planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Apr 23, 2014 11:47 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic

replacing raikkonen with fernando worth it?
yes 41%  41%  [ 104 ]
no 59%  59%  [ 148 ]
Total votes : 252
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:25 pm
Posts: 147
Have no1 asked the question:
Why didn't Ferrari allow Kimi to race in F1 in different team? They clearly paid him to stay out of F1 but why? Ofc few teams wanted him but in news it was clearly said that Kimi wanted too much money (and that was never the case said by Kimi). And looking from this season Lotus hitted the jackpot (wasn't cheap because of all those bonuses), imagine him at McLaren with Lewis. But that wouldn't have worked because McLaren is worst kind of team to Kimi. So was Ferrari and in reality not many teams allow Kimi have what he really needs.

And Kimi doesn't need motivation, he needs a little bit freedom and that's his motivation. If Kimi enjoys his being as pure driver he will get the results.

Santander did get more out of Massa/Alonso than with Kimi/Alonso. And Ferrari got them a leader. Wouldn't be suprised that Alonso is the man who every1 listens in Ferrari and says the final word about some things.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:28 pm
Posts: 615
WJF1 wrote:
Have no1 asked the question:
Why didn't Ferrari allow Kimi to race in F1 in different team? They clearly paid him to stay out of F1 but why? Ofc few teams wanted him but in news it was clearly said that Kimi wanted too much money (and that was never the case said by Kimi). And looking from this season Lotus hitted the jackpot (wasn't cheap because of all those bonuses), imagine him at McLaren with Lewis. But that wouldn't have worked because McLaren is worst kind of team to Kimi. So was Ferrari and in reality not many teams allow Kimi have what he really needs.

And Kimi doesn't need motivation, he needs a little bit freedom and that's his motivation. If Kimi enjoys his being as pure driver he will get the results.

Santander did get more out of Massa/Alonso than with Kimi/Alonso. And Ferrari got them a leader. Wouldn't be suprised that Alonso is the man who every1 listens in Ferrari and says the final word about some things.

based on the bolded part of your statement, when does it become Alonso's "responsibility" if the team doesn't win the WDC and WCC???

_________________
FORZA FERNANDO * FORZA FERRARI * FORZA FELIPE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 11:16 am
Posts: 1006
Jinx wrote:
WJF1 wrote:
Have no1 asked the question:
Why didn't Ferrari allow Kimi to race in F1 in different team? They clearly paid him to stay out of F1 but why? Ofc few teams wanted him but in news it was clearly said that Kimi wanted too much money (and that was never the case said by Kimi). And looking from this season Lotus hitted the jackpot (wasn't cheap because of all those bonuses), imagine him at McLaren with Lewis. But that wouldn't have worked because McLaren is worst kind of team to Kimi. So was Ferrari and in reality not many teams allow Kimi have what he really needs.

And Kimi doesn't need motivation, he needs a little bit freedom and that's his motivation. If Kimi enjoys his being as pure driver he will get the results.

Santander did get more out of Massa/Alonso than with Kimi/Alonso. And Ferrari got them a leader. Wouldn't be suprised that Alonso is the man who every1 listens in Ferrari and says the final word about some things.

based on the bolded part of your statement, when does it become Alonso's "responsibility" if the team doesn't win the WDC and WCC???


I'll tell you when. When he under-performs at his own job. Being a consultant/advisor at Ferrari is not his job. Ferrari occasionally uses his advice on other matters because its free and valuable.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 3150
Location: Belgium
LKS1 wrote:
Are you saying that Schumi decided to leave Benetton in the summer of '94, but instead of signing a contract with Ferrari and leaving (given as you say, he had the necessary excuse) he decided to wait another year before signing up with Ferrari?
Don't forget that at the time Weber and Schumacher wanted to leave Benetton for damaging his good name, the official verdict on their cheating was still to come. Which, if you think about it, means that Weber and Schumacher had already decided Benetton were indeed cheating. But leaving there and then would have constituted a breach of contract, with consequences. It may well be that Weber and Schumacher were as surprised as all of us when the FIA decided not to throw the team out for cheating.

