planetf1.com

It is currently Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:30 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 4:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 4439
Porsan wrote:
Covalent wrote:
Porsan wrote:
Covalent wrote:
Porsan wrote:
What are you talking about? Santander a Spanish bank?

Founded in Spain, based in Spain, headquarters in Spain. What are you talking about?


I am talking about a Company whose Spanish affairs are less than 1/6 of their operations and which is listed in all main stock markets around the globe. Where they origineted is pretty irrelevant. Let me put you an example: let's imagine that Nokia starts sponsoring Lotus. Do you think this would be because they are fans of Finn Kimi Räikkönen or just because F1 is a good method of promoting an international brand? If F1 sponsors were only seeking their domestic market increase, specially in the case of big multinational brands like Santander, don't you think it would be an incredibly expensive marketing action? Because you would be paying for the price of a worlwide show and getting the results only in a tiny fraction of the world. Not really sensible, don't you think?

Even more: Santander is not only a worldwide Company, it's a BANK. Have you ever dealt with a bank? Have you ever asked for a loan? If yes, did you get the impression that they were people wanting to spend money on their favourite sport hero just for the sake of seeing him winning? What do you think that Santander international members of its Board of the Directors would think about it?

No, Santander is in F1 for promoting its brand, not just because they are fans of Alonso. Sponsoring Ferrari is wet dream for every marketing manager in the world because of its international image of success and the magic of its name.

I'm confused, are you agreeing or disagreeing that it is a Spanish bank?


Capital has no fatherland

Still not answering the question though.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Rosberg - Bottas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:12 am
Posts: 31
Zoue wrote:
callMEcrazy wrote:
Regarding Kimi and Massa in '07, Alonso finished immediately behind Massa twice in '10 (Australia and Turkey). So does that mean there was no favoritism ?

Anyway I think we disagree with the very fundamental issues of driver policies and we also seem to interpret Red Bull very differently. Vettel is clearly better than Webber no doubt. Butt he same is true for Alonso and Massa. Red Bull just has the luxury of a very good car so they are not forced to get their hands dirty like Ferrari.

To me, the result of biased driver policies is quite clear in terms of results. Sportsmanship and image are really more vague subjects for me.

Touche, although it's possible that team orders didn't exist before Alonso began to stamp his authority on things. Aus was only the second race of the season after all and as for Turkey, Massa was comfortably ahead of Alonso as the latter was stuck behind another car until the closing laps. Massa would pretty much have had to park to let Alonso past him there.

My point on Red Bull is that there is no evidence of any number one and two status, unless you count Vettel winning all the time as evidence. When Mark is good, he's very good but more often than not he's nowhere near Seb. Red Bull themselves deny any such driver policy and I don't remember any "Vettel is faster than you" moment in any race where both drivers were in with a shout of the WDC. Contrast that with Ferrari where there is little doubt of Massa's status within the team. Yes, Alonso is faster anyway but Massa is not even allowed to compete with him, while Mark was leading Seb pretty much until the summer break.

I'm not knocking Ferrari for doing what they do overall but I do question that it's the best for the team. Red bull have arguably shown that having two strong drivers is better overall than having a solitary one. Vettel doesn't seem to need Webber to move over for him and neither does Lewis need Button to do the same, and as a result both teams have usually been much stronger in the WCC without sacrificing anything in the WDC as a result. In fact, if it wasn't for McLaren's crap reliability in the second half of this year (which has nothing to do with driver policy) they would be comfortably ahead of Ferrari and knocking on Red Bull's door for the WCC, as well as being in contention for the WDC, so on balance equal driver policy seems a far better bet.


Turkey 2010? Pretty sure Webber was ahead in the championship (on wins) and had just won two back to back races in Spain and Monaco? But actually they tried to manufacture a Vettel win and botched it. Open team orders over manufacturing results internally anyday...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 8:01 pm
Posts: 753
Covalent wrote:
Porsan wrote:
Covalent wrote:
Porsan wrote:

I am talking about a Company whose Spanish affairs are less than 1/6 of their operations and which is listed in all main stock markets around the globe. Where they origineted is pretty irrelevant. Let me put you an example: let's imagine that Nokia starts sponsoring Lotus. Do you think this would be because they are fans of Finn Kimi Räikkönen or just because F1 is a good method of promoting an international brand? If F1 sponsors were only seeking their domestic market increase, specially in the case of big multinational brands like Santander, don't you think it would be an incredibly expensive marketing action? Because you would be paying for the price of a worlwide show and getting the results only in a tiny fraction of the world. Not really sensible, don't you think?

Even more: Santander is not only a worldwide Company, it's a BANK. Have you ever dealt with a bank? Have you ever asked for a loan? If yes, did you get the impression that they were people wanting to spend money on their favourite sport hero just for the sake of seeing him winning? What do you think that Santander international members of its Board of the Directors would think about it?

No, Santander is in F1 for promoting its brand, not just because they are fans of Alonso. Sponsoring Ferrari is wet dream for every marketing manager in the world because of its international image of success and the magic of its name.

I'm confused, are you agreeing or disagreeing that it is a Spanish bank?




Capital has no fatherland

Still not answering the question though.


No, it's not an easy answer, the founders of Santander were Spanish, of course, and so is its chairman and, as you say, its headquarters are in the waterfront promenade of the city of Santander, Spain. But, what is the nationality of a multinational? Are its interests anyhow related to any country, when you are working in tens of them, you have to attend people around the globe and your board of the directors is a mix of all the Companies you have purchased or merged with along the years?

Look at this quote from the "Santander Group" wikipedia entry:

Quote:
Santander announced it would continue to sponsor McLaren alongside Ferrari due to its brand awareness in the UK rising from 20 to 82 percent


This is exactly what Santander is looking for in F1, if they can get it with Alonso winning, OK, if they can get with any other driver, it will be perfectly OK for them as long as what they get from sponsorship is more than what they pay for it. Any other consideration is completely meaningless, I insist that this is a bank and banks have only two favourite drivers: their P&L account (specially for the "P" side) and its balance sheet.

I think this issue is completely off topic and I will leave it here.

However, when I will have more time, I will pick some more information about the impact of Santander sponsoring on F1 and I will start a topic on the matter. I would be glad to discuss with you about it.

_________________
I'm a racing driver. Always was, always will be.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 151
Location: USA
Ferrari is a team, they never waver from what they are. The drivers work for the team and Massa has no chance of winning the championship so of course they use all available resources to win the championship. They dont hide behind any what if, they are a team and I like that. If Massa was faster he would get the full support of the team. Mclaren would do exactly and they have, just ask DC. So Whitmarsh is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He is wrong everyone would do exactly what Ferrari did. There is no question about this.

