and the Ferrari better on Sunday, I agree. Its not like I made it up though, it was just an off the top of my head example of the type of thing we hear when it comes to Lewis but for Alonso its as simple as he was just racing the likes of Hartley with no mention of whether he himself was at a car disadvantage or not.

You can be racing worse drivers but if the car delta is greater than the difference between the two sets of drivers then your job can be just as, or even more difficult than racing the likes of Max with a car advantage but you don't take any of that into consideration when discussing Alonso's performances in the midfield was the point I as trying and maybe failing to make.

No Lotus, the Mercedes was not magically better on Saturday than it was on Sunday. Hamilton simply did a better job than Vettel on Saturday while Ferrari bungled things for Raikkonen by not properly fueling him for the session. You can conveniently forget about Vettel botching his lap as well as Raikkonen having to come in early in Q3 having run out of fuel but don't expect me to. You can also pretend that Ferrari were not quicker all through practice, Q1 and Q2 (and even the first runs in Q3) before messing up at the end but don't expect me to. Honestly if this is the level of discussion you want to have, you'll have to do it without me. You ceaselessly campaign for Alonso even in a year that clearly wasn't his.

I do take all elements of car performance into account when considering who performed best. I am well aware that Mclaren did not have a great car. The difference is that I don't just assume that means Alonso must be driver of the year. I still observe his performances and, for me, there isn't much there to write home about. Yeah he had some impressive drives but most of the time, when the car was nowhere, so was he. The guy that seemed to be most impressive in terms of out-performing the car from the midfield in 2018, was Leclerc IMO. Alonso was a terrier like always and had some impressive drives but even his most impressive results were often down to strategy. The race in Singapore was a good example as he started 11th (the best position possible for a non-big 3 driver) and he benefited from going long while others got stuck behind Sirotkin after pitting. No overtakes or brilliant defenses. he just stayed out of trouble and had the optimal strategy.

I didn't see enough from Alonso to even put him in the DotY conversation in 2018 and there was a good amount of sloppiness to his races that takes away from his season as well. Collisions, penalties, temper tantrums, vendettas, etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2091
Pullrod wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:

Well yeah because he finished runner up to Michael in a few of them did he not?

You're getting obsessed with this "would've done" stuff, and your're ignoring your own love of using it.

No that's incorrect. I don't use hypothetical possibilities to justify my choices at all.

Yeah, because you don't need to. Your favorite driver happens to sit in a car with a chance to win at any given race.

Favorite has nothing to do with it. We're not arguing about favorites. This thread is about best individual seasons. Hamilton this year did have a very competitive car but it certainly was far from dominant and, by most assessments, was second best overall on the year. Alonso has had cars of the same competitiveness in 2005-2007 and has never had a season to match what Hamilton did this year. Both raced against elite drivers in top cars but the fact is that only Hamilton dominated to such a level. Whichever driver happens to be your favorite should not obscure the facts nor should it even come into the discussion.

Michael Schumacher similarly dominated in 1995 with a car that was IMO clearly second best, however, I personally do not rate Damon Hill as an equal for the likes of Vettel. I see the same 3-4 posters extolling Alonso's 2012 season for putting up a great fight in a car that wasn't the best but Schumacher's 1997 and 1998 were more impressive in that regard for me and certainly Alain Prost's 1986 was superior as well. All of the arguments for Hamilton, Schumacher, Senna, Prost, etc. are based solely on what they actually achieved but, in this forum, I consistently see arguments for Alonso full of "woulda/coulda/shoulda".


This is the biggest Alonso "forum" if you were to exclude Spain and Mexico so don't expect very good and fair arguments where Fernando is involved.

2012 and 2006 seasons are so overrated it is not even funny.

You made very good points for 2006.

2012 was simply a lottery(and McLaren f*ck*d up big time) and to be honest, despite Ferrari and Massa bending left and right to favour Alonso, he went "missing" for a few races at the end of the season.
Hamilton that year drove at least at Alonso's level if not better. But hey we are talking about Alonso here so it must have been magical. Let's create the legend and look back at the 2005 and 2006 seasons with rose-tinted glasses.