LKS1 wrote:
Presumably you're also convinced that Schumi only left Benetton 'cos his priority was the money offered by Ferrari - even though it was a gamble whether Ferrari would become championship contenders in the future?
Senna was going to Ferrari; do you believe he wanted to go to a team without any prospect of winning the title(s) with them, after leaving McLaren when their dry spell started? I don't. I am convinced Schumacher - and Weber - were aware of how Todt was changing the way Ferrari worked. Since Ferrari never dropped out of the top tier of teams (despite what some would have us believe about the state they were in in the first half of the nineties), they had every reason to believe switching to them was less of a gamble than you seem to think. 1997 showed they were right; Schumacher threw the title away, but he was a contender down to the final race.

LKS1 wrote:
Why do you think "It is quite possible that Ferrari's opinion about Räikkönen changed during 2007. ... both world titles were won, mission accomplished." Surely Luca employed Kimi 'cos he was convinced that he would win the championships?
That was a ironic reaction to callMEcrazy; since we know that the decision to parachute Alonso in and drop Räikkönen from Ferrari was not taken in 2009, but only weeks/months after Räikkönen had won the drivers' world championship, and Ferrari themselves won the constructors' championship; it would be interesting to know just how their opinion of Räikkönen had changed since he was recruited. It was clear they were not really capable of building him the car he needed, but whether that was his fault or theirs is not something I need to think long and hard about.

LKS1 wrote:
Your question "If Ferrari itself didn't want Kimi, why did they hire him? Who forced him on them?" has already been answered - although clearly you prefer to ignore this.
I'm not ignoring anything; but the suggestion was made Ferrari didn't want Kimi. That may be true, but they did recruit him to race alongside Schumacher. If they didn't want him, why hire him?

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

Maria de Villota


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 1:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:28 pm
Posts: 615
callMEcrazy wrote:
Jinx wrote:
WJF1 wrote:
Have no1 asked the question:
Why didn't Ferrari allow Kimi to race in F1 in different team? They clearly paid him to stay out of F1 but why? Ofc few teams wanted him but in news it was clearly said that Kimi wanted too much money (and that was never the case said by Kimi). And looking from this season Lotus hitted the jackpot (wasn't cheap because of all those bonuses), imagine him at McLaren with Lewis. But that wouldn't have worked because McLaren is worst kind of team to Kimi. So was Ferrari and in reality not many teams allow Kimi have what he really needs.

And Kimi doesn't need motivation, he needs a little bit freedom and that's his motivation. If Kimi enjoys his being as pure driver he will get the results.

Santander did get more out of Massa/Alonso than with Kimi/Alonso. And Ferrari got them a leader. Wouldn't be suprised that Alonso is the man who every1 listens in Ferrari and says the final word about some things.

based on the bolded part of your statement, when does it become Alonso's "responsibility" if the team doesn't win the WDC and WCC???


I'll tell you when. When he under-performs at his own job. Being a consultant/advisor at Ferrari is not his job. Ferrari occasionally uses his advice on other matters because its free and valuable.


Hi CMC,

tht was what I was trying to say about putting all that praise on Fonzie... he's only a driver... just like all the other drivers on the grid. People are giving him far too much credit for being this and that other than being a capable driver who can give good feedback about the car he's driving. I mean, the other side of the argument could be that if he is a this and that as proclaimed by people, why hasn't Ferrari won any WDCs or WCCs since his arrival? What I'm trying to say (without trying to put him down) is that he is not responsible for many aspects of the whole shebang. He has been performing above par based on what his job scope is. But even if I am only assessing his driving this year, I dun think he is as flawless as many people make him out to be becos I do think that towards the last couple of races, Massa had performed better than Fonzie. But almost all year long, his driving had been a sight to behold! and that is what I really think about Fonzie. I hope we can appreciate his driving in all its glory and not go overboard and lump all the other "credit" on him bcos it then becomes disrespectful to the other team members who actually did their jobs to keep pushing the development of the car, for example. Hope this comment doesn't upset anyone.