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:37 am
Posts: 440
Location: San Diego, California USA
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
Ferrari is a team, they never waver from what they are. The drivers work for the team and Massa has no chance of winning the championship so of course they use all available resources to win the championship. They dont hide behind any what if, they are a team and I like that. If Massa was faster he would get the full support of the team. Mclaren would do exactly and they have, just ask DC. So Whitmarsh is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He is wrong everyone would do exactly what Ferrari did. There is no question about this.



Ferrari go to extremes with it though. I highly doubt any other team on the grid would have had Massa take the penalty. RB proved this by not making Mark take one after Ferrari cut Massas seal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 1043
Location: Ohio
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
Ferrari is a team, they never waver from what they are. The drivers work for the team and Massa has no chance of winning the championship so of course they use all available resources to win the championship. They dont hide behind any what if, they are a team and I like that. If Massa was faster he would get the full support of the team. Mclaren would do exactly and they have, just ask DC. So Whitmarsh is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He is wrong everyone would do exactly what Ferrari did. There is no question about this.



you mean "alonso is a team" and Ferrari is who he drives for...

that is the point MW is making... Alonso wants everything his way or not only does he walk, he will F the team over... a la $100 mill fine when he turned his own team in


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:07 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 6104
Bakerking31 wrote:
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
Ferrari is a team, they never waver from what they are. The drivers work for the team and Massa has no chance of winning the championship so of course they use all available resources to win the championship. They dont hide behind any what if, they are a team and I like that. If Massa was faster he would get the full support of the team. Mclaren would do exactly and they have, just ask DC. So Whitmarsh is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He is wrong everyone would do exactly what Ferrari did. There is no question about this.



Ferrari go to extremes with it though. I highly doubt any other team on the grid would have had Massa take the penalty. RB proved this by not making Mark take one after Ferrari cut Massas seal.

But why would they do that? Red Bull qualified 1st and 3rd. Pushing Mark further down the grid would provide no advantage whatsoever. Doesn't prove a thing (not that I think they would do it, but there's no proof here)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:37 am
Posts: 440
Location: San Diego, California USA
Zoue wrote:
Bakerking31 wrote:
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
Ferrari is a team, they never waver from what they are. The drivers work for the team and Massa has no chance of winning the championship so of course they use all available resources to win the championship. They dont hide behind any what if, they are a team and I like that. If Massa was faster he would get the full support of the team. Mclaren would do exactly and they have, just ask DC. So Whitmarsh is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He is wrong everyone would do exactly what Ferrari did. There is no question about this.



Ferrari go to extremes with it though. I highly doubt any other team on the grid would have had Massa take the penalty. RB proved this by not making Mark take one after Ferrari cut Massas seal.

But why would they do that? Red Bull qualified 1st and 3rd. Pushing Mark further down the grid would provide no advantage whatsoever. Doesn't prove a thing (not that I think they would do it, but there's no proof here)



It would have put Alonso back on the dirty side of the track. Instead of gaining places at the start Alonso would lose them. Basically negate the reason for Massa taking the penalty.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 6104
CalMac wrote:
Zoue wrote:
callMEcrazy wrote:
Regarding Kimi and Massa in '07, Alonso finished immediately behind Massa twice in '10 (Australia and Turkey). So does that mean there was no favoritism ?

Anyway I think we disagree with the very fundamental issues of driver policies and we also seem to interpret Red Bull very differently. Vettel is clearly better than Webber no doubt. Butt he same is true for Alonso and Massa. Red Bull just has the luxury of a very good car so they are not forced to get their hands dirty like Ferrari.

To me, the result of biased driver policies is quite clear in terms of results. Sportsmanship and image are really more vague subjects for me.

Touche, although it's possible that team orders didn't exist before Alonso began to stamp his authority on things. Aus was only the second race of the season after all and as for Turkey, Massa was comfortably ahead of Alonso as the latter was stuck behind another car until the closing laps. Massa would pretty much have had to park to let Alonso past him there.

My point on Red Bull is that there is no evidence of any number one and two status, unless you count Vettel winning all the time as evidence. When Mark is good, he's very good but more often than not he's nowhere near Seb. Red Bull themselves deny any such driver policy and I don't remember any "Vettel is faster than you" moment in any race where both drivers were in with a shout of the WDC. Contrast that with Ferrari where there is little doubt of Massa's status within the team. Yes, Alonso is faster anyway but Massa is not even allowed to compete with him, while Mark was leading Seb pretty much until the summer break.

I'm not knocking Ferrari for doing what they do overall but I do question that it's the best for the team. Red bull have arguably shown that having two strong drivers is better overall than having a solitary one. Vettel doesn't seem to need Webber to move over for him and neither does Lewis need Button to do the same, and as a result both teams have usually been much stronger in the WCC without sacrificing anything in the WDC as a result. In fact, if it wasn't for McLaren's crap reliability in the second half of this year (which has nothing to do with driver policy) they would be comfortably ahead of Ferrari and knocking on Red Bull's door for the WCC, as well as being in contention for the WDC, so on balance equal driver policy seems a far better bet.


Turkey 2010? Pretty sure Webber was ahead in the championship (on wins) and had just won two back to back races in Spain and Monaco? But actually they tried to manufacture a Vettel win and botched it. Open team orders over manufacturing results internally anyday...

Hmm, don't remember them trying to manufacture a Vettel win. Do remember Vettel trying an ambitious move on Webber that didn't pan out, but don't see how that proves team orders in any way


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:14 pm 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 6104
Bakerking31 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Bakerking31 wrote:
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
Ferrari is a team, they never waver from what they are. The drivers work for the team and Massa has no chance of winning the championship so of course they use all available resources to win the championship. They dont hide behind any what if, they are a team and I like that. If Massa was faster he would get the full support of the team. Mclaren would do exactly and they have, just ask DC. So Whitmarsh is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He is wrong everyone would do exactly what Ferrari did. There is no question about this.



Ferrari go to extremes with it though. I highly doubt any other team on the grid would have had Massa take the penalty. RB proved this by not making Mark take one after Ferrari cut Massas seal.

But why would they do that? Red Bull qualified 1st and 3rd. Pushing Mark further down the grid would provide no advantage whatsoever. Doesn't prove a thing (not that I think they would do it, but there's no proof here)



It would have put Alonso back on the dirty side of the track. Instead of gaining places at the start Alonso would lose them. Basically negate the reason for Massa taking the penalty.

But it would have also compromised Webber's race unnecessarily by putting him on the dirty side. Didn't make sense when he could have used his 3rd place spot to defend against any potential attack by Alonso anyway. Think they had more to lose by trying that. Ferrari, being already out of the WCC, had everything to gain by moving Alonso up the grid


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:12 am
Posts: 31
Zoue wrote:
CalMac wrote:
Zoue wrote:
callMEcrazy wrote:
Regarding Kimi and Massa in '07, Alonso finished immediately behind Massa twice in '10 (Australia and Turkey). So does that mean there was no favoritism ?

