Honda Quick wrote:
Voted "YES". It was worth it. For a number of reasons, most of which have already been spoken in this thread regarding how Alonso has performed relative to competition and level of Ferrari competitiveness, "fit" with the team, etc.
First of all, a great reply.

I enjoyed reading your reply, it was to the point, sensible and without insults, which is all a rarity in this forum.
keenf1fan wrote:
If Alonso were not to win anymore WDC with ferrari, then it does not matter how well he has driven in 2010-12. 30 years down the line, history books will show Alonso not winning a championship with ferrari and hence the move to replace him was not worth it. Do you think Luca di monti sitting in his couch and thinking 'hey. this guy has driven a cracking 3 seasons in our dog of a car, it has been worthwhile'. I bet all he cares for is the number of championships they win, upper management is always about end results.
Quote:
Yes, upper management is about end results... but upper management also has plenty of analysts and foresight to take into account what's going on in detail rather than just simply looking at championships and race wins. And those championships clearly emerged from a "whole package" that was better than the one Ferrari currently has. However, via analyses and presentations given to management, I don't believe Fernando will be cited as a weak link in the team given his results. Which is also probably why many here on this forum aren't likely to be reporting to upper management in their professional careers given the reasons they come up with...
I dont think he will be cited as a weak link. but has he (in conjunction with ferrari) achieved the results they set out for in 2010?
Quote:
I think we can all argue for days about which team of Kimi/Massa and Alonso/Massa and how each have been handled has been better for Ferrari. I think that's a very, very valid argument. But one cannot discount the level of competition Ferrari have faced from 2010-2012 in comparison to 2007-2008. 2009 is a different story given the car. Even ignoring any possible outcome from the head injury, I agree that Massa is a poor benchmark at this point. It's very difficult to explain 2011, but 2012 you can see he simply wasn't comfortable with the car for a large portion of the season, and it showed. I also believe that if Kimi and Massa had a similarly difficult car to drive (maybe one with too much front end bite and severe oversteer) Kimi would have put a trouncing on Massa, too. It is always up to the driver to adapt to those changes, but that's always easier said than done, even at the highest end of motorsport. We even saw Vettel struggling at the beginning of this year in comparison to Webber. These things happen.
Agree
keenf1fan wrote:
1) Why he has not been able to develop the car? One of the reasons why people cite fernando's greatness (over kimi) is his ability to develop a car. Immediately after he joined Mclaren in 2007, he claimed to have brought 3 tenths to Mclaren just after winter testing. So why he has not been able to develop the car in 3 seasons to win the title or improve it considering how bad he makes it to be.
Quote:
I think it's clear at this point that the myth of drivers developing cars is mostly moot. I still feel that what they ask for from the car (more aggressive steering, more stable rear, etc.) goes into what the engineers ultimately try and work into the package. And indirectly, it will alter development. But it's also up to the designers and engineers to make that happen. If the team of engineers can't translate what the drivers want and produce components that do that, then it's not necessarily the driver's fault but the effectiveness of the designers.
Agree, I hope this and his stint with renault makes sure the talk of drivers being better car developers goes away. Better feedback,may be. Better developers, hogwash.
keenf1fan wrote:
2) Everybody was talking about how fernando outdrives the car at the start of the season and how bad the car was, I dont think the car got any worse, but fernando's form seemed to taper off towards the end of the season. Monza qualifying, Korea race (where massa had to slow down), Austin qualifying & race and brazil qualifying are arguably places where Fernando could have done better. I thought there is where he lost the championships rather than blame the incidents in spa or japan or adrian newey.
Quote:
It is unfortunate to see Fernando trail off some, both in comparison to the Red Bulls and his teammate (which is arguably worse when judging what happened), but given Fernando's excellent start and mid-season, it was bound to happen. Is it really any different than Sebastien in 2012 starting slow, or Kimi in 2007 having a poor start (minus Australia). The championship is won over an entire season. It just so happened Alonso had his worst driving in the twilight of the season when the pressure was highest. I think if it happens one more time in the coming years we may be able to say he can't handle the pressure. But that's something to be fully judged later on.
With that said, Alonso turned it back on at the end of 2005 in comparison to the McLarens. Though, the title fight wasn't as intense and not as much pressure from the competition (Kimi).
I dont think he quite turned it on at the end of 2005. He had a 32 point lead at the end of race 6 (spain) and then he rode it very well. In 2005 and 2006, he was able to maintain the performances in the second half whereas in 2010 and 12, he visibly dropped off. I feel once he gets a lead in the championships, he looks to defend it rather than drive all out though he always says otherwise.
keenf1fan wrote:
Just based on HARD RESULTS as the bottom line (as much as its a poor yardstick, history will only use hard results)
Four words. Sterling Moss. Gilles Villeneuve. [/quote]
whilst I partially agree, history will talk about his championships at renault, not 'so much' his driving at ferrari.
Quote:
How's that for hard results and history?