Well, maybe you want to share with us the best season performances ever according to your opinion?
;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1992
Location: Miami, Florida
Senna 1984 was pretty epic in how he was able to perform with that car and his teammate was nowhere close to that.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7504
Location: Belgium
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Senna 1984 was pretty epic in how he was able to perform with that car and his teammate was nowhere close to that.
I remember being impressed with him that year, but we should remember that Derek Warwick never finished outside the points in the final 4 races of the previous season. Which may well have been his Best Season Performance Ever.
I'm not sure what area of reliability kept both Warwick and Senna back in '83 and '84 (Senna used the same car up to Monaco), but Warwick was the more successful of the two over that stretch. That Toleman was becoming a true contender.

Warwick merited a better car, which he must have hoped was going to be the Renault he switched to. Sadly, it wasn't to be.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5903
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Senna 1984 was pretty epic in how he was able to perform with that car and his teammate was nowhere close to that.

In general a lot of Senna's best seasons were years where he did not win the title. In years like 85', 86' and 89' he was unbelievable on both Saturdays and Sundays but he had about 13-15 mechanical failures from the lead in those three seasons alone!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 5095
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
Lotus49 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
It's disappointing to read made up nonsense like that Lotus. You're better than that.


I genuinely could've sworn you said Belgium was in the second best car, apologies if not. Maybe it was Singapore and the gap over Seb?

The Mercedes was very clearly the second best car in Belgium. Pole was decided by rainfall and superior timing from Mercedes on Hamilton's final Q3 lap. In the race Vettel drove away and just coasted. In Singapore it was both Raikkonen and Vettel who claimed Ferrari had the car to set pole and Hamilton set pole there by a 3 tenths margin to Verstappen anyway. It's not like you to converse in this way. To so blatantly try to misrepresent my views as well as actual events.


Right the Merc was better on Saturday because of the circumstances and the Ferrari better on Sunday, I agree. Its not like I made it up though, it was just an off the top of my head example of the type of thing we hear when it comes to Lewis but for Alonso its as simple as he was just racing the likes of Hartley with no mention of whether he himself was at a car disadvantage or not.

You can be racing worse drivers but if the car delta is greater than the difference between the two sets of drivers then your job can be just as, or even more difficult than racing the likes of Max with a car advantage but you don't take any of that into consideration when discussing Alonso's performances in the midfield was the point I as trying and maybe failing to make.

No Lotus, the Mercedes was not magically better on Saturday than it was on Sunday. Hamilton simply did a better job than Vettel on Saturday while Ferrari bungled things for Raikkonen by not properly fueling him for the session. You can conveniently forget about Vettel botching his lap as well as Raikkonen having to come in early in Q3 having run out of fuel but don't expect me to. You can also pretend that Ferrari were not quicker all through practice, Q1 and Q2 (and even the first runs in Q3) before messing up at the end but don't expect me to. Honestly if this is the level of discussion you want to have, you'll have to do it without me. You ceaselessly campaign for Alonso even in a year that clearly wasn't his.

I do take all elements of car performance into account when considering who performed best. I am well aware that Mclaren did not have a great car. The difference is that I don't just assume that means Alonso must be driver of the year. I still observe his performances and, for me, there isn't much there to write home about. Yeah he had some impressive drives but most of the time, when the car was nowhere, so was he. The guy that seemed to be most impressive in terms of out-performing the car from the midfield in 2018, was Leclerc IMO. Alonso was a terrier like always and had some impressive drives but even his most impressive results were often down to strategy. The race in Singapore was a good example as he started 11th (the best position possible for a non-big 3 driver) and he benefited from going long while others got stuck behind Sirotkin after pitting. No overtakes or brilliant defenses. he just stayed out of trouble and had the optimal strategy.

I didn't see enough from Alonso to even put him in the DotY conversation in 2018 and there was a good amount of sloppiness to his races that takes away from his season as well. Collisions, penalties, temper tantrums, vendettas, etc.


Really? The Merc looked better in the wet all season, again I didn't think this was controversial and just assumed that's what you meant when you said he got pole because of the rainfall which is why I said I agreed for goodness sake. You're the one bringing the level of discussion down all the time and there's only one or two guys campaigning for Alonso this year and its not me, thank you.

You clearly don't spend your weekend following the back end of the grid because if you did you wouldn't use Leclerc, a guy Alonso beat in a inferior car, as the standout from the midfield. P11 is also only the best position depending on circumstances like the difference in tyre wear or what track you're on. It can be an advantage and arguably was in Singapore but you still have to get the job done. If that's Lewis its a clinic in tyre and stint management and he got the most out of the situation. For Alonso its meh, we get it.