Anyway I think we disagree with the very fundamental issues of driver policies and we also seem to interpret Red Bull very differently. Vettel is clearly better than Webber no doubt. Butt he same is true for Alonso and Massa. Red Bull just has the luxury of a very good car so they are not forced to get their hands dirty like Ferrari.

To me, the result of biased driver policies is quite clear in terms of results. Sportsmanship and image are really more vague subjects for me.

Touche, although it's possible that team orders didn't exist before Alonso began to stamp his authority on things. Aus was only the second race of the season after all and as for Turkey, Massa was comfortably ahead of Alonso as the latter was stuck behind another car until the closing laps. Massa would pretty much have had to park to let Alonso past him there.

My point on Red Bull is that there is no evidence of any number one and two status, unless you count Vettel winning all the time as evidence. When Mark is good, he's very good but more often than not he's nowhere near Seb. Red Bull themselves deny any such driver policy and I don't remember any "Vettel is faster than you" moment in any race where both drivers were in with a shout of the WDC. Contrast that with Ferrari where there is little doubt of Massa's status within the team. Yes, Alonso is faster anyway but Massa is not even allowed to compete with him, while Mark was leading Seb pretty much until the summer break.

I'm not knocking Ferrari for doing what they do overall but I do question that it's the best for the team. Red bull have arguably shown that having two strong drivers is better overall than having a solitary one. Vettel doesn't seem to need Webber to move over for him and neither does Lewis need Button to do the same, and as a result both teams have usually been much stronger in the WCC without sacrificing anything in the WDC as a result. In fact, if it wasn't for McLaren's crap reliability in the second half of this year (which has nothing to do with driver policy) they would be comfortably ahead of Ferrari and knocking on Red Bull's door for the WCC, as well as being in contention for the WDC, so on balance equal driver policy seems a far better bet.


Turkey 2010? Pretty sure Webber was ahead in the championship (on wins) and had just won two back to back races in Spain and Monaco? But actually they tried to manufacture a Vettel win and botched it. Open team orders over manufacturing results internally anyday...

Hmm, don't remember them trying to manufacture a Vettel win. Do remember Vettel trying an ambitious move on Webber that didn't pan out, but don't see how that proves team orders in any way


They told Mark to turn down his Engine mode and at the same time told Vettel to turn his up leading to the crash due to the difference in Engine modes. Webber had been leading from lap 1 and also had pole so it was a bit cheeky of Red Bull.

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/more- ... 20945.html

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2010/05/30/h ... m-by-team/ (This one is more useful for comparing lap times)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:37 am
Posts: 440
Location: San Diego, California USA
CalMac wrote:
Zoue wrote:
CalMac wrote:
Zoue wrote:
callMEcrazy wrote:
Regarding Kimi and Massa in '07, Alonso finished immediately behind Massa twice in '10 (Australia and Turkey). So does that mean there was no favoritism ?

Anyway I think we disagree with the very fundamental issues of driver policies and we also seem to interpret Red Bull very differently. Vettel is clearly better than Webber no doubt. Butt he same is true for Alonso and Massa. Red Bull just has the luxury of a very good car so they are not forced to get their hands dirty like Ferrari.

To me, the result of biased driver policies is quite clear in terms of results. Sportsmanship and image are really more vague subjects for me.

Touche, although it's possible that team orders didn't exist before Alonso began to stamp his authority on things. Aus was only the second race of the season after all and as for Turkey, Massa was comfortably ahead of Alonso as the latter was stuck behind another car until the closing laps. Massa would pretty much have had to park to let Alonso past him there.

My point on Red Bull is that there is no evidence of any number one and two status, unless you count Vettel winning all the time as evidence. When Mark is good, he's very good but more often than not he's nowhere near Seb. Red Bull themselves deny any such driver policy and I don't remember any "Vettel is faster than you" moment in any race where both drivers were in with a shout of the WDC. Contrast that with Ferrari where there is little doubt of Massa's status within the team. Yes, Alonso is faster anyway but Massa is not even allowed to compete with him, while Mark was leading Seb pretty much until the summer break.

I'm not knocking Ferrari for doing what they do overall but I do question that it's the best for the team. Red bull have arguably shown that having two strong drivers is better overall than having a solitary one. Vettel doesn't seem to need Webber to move over for him and neither does Lewis need Button to do the same, and as a result both teams have usually been much stronger in the WCC without sacrificing anything in the WDC as a result. In fact, if it wasn't for McLaren's crap reliability in the second half of this year (which has nothing to do with driver policy) they would be comfortably ahead of Ferrari and knocking on Red Bull's door for the WCC, as well as being in contention for the WDC, so on balance equal driver policy seems a far better bet.


Turkey 2010? Pretty sure Webber was ahead in the championship (on wins) and had just won two back to back races in Spain and Monaco? But actually they tried to manufacture a Vettel win and botched it. Open team orders over manufacturing results internally anyday...

Hmm, don't remember them trying to manufacture a Vettel win. Do remember Vettel trying an ambitious move on Webber that didn't pan out, but don't see how that proves team orders in any way


They told Mark to turn down his Engine mode and at the same time told Vettel to turn his up leading to the crash due to the difference in Engine modes. Webber had been leading from lap 1 and also had pole so it was a bit cheeky of Red Bull.

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/more- ... 20945.html

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2010/05/30/h ... m-by-team/ (This one is more useful for comparing lap times)



webber running out of fuel faster and needing to turn his engine mode down so he can make it to the end of the race does not equal conspiracy. As much as you would like it to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:12 am
Posts: 31
Bakerking31 wrote:
CalMac wrote:
callMEcrazy wrote:
Regarding Kimi and Massa in '07, Alonso finished immediately behind Massa twice in '10 (Australia and Turkey). So does that mean there was no favoritism ?

Anyway I think we disagree with the very fundamental issues of driver policies and we also seem to interpret Red Bull very differently. Vettel is clearly better than Webber no doubt. Butt he same is true for Alonso and Massa. Red Bull just has the luxury of a very good car so they are not forced to get their hands dirty like Ferrari.

To me, the result of biased driver policies is quite clear in terms of results. Sportsmanship and image are really more vague subjects for me.

Touche, although it's possible that team orders didn't exist before Alonso began to stamp his authority on things. Aus was only the second race of the season after all and as for Turkey, Massa was comfortably ahead of Alonso as the latter was stuck behind another car until the closing laps. Massa would pretty much have had to park to let Alonso past him there.