_________________
FORZA FERNANDO * FORZA FERRARI * FORZA FELIPE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 1:38 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 4807
WJF1 wrote:
Have no1 asked the question:
Why didn't Ferrari allow Kimi to race in F1 in different team? They clearly paid him to stay out of F1 but why? Ofc few teams wanted him but in news it was clearly said that Kimi wanted too much money (and that was never the case said by Kimi). And looking from this season Lotus hitted the jackpot (wasn't cheap because of all those bonuses), imagine him at McLaren with Lewis. But that wouldn't have worked because McLaren is worst kind of team to Kimi. So was Ferrari and in reality not many teams allow Kimi have what he really needs.

And Kimi doesn't need motivation, he needs a little bit freedom and that's his motivation. If Kimi enjoys his being as pure driver he will get the results.

Santander did get more out of Massa/Alonso than with Kimi/Alonso. And Ferrari got them a leader. Wouldn't be suprised that Alonso is the man who every1 listens in Ferrari and says the final word about some things.

Ferrari didn't prevent Kimi from racing for McLaren or any other team as far as i'm aware, the problem was the Ferrari severance pay, teams factored that into negotiations with Kimi whilst Kimi wanted an entirely fresh contract as in effectively receiving two top salaried wage deals.

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 2nd


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 1:52 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 4807
Jinx wrote:
callMEcrazy wrote:
Jinx wrote:
WJF1 wrote:
Have no1 asked the question:
Why didn't Ferrari allow Kimi to race in F1 in different team? They clearly paid him to stay out of F1 but why? Ofc few teams wanted him but in news it was clearly said that Kimi wanted too much money (and that was never the case said by Kimi). And looking from this season Lotus hitted the jackpot (wasn't cheap because of all those bonuses), imagine him at McLaren with Lewis. But that wouldn't have worked because McLaren is worst kind of team to Kimi. So was Ferrari and in reality not many teams allow Kimi have what he really needs.

And Kimi doesn't need motivation, he needs a little bit freedom and that's his motivation. If Kimi enjoys his being as pure driver he will get the results.

Santander did get more out of Massa/Alonso than with Kimi/Alonso. And Ferrari got them a leader. Wouldn't be suprised that Alonso is the man who every1 listens in Ferrari and says the final word about some things.

based on the bolded part of your statement, when does it become Alonso's "responsibility" if the team doesn't win the WDC and WCC???

Exactly its the designers who effectively make the car go fast, Alonso left Renault because at the time they were unable to provide a competitive car and there wasn't much that Alonso could do himself to make the car a WDC contender
I'll tell you when. When he under-performs at his own job. Being a consultant/advisor at Ferrari is not his job. Ferrari occasionally uses his advice on other matters because its free and valuable.


Hi CMC,

tht was what I was trying to say about putting all that praise on Fonzie... he's only a driver... just like all the other drivers on the grid. People are giving him far too much credit for being this and that other than being a capable driver who can give good feedback about the car he's driving. I mean, the other side of the argument could be that if he is a this and that as proclaimed by people, why hasn't Ferrari won any WDCs or WCCs since his arrival? What I'm trying to say (without trying to put him down) is that he is not responsible for many aspects of the whole shebang. He has been performing above par based on what his job scope is. But even if I am only assessing his driving this year, I dun think he is as flawless as many people make him out to be becos I do think that towards the last couple of races, Massa had performed better than Fonzie. But almost all year long, his driving had been a sight to behold! and that is what I really think about Fonzie. I hope we can appreciate his driving in all its glory and not go overboard and lump all the other "credit" on him bcos it then becomes disrespectful to the other team members who actually did their jobs to keep pushing the development of the car, for example. Hope this comment doesn't upset anyone.

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 2nd


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 3:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:44 am
Posts: 7
Tumppi57 wrote:
Totally worth it.
(sarcasm)

No championships since Alonso came aboard. :lol:

lol yeah totally. :]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:06 pm
Posts: 73
RunningMan wrote:
Worth it for who?