Stella's take on Singapore was this..

Quote:
The second is from this year's Singapore Grand Prix, one of McLaren's more competitive races in the worst year in their history.

"We knew the chance to score points was all about going long on the first stint when other people would feel they have to pit," Stella says. "But we weren't sure how long you could go, so we were relying a lot on Fernando to tell us how the tyres were going.

"We were expecting him to say maybe around lap 20, 'I can go another 10 laps.' But around lap five/six, he came on the radio, and said: 'I think we can go 35.' And we stopped lap 34. And when we stopped, the tyres were finished.

"I don't want to create a myth like he is a magician. Nothing like that. It is just a matter of preparation, and developing an immense competence in what you do. Similar to playing the violin."


No collisions were his fault, blaming him is like blaming Lewis for Silverstone so we can say Lewis had "collisions" too so that shouldn't exclude Alonso but he did get two penalties for cutting chicanes, one harsh one in Japan when pushed off by Stroll and one deliberate one in AD when messing around when having no chance of catching the car ahead and in no danger of being caught from behind. Temper tantrums and vendetta's sounds like we're scraping the barrel here to find fault with his driving tbh but he did have a spin in France.

_________________
"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 Jan 10, 2019 11:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:48 pm
Posts: 1206
Invade wrote:
One quick comment about Alonso.

Lots of Alonso seasons being put forward, but what if I were to suggest that 2014 could be his best season? It has yet been mentioned but he was pretty terrific. He smashed up on Kimi and was close to Vettel in that dodgy 2014 Ferrari in the Championship standings.


I always felt 2014 was even more astounding than his most overwhelming, heroic 2012 season. 2014 was flawless.

But I read an interview of Fernando where he said his best seasons in order were 2012, 2014, 2016. If he feels 2012 is better than 2014, he of all people may know better. Maybe because 2012 had championship pressure with Ferrari, which as we've seen with Vettel, is a different thing entirely?

2014 was a bad car, but Fernando was pressure-free, and maybe that's why he values his 2012 performance more.

Source: https://wtf1.com/post/fernando-alonso-s ... season-f1/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1618
Location: Far side of Koozebane
sandman1347 wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Senna 1984 was pretty epic in how he was able to perform with that car and his teammate was nowhere close to that.

In general a lot of Senna's best seasons were years where he did not win the title. In years like 85', 86' and 89' he was unbelievable on both Saturdays and Sundays but he had about 13-15 mechanical failures from the lead in those three seasons alone!


Yeah agree with this.

Out of his 41 wins, I reckon well over 25% of those wins were in cars that were the 2nd, 3rd or even 4th best cars on the grid. With 6 wins from his Lotus years, his 3 wins at the back end of 1991 when Williams were flying & his 5 in 93, which I still rate as the greatest single season by a driver I've seen, that means 14 of his 41 wins were in inferior equipment. Throw in his debut season in 1984 where he finished 9th in the DC standings after getting trophies in Portugal, Great Britain & of course Monaco, plus his undeniable quali & wet weather prowess & to me it underlines why he remains the best i've seen.

Yeah he probably would've also won the DC in 89 if not for atrocious reliability but he was still in the best car that year.

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner - 119 & counting.

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 303 spots available, 23 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 3:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24281
Jezza13 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
Senna 1984 was pretty epic in how he was able to perform with that car and his teammate was nowhere close to that.

In general a lot of Senna's best seasons were years where he did not win the title. In years like 85', 86' and 89' he was unbelievable on both Saturdays and Sundays but he had about 13-15 mechanical failures from the lead in those three seasons alone!


Yeah agree with this.

Out of his 41 wins, I reckon well over 25% of those wins were in cars that were the 2nd, 3rd or even 4th best cars on the grid. With 6 wins from his Lotus years, his 3 wins at the back end of 1991 when Williams were flying & his 5 in 93, which I still rate as the greatest single season by a driver I've seen, that means 14 of his 41 wins were in inferior equipment. Throw in his debut season in 1984 where he finished 9th in the DC standings after getting trophies in Portugal, Great Britain & of course Monaco, plus his undeniable quali & wet weather prowess & to me it underlines why he remains the best i've seen.

Yeah he probably would've also won the DC in 89 if not for atrocious reliability but he was still in the best car that year.

yep, I had Senna '93 at the top of my list, too!


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: Lt. Drebin, pokerman, TheGiantHogweed 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