My point on Red Bull is that there is no evidence of any number one and two status, unless you count Vettel winning all the time as evidence. When Mark is good, he's very good but more often than not he's nowhere near Seb. Red Bull themselves deny any such driver policy and I don't remember any "Vettel is faster than you" moment in any race where both drivers were in with a shout of the WDC. Contrast that with Ferrari where there is little doubt of Massa's status within the team. Yes, Alonso is faster anyway but Massa is not even allowed to compete with him, while Mark was leading Seb pretty much until the summer break.

I'm not knocking Ferrari for doing what they do overall but I do question that it's the best for the team. Red bull have arguably shown that having two strong drivers is better overall than having a solitary one. Vettel doesn't seem to need Webber to move over for him and neither does Lewis need Button to do the same, and as a result both teams have usually been much stronger in the WCC without sacrificing anything in the WDC as a result. In fact, if it wasn't for McLaren's crap reliability in the second half of this year (which has nothing to do with driver policy) they would be comfortably ahead of Ferrari and knocking on Red Bull's door for the WCC, as well as being in contention for the WDC, so on balance equal driver policy seems a far better bet.


Turkey 2010? Pretty sure Webber was ahead in the championship (on wins) and had just won two back to back races in Spain and Monaco? But actually they tried to manufacture a Vettel win and botched it. Open team orders over manufacturing results internally anyday...

Hmm, don't remember them trying to manufacture a Vettel win. Do remember Vettel trying an ambitious move on Webber that didn't pan out, but don't see how that proves team orders in any way[/quote]

They told Mark to turn down his Engine mode and at the same time told Vettel to turn his up leading to the crash due to the difference in Engine modes. Webber had been leading from lap 1 and also had pole so it was a bit cheeky of Red Bull.

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/more- ... 20945.html

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2010/05/30/h ... m-by-team/ (This one is more useful for comparing lap times)[/quote]


webber running out of fuel faster and needing to turn his engine mode down so he can make it to the end of the race does not equal conspiracy. As much as you would like it to.[/quote]webber running out of fuel faster and needing to turn his engine mode down so he can make it to the end of the race does not equal conspiracy. As much as you would like it to.[/quote]

Firstly my post is a reply to someone else to say Red Bull have not pulled any "Fernando is faster than you" crap, I'm just providing an example where they have. If you don't believe it go ahead but there is no need to try and belittle me because you do not believe it yourself. Get back in your box, I don't even support Webber.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 8:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 9:29 pm
Posts: 812
Location: Qart-Hadast
Quote:
Hmm, don't remember them trying to manufacture a Vettel win. Do remember Vettel trying an ambitious move on Webber that didn't pan out, but don't see how that proves team orders in any way
What about Abu Dabhi 2010? That was outrageous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 8:11 pm
Posts: 714
The root of the problem here is the five place grid penalty for gearbox changes , maybe it takes Ferrari abusing this ridiculous rule to prompt some sort of change.

Ferrari simply did what Red Bull have done in playing with the rules to gain advantage.
As it turned out the dirty side wasn't as bad as first thought and there was plenty of opportunities to overtake .
To be frank it has kept the championship battle alive until the final race alongside Lewis taking Vettel , which can only be good for the fans producing a nail biting finale to the season .
Whitmarsh's concern should be why due to bad team management , Lewis is not also competing for the title in Brazil


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:26 pm
Posts: 804
Location: Ontario, Canada
Whitmarsh is completely right on this one IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 2914
I really dont see the need to change rules if they are abused just the once in a while.
I doubt this situation will arise again or not for many years.
It was a combination of Alonsos last chance and a new track, just as the Red Bull starting from the pit lane was a one off. Under normal conditions there is no advantage to be had from it. and the rules have worked fine until now.

If the rule is changed, whos to say someone wont see an advantage in it at some future time

_________________
I have nothing to offer but blood, oil, gears, and sweat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:07 pm
Posts: 668
Covalent wrote:
Porsan wrote:
What are you talking about? Santander a Spanish bank?

Founded in Spain, based in Spain, headquarters in Spain. What are you talking about?

Obviously, he is talking about businesses. And a bank that has most of its revenues outside its home country thinks globally, not locally - something that some people apparently fail to realise, as they continue thinking of Santander as an Spanish-centric institution willing to spend a huge amount of money in F1 just to support their local boy. Just to make the whole thing more puzzling, those same people saw no potential issues in a British company like Vodafone sponsoring a British team like McLaren with a British and a Spanish driver. And just to make this clear, I am not hinting that Vodafone should be involved in such discussion!

chican wrote:
Porsan wrote:
Well, i don't know if it's funny or not, but what is sure is that sponsoring F1 is business and, in the case of major teams, it's BIG business.

That's why I think all those conspirational theories about sponsors interfering race results or the internal operation of teams are BS. Sponsors are not mega-rich fans of a given driver, they are professional people who are in Formula 1 for promoting worldwide their brands, not for cheering their preferred driver.
Something sensible 8O

+1

Johnston wrote:
Don't forget santander signed a contract with Macca so couldn't just jump ship and leave with alonso. Well they probably could have but would likely have ended up paying for nothing.

Given that McLaren had been found guilty in Spygate, you can bet that Santander had a very easy way out without paying a penny. Sponsorship contracts have exit clauses if the sponsored entity has reputational issues - check ING and Renault.


Last edited by morgana on Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:07 pm
Posts: 668
NvrDieYoung wrote:
love the denials among nando fans.

Whitmarsh made it crystal clear, and for those who followed 2007 season and paid attention to the TR, fernando had been continuously whining for lewis to let him past whenever he was in front even when lewis was leading the championship.

The so call great driver

NvrDieYoung, your denial of anything that might reflect even remotely good on Alonso or negate even the most radical accusation against him gives you the upper hand in this particular aspect over the most ardent Alonso fans I have seen in this forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 2:01 pm
Posts: 24
Location: Edwins Burgh
Robot wrote:
Mr. Martin should mind his own business, and explain why he is not fighting for the title with such a car.


That’s it in a nutshell.

Whitmarsh is creating a smokescreen to draw attention away from the blunders that he has presided over, they messed Hamilton around and he's leaving, they signed the crash happy decidedly average Perez, not to mention the errors and breakdowns this year.

Here’s a fact for Whitmarsh and his ‘fair play’. Coulthard was told to move over to allow Hakkinen through to win the race.


Last edited by tommymarshall16 on Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:32 pm
Posts: 53
SwSpeed wrote:
GingerFurball wrote:
moby wrote:
shibbytude wrote:
Bit rich coming from a Team which has always loved having a No. 1 driver over the years (Senna, Hakkinen, Hamilton).

Does anyone actually pay attention to what Whitmarsh says anyway now he has a love affair with Button as well.


But even if you believe that, those guys established themselves as the prime driver through their own performance against the team mate. I'm quite sure that had their team mate shown signs of being as good, they would have had a dispute over ranking within the team. Masa started the year as a support driver, infact, the year Alonso signed on, and they make it clear that who ever else is there is in the same role.