For Ferrari, probably. Kimi didn't seem to fit into the what they wanted as a driver, they hired him to replace Schumacher and I don't think Kimi was able to do that, at least as not as well as Fernando has. It's not to do with driving skills, more personality or character. On the track their results in terms of titles seem lean in Kimi's favour, that's hardly the fault of Alonso, Kimi had the better machinery in his time at Ferrari. Plus Ferrari got Santander onboard to finally get rid of the Tobbaco Title Sponsor.

For the Drivers. Alonso seems happy as he undoubtedly would. Kimi seems, like Kimi, I don't think he cares either way at this point.

Kimi did not fit for LdiM. What I´we read, the Ferrari staff or even SD did not have problems. Why not read http://f1bias.com/2012/04/05/truth-about-kimi-ferrari-santander-2008/ to get a picture what were the real reasons for sacking him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:06 pm
Posts: 73
:nod:
MajinOLesedi wrote:
Tumppi57 wrote:
Totally worth it.
(sarcasm)

No championships since Alonso came aboard. :lol:

lol yeah totally. :]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:06 pm
Posts: 73
Fiki wrote:
LKS1 wrote:
Are you saying that Schumi decided to leave Benetton in the summer of '94, but instead of signing a contract with Ferrari and leaving (given as you say, he had the necessary excuse) he decided to wait another year before signing up with Ferrari?
Don't forget that at the time Weber and Schumacher wanted to leave Benetton for damaging his good name, the official verdict on their cheating was still to come. Which, if you think about it, means that Weber and Schumacher had already decided Benetton were indeed cheating. But leaving there and then would have constituted a breach of contract, with consequences. It may well be that Weber and Schumacher were as surprised as all of us when the FIA decided not to throw the team out for cheating.

LKS1 wrote:
Presumably you're also convinced that Schumi only left Benetton 'cos his priority was the money offered by Ferrari - even though it was a gamble whether Ferrari would become championship contenders in the future?
Senna was going to Ferrari; do you believe he wanted to go to a team without any prospect of winning the title(s) with them, after leaving McLaren when their dry spell started? I don't. I am convinced Schumacher - and Weber - were aware of how Todt was changing the way Ferrari worked. Since Ferrari never dropped out of the top tier of teams (despite what some would have us believe about the state they were in in the first half of the nineties), they had every reason to believe switching to them was less of a gamble than you seem to think. 1997 showed they were right; Schumacher threw the title away, but he was a contender down to the final race.

LKS1 wrote:
Why do you think "It is quite possible that Ferrari's opinion about Räikkönen changed during 2007. ... both world titles were won, mission accomplished." Surely Luca employed Kimi 'cos he was convinced that he would win the championships?
That was a ironic reaction to callMEcrazy; since we know that the decision to parachute Alonso in and drop Räikkönen from Ferrari was not taken in 2009, but only weeks/months after Räikkönen had won the drivers' world championship, and Ferrari themselves won the constructors' championship; it would be interesting to know just how their opinion of Räikkönen had changed since he was recruited. It was clear they were not really capable of building him the car he needed, but whether that was his fault or theirs is not something I need to think long and hard about.

LKS1 wrote:
Your question "If Ferrari itself didn't want Kimi, why did they hire him? Who forced him on them?" has already been answered - although clearly you prefer to ignore this.
I'm not ignoring anything; but the suggestion was made Ferrari didn't want Kimi. That may be true, but they did recruit him to race alongside Schumacher. If they didn't want him, why hire him?

It´s not the case of not being able to build a car but build good business. I bet the real F1 insiders get good laughs every now and then when they read about people arguing only about the sporting side of F1 when the no1 issues for example for Ferrari & Santander are: How do we sell more Fiats or how do we make our banking services more successful in Europe (and in Brazil!!!).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:49 am
Posts: 82
Denorth wrote:
Damoclesfall wrote:
...... Without the babes of Newey's brain the whole history changes a lot, and don't miss Brawn 2009 too.
.....
From 2009 newcomers dominate, no regret about, more fighters, more funny.


Sorry, just a genuine question no punt intended:
Did you really just called Newey and Brawn newcomers?

Sorry don´t be more precise. The "newcomers" reference to teams involved, not individuals hired.