The irony of is that had Masa been given free reign, it is quite probable Ferrari would be in contention for constructors championship now.


Rubbish. Unless Ferrari had Massa running in the midfield in the early part of the season as some sort of tactic.

Massa was garbage up until Monza.


Mr Furball (what a fitting name)
Massa was never garbage. He was ignored. There is just one place who can do such a thing, that is Ferrari.


Right right, and Monza was the track where the team suddenly decided it was time to stop ignoring him. But wait I don't get it. If ignoring him was working so well in the first half of the season and gave them such a commanding lead in the WDC, why fix what isn't broken?

And that was a rhetorical question. I just wanted to make an attempt to bring you back to your senses. Hopefully it's not too late.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 11:32 am
Posts: 1527
Zoue wrote:
hittheapex wrote:
Whitmarsh is lying through his teeth.

China 2007: "We were racing Fernando." Not "Lewis was racing Fernando." "We were racing Fernando."

Hamilton and Kovalainen was hardly equal either. And nor should it have been later on with the championship at stake. It doesn't matter if Whitmarsh is honest about it, it's when he holds others to holier than thou standards that he doesn't meet himself.

Not this one again. China 2007 was the penultimate race of the season, long after the Spygate affair had broken and relations between the team and Alonso had broken down. It was hardly a secret that they were barely on speaking terms by then. It's ridiculous to cite this as an example of the lack of driver equality at McLaren. :uhoh:

And as for Kovaleinen, he was simply not as good as Lewis right from the start. That doesn't mean that there was any favouritism. If their performance gap was just down to McLaren favouring Lewis then why would they bother replacing Kovaleinen at all? They could just give him a bit of attention, surely? It's because he was rubbish, that's why.


So it is OK for McLaren to fuel Kovalainen up very heavy in qualifying and usher him out the way in races to support Hamilton-which as I wrote before, the championship was at stake, so nothing wrong with that-but it's not OK for Ferrari to do the same thing?

Yes, Hamilton was usually superior to Kovalainen. Alonso is usually superior to Massa. I do think in both cases that they were held back by their teams just a touch. Some agree with the ethics of that, some don't. I'll leave it at that.

_________________
The only way to vote is with the remote.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 12:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:39 pm
Posts: 1152
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
FormulaFerrari wrote:
SwSpeed wrote:
GingerFurball wrote:
moby wrote:
shibbytude wrote:
Bit rich coming from a Team which has always loved having a No. 1 driver over the years (Senna, Hakkinen, Hamilton).

Does anyone actually pay attention to what Whitmarsh says anyway now he has a love affair with Button as well.


But even if you believe that, those guys established themselves as the prime driver through their own performance against the team mate. I'm quite sure that had their team mate shown signs of being as good, they would have had a dispute over ranking within the team. Masa started the year as a support driver, infact, the year Alonso signed on, and they make it clear that who ever else is there is in the same role.

The irony of is that had Masa been given free reign, it is quite probable Ferrari would be in contention for constructors championship now.


Rubbish. Unless Ferrari had Massa running in the midfield in the early part of the season as some sort of tactic.

Massa was garbage up until Monza.


Mr Furball (what a fitting name)
Massa was never garbage. He was ignored. There is just one place who can do such a thing, that is Ferrari.


Right right, and Monza was the track where the team suddenly decided it was time to stop ignoring him. But wait I don't get it. If ignoring him was working so well in the first half of the season and gave them such a commanding lead in the WDC, why fix what isn't broken?

And that was a rhetorical question. I just wanted to make an attempt to bring you back to your senses. Hopefully it's not too late.


Well I am in my senses.
I don't question Fernandos skills, I am questioning Ferrari management.
So here the question for you. How come he came back in Monza?

Did we start seeing some comments from the team like "Massa knows what to do" well prior Monza?

They changed their communication style, the move back was getting on well before Monza. Massa just nailed it the first time at Monza.

When looking at the results from 2010 they were quote evenly matched but Alonso started get an upper hand later.
Ferrari is under pressure to produce a WDC soon and the latest they got is the one they fired. Alonso and Ferrari needs one badly thus forgetting their "second" driver which caused them to lose WCC points and price money.

Here is another theory, how come they did not replace Massa?
Maybe they did'nt get proper "applications" from decent drivers, who would go there and destroy his career?
I would'nt i'd rather race in a team on equal terms where I get a chance to prove my skill.

My point, the team is currently ill managed. It's been a circus since Todt left the team.

You or others will not need to agree with me but you cant change My opinion in this matter.

_________________
..

Minds are like parachutes, they work best when they are open


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 12:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:32 pm
Posts: 53
SwSpeed wrote:
Well I am in my senses.
I don't question Fernandos skills, I am questioning Ferrari management.
So here the question for you. How come he came back in Monza?

Did we start seeing some comments from the team like "Massa knows what to do" well prior Monza?

They changed their communication style, the move back was getting on well before Monza. Massa just nailed it the first time at Monza.

When looking at the results from 2010 they were quote evenly matched but Alonso started get an upper hand later.
Ferrari is under pressure to produce a WDC soon and the latest they got is the one they fired. Alonso and Ferrari needs one badly thus forgetting their "second" driver which caused them to lose WCC points and price money.

Here is another theory, how come they did not replace Massa?
Maybe they did'nt get proper "applications" from decent drivers, who would go there and destroy his career?
I would'nt i'd rather race in a team on equal terms where I get a chance to prove my skill.

My point, the team is currently ill managed. It's been a circus since Todt left the team.

You or others will not need to agree with me but you cant change My opinion in this matter.


There could be many reasons for that. Why has Webber only scored 43 points since the summer break ended, compared to the 124 he scored in the first half of the season? He hasn't had the most reliable car, as I mentioned in another thread, but that still doesn't explain such a drastic difference in his performances.

However for me to come out and say that Red Bull have been ignoring Webber just to take pressure off Vettel would be completely foolish, regardless of whether or not it's true. There's a difference between opinion and complete nonsense, and there's also a difference between having an opinion on a topic that is open for debate, and one for which facts are available. Ferrari have come out and said that Massa has been given the same equipment as Alonso, and was even given a new chassis earlier in the season to see if that would help his performances. I don't see any need to provide an opinion on that, unless you think Ferrari are lying. If that's the case, then this is a whole different story.

And unless you were offered a drive at another top team as well, you would take the Ferrari seat without hesitation. ;) Top teams like Ferrari don't need to hire drivers and have them "prove" themselves. If Ferrari is showing interest in you then you can be sure that they'll be fully aware of your potential as a driver, and that will only happen if/when you've already proven yourself elsewhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 12:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 3:55 am
Posts: 119
hittheapex wrote:
Zoue wrote:
hittheapex wrote:
Whitmarsh is lying through his teeth.

China 2007: "We were racing Fernando." Not "Lewis was racing Fernando." "We were racing Fernando."
Hamilton and Kovalainen was hardly equal either. And nor should it have been later on with the championship at stake. It doesn't matter if Whitmarsh is honest about it, it's when he holds others to holier than thou standards that he doesn't meet himself.

Not this one again. China 2007 was the penultimate race of the season, long after the (lie that was) Spygate affair had broken and relations between the team and Alonso had broken down. It was hardly a secret that they were barely on speaking terms by then. It's ridiculous to cite this as an example of the lack of driver equality at McLaren.
And as for Kovaleinen, he was simply not as good as Lewis right from the start. That doesn't mean that there was any favouritism. If their performance gap was just down to McLaren favouring Lewis then why would they bother replacing Kovaleinen at all? They could just give him a bit of attention, surely? It's because he was rubbish, that's why.


So it is OK for McLaren to fuel Kovalainen up very heavy in qualifying and usher him out the way in races to support Hamilton-which as I wrote before, the championship was at stake, so nothing wrong with that-but it's not OK for Ferrari to do the same thing?
Yes, Hamilton was usually superior to Kovalainen. Alonso is usually superior to Massa. I do think in both cases that they were held back by their teams just a touch. Some agree with the ethics of that, some don't. I'll leave it at that.

Do you have any proof of that? Or is it more justification for unsporting behaviour from those unworthy title chasers....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:39 pm
Posts: 1152
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
FormulaFerrari wrote:
SwSpeed wrote:
Well I am in my senses.
I don't question Fernandos skills, I am questioning Ferrari management.
So here the question for you. How come he came back in Monza?

Did we start seeing some comments from the team like "Massa knows what to do" well prior Monza?

They changed their communication style, the move back was getting on well before Monza. Massa just nailed it the first time at Monza.

When looking at the results from 2010 they were quote evenly matched but Alonso started get an upper hand later.
Ferrari is under pressure to produce a WDC soon and the latest they got is the one they fired. Alonso and Ferrari needs one badly thus forgetting their "second" driver which caused them to lose WCC points and price money.

Here is another theory, how come they did not replace Massa?
Maybe they did'nt get proper "applications" from decent drivers, who would go there and destroy his career?
I would'nt i'd rather race in a team on equal terms where I get a chance to prove my skill.

My point, the team is currently ill managed. It's been a circus since Todt left the team.

You or others will not need to agree with me but you cant change My opinion in this matter.


There could be many reasons for that. Why has Webber only scored 43 points since the summer break ended, compared to the 124 he scored in the first half of the season? He hasn't had the most reliable car, as I mentioned in another thread, but that still doesn't explain such a drastic difference in his performances.

However for me to come out and say that Red Bull have been ignoring Webber just to take pressure off Vettel would be completely foolish, regardless of whether or not it's true. There's a difference between opinion and complete nonsense, and there's also a difference between having an opinion on a topic that is open for debate, and one for which facts are available. Ferrari have come out and said that Massa has been given the same equipment as Alonso, and was even given a new chassis earlier in the season to see if that would help his performances. I don't see any need to provide an opinion on that, unless you think Ferrari are lying. If that's the case, then this is a whole different story.

And unless you were offered a drive at another top team as well, you would take the Ferrari seat without hesitation. ;) Top teams like Ferrari don't need to hire drivers and have them "prove" themselves. If Ferrari is showing interest in you then you can be sure that they'll be fully aware of your potential as a driver, and that will only happen if/when you've already proven yourself elsewhere.


First of all we were discussing Massa.

Secondly I know that Ferrari looks for driver which are proven. Allthough Massa was not really proven before he replaced Barichello.
Only driver we know Ferrari approached was Webber and he opted for a new contract at RB. Who knows who else they have approached this year. The only thing we know is that Massa drives 2013 and i really hope he will be finishing races right behind Alonso.

That is the purpose of the 2nd driver

_________________
..

Minds are like parachutes, they work best when they are open


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 8:17 am 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 6104
chican wrote:
Quote:
Hmm, don't remember them trying to manufacture a Vettel win. Do remember Vettel trying an ambitious move on Webber that didn't pan out, but don't see how that proves team orders in any way
What about Abu Dabhi 2010? That was outrageous.

What about Abu Dhabi 2010? :?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 8:26 am 
Online

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 6104
hittheapex wrote:
Zoue wrote:
hittheapex wrote:
Whitmarsh is lying through his teeth.

China 2007: "We were racing Fernando." Not "Lewis was racing Fernando." "We were racing Fernando."

Hamilton and Kovalainen was hardly equal either. And nor should it have been later on with the championship at stake. It doesn't matter if Whitmarsh is honest about it, it's when he holds others to holier than thou standards that he doesn't meet himself.

Not this one again. China 2007 was the penultimate race of the season, long after the Spygate affair had broken and relations between the team and Alonso had broken down. It was hardly a secret that they were barely on speaking terms by then. It's ridiculous to cite this as an example of the lack of driver equality at McLaren. :uhoh:

And as for Kovaleinen, he was simply not as good as Lewis right from the start. That doesn't mean that there was any favouritism. If their performance gap was just down to McLaren favouring Lewis then why would they bother replacing Kovaleinen at all? They could just give him a bit of attention, surely? It's because he was rubbish, that's why.


So it is OK for McLaren to fuel Kovalainen up very heavy in qualifying and usher him out the way in races to support Hamilton-which as I wrote before, the championship was at stake, so nothing wrong with that-but it's not OK for Ferrari to do the same thing?

Yes, Hamilton was usually superior to Kovalainen. Alonso is usually superior to Massa. I do think in both cases that they were held back by their teams just a touch. Some agree with the ethics of that, some don't. I'll leave it at that.

I don't recall Kovaleinen ever being in a position where he had to be ushered out of the way. He just wasn't good enough. If he had been strong enough to challenge Lewis from the start, in the same way that Lewis challenged Alonso, then he wouldn't have been trailing around the middle or back of the field all the time in a car that was capable of winning.

And I don't know why you are bringing ethics into it. I never said it was wrong for Ferrari to do what they are doing, just that they seem to be the ones who have it as a set policy from the start of the season. Personally I think it benefits the lead driver much more than it does the team, but that's their choice. The reason I responded to your original post is because you used China 2007 as proof that McLaren does not have an equal driver policy, and that example is flawed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 9:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 8:11 pm
Posts: 714
tommymarshall16 wrote:
Robot wrote:
Mr. Martin should mind his own business, and explain why he is not fighting for the title with such a car.


That’s it in a nutshell.