_________________
A man is measured by the size of its rivals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2012 9:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:49 am
Posts: 82
bourbon19 wrote:
Damoclesfall wrote:
Is easy forget when evaluating Ferrari results the RB factor. The most significant weakness for Ferrari (like Macca) is named Red Bull. Without the babes of Newey's brain the whole history changes a lot, and don't miss Brawn 2009 too. Would be: 2010: Alonso, Hamilton, Button. 2011: Button, Alonso, Hamilton. 2012: Alonso, Räikkönen, Hamilton.
From 2009 newcomers dominate, no regret about, more fighters, more funny.


You didn't just take out Red Bull, you also took out Sebastian Vettel. But you have to remember that McLaren tried for him in 2007, and without Red Bull, Sebastian would have gone to Macca. Between Seb and Lewis it would be Macca with 4 WDCs at the moment 2008 to the present (dole um out however you like). Ferrari would not have stood a chance.

Of course, you are right to pointing this, but to expect that Vettel could duplicate Red Bull performance in MacLaren is a bit optimistic. Look Button´s consecutive seasons at Brawn and MacLaren.

_________________
A man is measured by the size of its rivals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2012 10:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:06 pm
Posts: 73
:thumbup:
Cozz wrote:
Kimi was happy at Ferrari as long as Jean Todt was there. Jean leaves and it was down hill for Kimi. Ferrari is too much of a political based team for Kimi handle it alone. Alonso is political himself so both Alonso and Ferrari suit each other nicely.

But was it worth the buy out? No, not at all. Ferrari had internal problems, not driver problems.

Clear proof was when Massa was hurt. Kimi all of sudden was one of the fastest men on the track while collecting the most points in the rest of the races while the chassis was stopped in development. How is that possible other than internal politics?

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 12:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:34 pm
Posts: 697
Its funny that everyone acknowledges how Alonso have driven his car this year which on some occasions was the fastest and in many not too far away, but no one gives credit to Kimi putting a dog of a car, that was much worse and far further than the front than this year's Ferrari, on podiums and scoring the most in the second half of 2009 than any other driver (alongside Hamilton). I think it is also worth mentioning that the car's development was stopped since June that year and all resources were shifted to 2010's car

I bet if it was Alonso, we wouldn't have heard the end of it till date.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 1:55 am 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 4807
F1nsider wrote:
Its funny that everyone acknowledges how Alonso have driven his car this year which on some occasions was the fastest and in many not too far away, but no one gives credit to Kimi putting a dog of a car, that was much worse and far further than the front than this year's Ferrari, on podiums and scoring the most in the second half of 2009 than any other driver (alongside Hamilton). I think it is also worth mentioning that the car's development was stopped since June that year and all resources were shifted to 2010's car

I bet if it was Alonso, we wouldn't have heard the end of it till date.

The problem is though upto Massa's accident he was beating Kimi and after that there was no true barometer just to gauge how well Kimi was driving

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 2nd


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 4:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:34 pm
Posts: 697
pokerman wrote:
F1nsider wrote:
Its funny that everyone acknowledges how Alonso have driven his car this year which on some occasions was the fastest and in many not too far away, but no one gives credit to Kimi putting a dog of a car, that was much worse and far further than the front than this year's Ferrari, on podiums and scoring the most in the second half of 2009 than any other driver (alongside Hamilton). I think it is also worth mentioning that the car's development was stopped since June that year and all resources were shifted to 2010's car

I bet if it was Alonso, we wouldn't have heard the end of it till date.

The problem is though upto Massa's accident he was beating Kimi and after that there was no true barometer just to gauge how well Kimi was driving


You don't need a barometer. The car was a dog, and they completely stopped developing it. That only means that it was getting even worse. The only thing that changed is that they listened to Kimi and focused on him when it came to setting up the car


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 4:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 339
Of course, it is worth it. Räikkönen would be on Massa's level (as he was in their common time), which would mean three catastrophic seasons for Ferrari.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 7:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 3150
Location: Belgium
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Of course, it is worth it. Räikkönen would be on Massa's level (as he was in their common time), which would mean three catastrophic seasons for Ferrari.
Is there a specific reason why you think Räikkönen would 'only' be at Massa's level? (Which, at any rate, was nothing to be sneezed at.) Perhaps we are forgetting that Massa came closer than anybody had ever imagined, to becoming world champion in 2008, and that in both 2008 and 2009 the car suited him better than it did Räikkönen.
Are you perhaps saying the car would continue to have suited Massa better than Räikkönen? And if so, do you see a specific reason why Alonso has failed for three consecutive years to win the title?