Whitmarsh is creating a smokescreen to draw attention away from the blunders that he has presided over, they messed Hamilton around and he's leaving, they signed the crash happy decidedly average Perez, not to mention the errors and breakdowns this year.

Here’s a fact for Whitmarsh and his ‘fair play’. Coulthard was told to move over to allow Hakkinen through to win the race.


This.....plus they also tried to make Lewis not race Alonso and Lewis refused the difference is Ferrari are open and honest with their motives and tactics and Whitmarsh is not.
Mclaren can't do it openly because Lewis and Jenson won't do it .
So they use other methods to achieve their objectives.

I prefer the honesty can't abide slyness


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:51 am
Posts: 1167
Qiwater wrote:
tommymarshall16 wrote:
Robot wrote:
Mr. Martin should mind his own business, and explain why he is not fighting for the title with such a car.


That’s it in a nutshell.

Whitmarsh is creating a smokescreen to draw attention away from the blunders that he has presided over, they messed Hamilton around and he's leaving, they signed the crash happy decidedly average Perez, not to mention the errors and breakdowns this year.

Here’s a fact for Whitmarsh and his ‘fair play’. Coulthard was told to move over to allow Hakkinen through to win the race.


This.....plus they also tried to make Lewis not race Alonso and Lewis refused the difference is Ferrari are open and honest with their motives and tactics and Whitmarsh is not.
Mclaren can't do it openly because Lewis and Jenson won't do it .
So they use other methods to achieve their objectives.

I prefer the honesty can't abide slyness


Whitmarsh was managing director and not team principle when DC moved over for Mika

So if you're going to blame him for everything now he's team principle can you at the very least blame the team principle at the time of that decision!

I think this proves you just hate Whitmarsh and it clouds your mind when pinning things to him

_________________
Multi 21 or Catch 22?!

It ain't hating just 'cause it's not love


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 4:30 pm
Posts: 33
Qiwater wrote:
tommymarshall16 wrote:
Robot wrote:
Mr. Martin should mind his own business, and explain why he is not fighting for the title with such a car.


That’s it in a nutshell.

Whitmarsh is creating a smokescreen to draw attention away from the blunders that he has presided over, they messed Hamilton around and he's leaving, they signed the crash happy decidedly average Perez, not to mention the errors and breakdowns this year.

Here’s a fact for Whitmarsh and his ‘fair play’. Coulthard was told to move over to allow Hakkinen through to win the race.


This.....plus they also tried to make Lewis not race Alonso and Lewis refused the difference is Ferrari are open and honest with their motives and tactics and Whitmarsh is not.
Mclaren can't do it openly because Lewis and Jenson won't do it .
So they use other methods to achieve their objectives.

I prefer the honesty can't abide slyness


Hmm... Macca had a one -two at Monaco and told 2nd place driver not to do battle with the race leader; what harm did that do macca or was it their job to tell 1st place driver to pull over?

Willing to be proven wrong, but seem to recall that DC had broken a driver agreement going in to turn 1 etc prior to that race and possibly was an element of payback.

What is consistent through both is that macca serve macca more than the amibitions of any given driver unless it is clearly in macca's interests too.

What Ferrari did wasn't illegal, but screwed around with qualy for many many teams and drivers. Not just massa. In certain quarters such behaviour is seen as smart and clever, in other others it is seen as extremely cynical and unsporting. Never the twain shall meet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 3756
Qiwater wrote:
tommymarshall16 wrote:
Robot wrote:
Mr. Martin should mind his own business, and explain why he is not fighting for the title with such a car.


That’s it in a nutshell.

Whitmarsh is creating a smokescreen to draw attention away from the blunders that he has presided over, they messed Hamilton around and he's leaving, they signed the crash happy decidedly average Perez, not to mention the errors and breakdowns this year.

Here’s a fact for Whitmarsh and his ‘fair play’. Coulthard was told to move over to allow Hakkinen through to win the race.


This.....plus they also tried to make Lewis not race Alonso and Lewis refused the difference is Ferrari are open and honest with their motives and tactics and Whitmarsh is not.
Mclaren can't do it openly because Lewis and Jenson won't do it .
So they use other methods to achieve their objectives.

I prefer the honesty can't abide slyness


While I prefer honesty, for me this is not an excuse really. Imagine this:

"I'm going to stab you to death".....

Well at least I was honest, right?

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 3936
Location: Ireland
veemax wrote:
hittheapex wrote:
So it is OK for McLaren to fuel Kovalainen up very heavy in qualifying and usher him out the way in races to support Hamilton-which as I wrote before, the championship was at stake, so nothing wrong with that-but it's not OK for Ferrari to do the same thing?
Yes, Hamilton was usually superior to Kovalainen. Alonso is usually superior to Massa. I do think in both cases that they were held back by their teams just a touch. Some agree with the ethics of that, some don't. I'll leave it at that.

Do you have any proof of that? Or is it more justification for unsporting behaviour from those unworthy title chasers....

There's quite a lot of proof of that!

There's a whole thread about the subject on the forum here somewhere. I couldn't be arsed searching for it. In a nutshell it was concluded that Kovi was much closer to Lewis in qualy than it appeared. Heavier fuel loads made it seem Kovi was a mile away.

_________________
"I am a believer, but I start each Grand Prix with 195 liters of fuel behind me," he explains. "I don't rely entirely on God, I rely on Prost."


#14 for '14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 151
Location: USA
It all goes back to what Stefano D said. He was upfront about what they did. All other teams would have done exactly that and if they say something different they are lying. Whitemarsh would have done exactly that, and in fact have hid behind other ways to make one driver go ahead of another, it happens all the time but because it is an Italian team the pundits start going crazy. Fact is everyone does what Ferrari did they just hide behind how they do it.

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 151
Location: USA
Bakerking31 wrote:
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
Ferrari is a team, they never waver from what they are. The drivers work for the team and Massa has no chance of winning the championship so of course they use all available resources to win the championship. They dont hide behind any what if, they are a team and I like that. If Massa was faster he would get the full support of the team. Mclaren would do exactly and they have, just ask DC. So Whitmarsh is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He is wrong everyone would do exactly what Ferrari did. There is no question about this.



Ferrari go to extremes with it though. I highly doubt any other team on the grid would have had Massa take the penalty. RB proved this by not making Mark take one after Ferrari cut Massas seal.



RB couldn't because Ferrari did this at the last moment. RB also said that if they did this others may have as well and potentially moved Alonso even closer to front. so while yes Ferrari go to extremes but what is extreme? The teams go to the limit of the rules so as long as they dont break the rules extreme is acceptable, just like a Newey designed car.