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

Maria de Villota


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 25, 2012 11:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:39 pm
Posts: 1152
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Of course, it is worth it. Räikkönen would be on Massa's level (as he was in their common time), which would mean three catastrophic seasons for Ferrari.


Lol, did you read any of the discussion?

_________________
..

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:19 am 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 4807
Fiki wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Of course, it is worth it. Räikkönen would be on Massa's level (as he was in their common time), which would mean three catastrophic seasons for Ferrari.
Is there a specific reason why you think Räikkönen would 'only' be at Massa's level? (Which, at any rate, was nothing to be sneezed at.) Perhaps we are forgetting that Massa came closer than anybody had ever imagined, to becoming world champion in 2008, and that in both 2008 and 2009 the car suited him better than it did Räikkönen.
Are you perhaps saying the car would continue to have suited Massa better than Räikkönen? And if so, do you see a specific reason why Alonso has failed for three consecutive years to win the title?

One specific reason would be that Ferrari have not had the best car since 2008

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 2nd


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:23 am 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 4807
F1nsider wrote:
pokerman wrote:
F1nsider wrote:
Its funny that everyone acknowledges how Alonso have driven his car this year which on some occasions was the fastest and in many not too far away, but no one gives credit to Kimi putting a dog of a car, that was much worse and far further than the front than this year's Ferrari, on podiums and scoring the most in the second half of 2009 than any other driver (alongside Hamilton). I think it is also worth mentioning that the car's development was stopped since June that year and all resources were shifted to 2010's car

I bet if it was Alonso, we wouldn't have heard the end of it till date.

The problem is though upto Massa's accident he was beating Kimi and after that there was no true barometer just to gauge how well Kimi was driving


You don't need a barometer. The car was a dog, and they completely stopped developing it. That only means that it was getting even worse. The only thing that changed is that they listened to Kimi and focused on him when it came to setting up the car

I've no doubts that Kimi drove very well in the second half of 2009, i'm just saying its hard to know just how well in Massa's absense

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 2nd


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 5:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 3150
Location: Belgium
pokerman wrote:
F1nsider wrote:
pokerman wrote:
F1nsider wrote:
Its funny that everyone acknowledges how Alonso have driven his car this year which on some occasions was the fastest and in many not too far away, but no one gives credit to Kimi putting a dog of a car, that was much worse and far further than the front than this year's Ferrari, on podiums and scoring the most in the second half of 2009 than any other driver (alongside Hamilton). I think it is also worth mentioning that the car's development was stopped since June that year and all resources were shifted to 2010's car

I bet if it was Alonso, we wouldn't have heard the end of it till date.

The problem is though upto Massa's accident he was beating Kimi and after that there was no true barometer just to gauge how well Kimi was driving


You don't need a barometer. The car was a dog, and they completely stopped developing it. That only means that it was getting even worse. The only thing that changed is that they listened to Kimi and focused on him when it came to setting up the car

I've no doubts that Kimi drove very well in the second half of 2009, i'm just saying its hard to know just how well in Massa's absense

The points and the race win may not constitute a barometer, but they at least tell you his weather was nice and sunny. :D

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

Maria de Villota


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:50 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 4807
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
F1nsider wrote:
pokerman wrote:
F1nsider wrote:
Its funny that everyone acknowledges how Alonso have driven his car this year which on some occasions was the fastest and in many not too far away, but no one gives credit to Kimi putting a dog of a car, that was much worse and far further than the front than this year's Ferrari, on podiums and scoring the most in the second half of 2009 than any other driver (alongside Hamilton). I think it is also worth mentioning that the car's development was stopped since June that year and all resources were shifted to 2010's car

I bet if it was Alonso, we wouldn't have heard the end of it till date.