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 151
Location: USA
Hakkattack wrote:
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
Ferrari is a team, they never waver from what they are. The drivers work for the team and Massa has no chance of winning the championship so of course they use all available resources to win the championship. They dont hide behind any what if, they are a team and I like that. If Massa was faster he would get the full support of the team. Mclaren would do exactly and they have, just ask DC. So Whitmarsh is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He is wrong everyone would do exactly what Ferrari did. There is no question about this.



you mean "alonso is a team" and Ferrari is who he drives for...

that is the point MW is making... Alonso wants everything his way or not only does he walk, he will F the team over... a la $100 mill fine when he turned his own team in


Ferrari look for the best and get it. Alonso was recruited by Ferrari long before he was at Mclaren. Remember he was signed by Ferrari and put in a Minardi. I dont know if you ever played team sports, I have and sometimes you have to do things for the team to win that dont make you the star. Pass the football when you rather kick the shot, pass the basketball etc. Ferrari is a true team and they nominate the number 1 status at this time when Massa had no chance to win the championship. Anyone would do the same thing, and if they didnt then they are out for themselves or lying.

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 2:01 pm
Posts: 24
Location: Edwins Burgh
SilverstoneRegular wrote:
Qiwater wrote:
tommymarshall16 wrote:
Robot wrote:
Mr. Martin should mind his own business, and explain why he is not fighting for the title with such a car.


That’s it in a nutshell.

Whitmarsh is creating a smokescreen to draw attention away from the blunders that he has presided over, they messed Hamilton around and he's leaving, they signed the crash happy decidedly average Perez, not to mention the errors and breakdowns this year.

Here’s a fact for Whitmarsh and his ‘fair play’. Coulthard was told to move over to allow Hakkinen through to win the race.


This.....plus they also tried to make Lewis not race Alonso and Lewis refused the difference is Ferrari are open and honest with their motives and tactics and Whitmarsh is not.
Mclaren can't do it openly because Lewis and Jenson won't do it .
So they use other methods to achieve their objectives.

I prefer the honesty can't abide slyness


Whitmarsh was managing director and not team principle when DC moved over for Mika

So if you're going to blame him for everything now he's team principle can you at the very least blame the team principle at the time of that decision!

I think this proves you just hate Whitmarsh and it clouds your mind when pinning things to him


I'm not attributing that to Whitmarsh but to the Mclaren team. I'm well aware of who made the call, I've been watching F1 since Rosberg won the wdc in a turbo car.

I don't hate whitmarsh at all, but i don't rate him either. As i said before I believe he'll be moved sideways in 2014.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 2:01 pm
Posts: 24
Location: Edwins Burgh
Gingerman wrote:
Qiwater wrote:
tommymarshall16 wrote:
Robot wrote:
Mr. Martin should mind his own business, and explain why he is not fighting for the title with such a car.


That’s it in a nutshell.

Whitmarsh is creating a smokescreen to draw attention away from the blunders that he has presided over, they messed Hamilton around and he's leaving, they signed the crash happy decidedly average Perez, not to mention the errors and breakdowns this year.

Here’s a fact for Whitmarsh and his ‘fair play’. Coulthard was told to move over to allow Hakkinen through to win the race.


This.....plus they also tried to make Lewis not race Alonso and Lewis refused the difference is Ferrari are open and honest with their motives and tactics and Whitmarsh is not.
Mclaren can't do it openly because Lewis and Jenson won't do it .
So they use other methods to achieve their objectives.

I prefer the honesty can't abide slyness


Hmm... Macca had a one -two at Monaco and told 2nd place driver not to do battle with the race leader; what harm did that do macca or was it their job to tell 1st place driver to pull over?

Willing to be proven wrong, but seem to recall that DC had broken a driver agreement going in to turn 1 etc prior to that race and possibly was an element of payback.

What is consistent through both is that macca serve macca more than the amibitions of any given driver unless it is clearly in macca's interests too.

What Ferrari did wasn't illegal, but screwed around with qualy for many many teams and drivers. Not just massa. In certain quarters such behaviour is seen as smart and clever, in other others it is seen as extremely cynical and unsporting. Never the twain shall meet.


You're wrong the agreement you refer to was between Prost and Senna, completely different era.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 5:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 6:00 pm
Posts: 605
chinki wrote:
Hakkattack wrote:
I am not so sure Whatmarsh is saying he has a problem with #1 drivers. He has a problem w Alonso's selfishness to even have a teammate do something like this. I have watched F1 for years and have never seen something so extreme

Did you miss Singapore 08? Alonso has never been kind to teammates, and from what I remember he even had Trulli thrown out of the team as early as 2004 coz he was doing better than him. All this while, it was Briatore who was literally bending over backwards for him and now Ferrari are following suit.



Holy shit, AGAIN. As if Alonso came up with crashgate the night before the race and gave the team orders

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 3756
tommymarshall16 wrote:
Gingerman wrote:
Qiwater wrote:
tommymarshall16 wrote:
Robot wrote:
Mr. Martin should mind his own business, and explain why he is not fighting for the title with such a car.


That’s it in a nutshell.

Whitmarsh is creating a smokescreen to draw attention away from the blunders that he has presided over, they messed Hamilton around and he's leaving, they signed the crash happy decidedly average Perez, not to mention the errors and breakdowns this year.

Here’s a fact for Whitmarsh and his ‘fair play’. Coulthard was told to move over to allow Hakkinen through to win the race.


This.....plus they also tried to make Lewis not race Alonso and Lewis refused the difference is Ferrari are open and honest with their motives and tactics and Whitmarsh is not.
Mclaren can't do it openly because Lewis and Jenson won't do it .
So they use other methods to achieve their objectives.

I prefer the honesty can't abide slyness


Hmm... Macca had a one -two at Monaco and told 2nd place driver not to do battle with the race leader; what harm did that do macca or was it their job to tell 1st place driver to pull over?

Willing to be proven wrong, but seem to recall that DC had broken a driver agreement going in to turn 1 etc prior to that race and possibly was an element of payback.

What is consistent through both is that macca serve macca more than the amibitions of any given driver unless it is clearly in macca's interests too.

What Ferrari did wasn't illegal, but screwed around with qualy for many many teams and drivers. Not just massa. In certain quarters such behaviour is seen as smart and clever, in other others it is seen as extremely cynical and unsporting. Never the twain shall meet.


You're wrong the agreement you refer to was between Prost and Senna, completely different era.


I think you are the one who is wrong.

Australian GP, 1998:

"A few laps before the end of the race, Coulthard let Häkkinen past on the front straight. The two had made a pre-race agreement that between the two of them, the driver who led at the first corner would go on to win the race, should he be in the position to do so."

_________________
ΜΣ...


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: A2jdl, Alienturnedhuman, az1, ClubF1, Cozzie, gregwil, slide, Zoue and 7 guests


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
[ Time : 0.140s | 14 Queries | GZIP : Off ]