The problem is though upto Massa's accident he was beating Kimi and after that there was no true barometer just to gauge how well Kimi was driving


You don't need a barometer. The car was a dog, and they completely stopped developing it. That only means that it was getting even worse. The only thing that changed is that they listened to Kimi and focused on him when it came to setting up the car

I've no doubts that Kimi drove very well in the second half of 2009, i'm just saying its hard to know just how well in Massa's absense

The points and the race win may not constitute a barometer, but they at least tell you his weather was nice and sunny. :D

Its funny though how i often read posts that its not possible to outperform the car

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 2nd


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:42 pm
Posts: 672
Location: Wooded area of USA
diablof1 wrote:
???


I love your signature-- fastest, most talented, etc. I agree with all of them, fully!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 5:21 am
Posts: 363
Quote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/20700343

Lotus's 2012 cannot be considered anything other than a success: the car was quick after a couple of shaky seasons and the gamble on Kimi Raikkonen's return paid off.

But it could have been even better.

There are those in the team who feel they should have won more races and even challenged for the title - would have done, in fact, if they had had their former driver Alonso in the car.


Even current Raikkonen employers think Alonso would do much better in their Lotus car in 2012, so yes, Ferrari made brilliant decision replacing Raikkonen with Alonso.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 7:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:01 pm
Posts: 74
Armchair Expert wrote:
Quote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/20700343

Lotus's 2012 cannot be considered anything other than a success: the car was quick after a couple of shaky seasons and the gamble on Kimi Raikkonen's return paid off.

But it could have been even better.

There are those in the team who feel they should have won more races and even challenged for the title - would have done, in fact, if they had had their former driver Alonso in the car.


Even current Raikkonen employers think Alonso would do much better in their Lotus car in 2012, so yes, Ferrari made brilliant decision replacing Raikkonen with Alonso.

Do not, I repeat - do not, take anything at face value of what Andrew Benson writes. He is the biggest Alonso fanboy out there and is trying hard to pass as a journalist. The amount of horse manure he has produced is stacking up. There is absolutely no credibility to what he is saying unless he backs it up with real quotes. When called on it, he either ignores or back tracks. Stay clear is my sound advice.

_________________
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Le blog: http://f1bias.com/

Kimi fans on FB: http://www.facebook.com/groups/kimifanclub/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 12:35 pm
Posts: 1042
I am 100% with Soren on this one - anything that Benson rights should be treated with a careful approach. He was the main journalist who stirred all 'green flag' drama for days before and days after Ferrari made any statements, any Autosport reports.

_________________
We are worse than animals, we hunger for the kill
We put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the will
We kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damned
We are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:43 pm
Posts: 451
Andrew Benson...do we need to say more. :lol:
@Soren & Denorth :thumbup:

_________________
#7 Kimi Raikkonen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 3:55 am
Posts: 119
JerCotter7 wrote:
Are you trying to say the lotus was a better car than the ferrari for most of the year? Wonder how long it will take for people to clam the HRT was better than it.

According to the whinging monobrow the car was basically a dog, i didn't actually hear of anyone at HRT saying their car was a dog......ergo you are correct!
I also agree that Andrew Benson is an Alonso fanboi. Now if anyone were to ask what Benson was smoking i could tell them.......


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 339
Fiki wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Of course, it is worth it. Räikkönen would be on Massa's level (as he was in their common time), which would mean three catastrophic seasons for Ferrari.
Is there a specific reason why you think Räikkönen would 'only' be at Massa's level? (Which, at any rate, was nothing to be sneezed at.) Perhaps we are forgetting that Massa came closer than anybody had ever imagined, to becoming world champion in 2008, and that in both 2008 and 2009 the car suited him better than it did Räikkönen.
Are you perhaps saying the car would continue to have suited Massa better than Räikkönen? And if so, do you see a specific reason why Alonso has failed for three consecutive years to win the title?


Well, you added the 'only'. ;)
He was on Massa's level when they were teammates for almost three seasons, so the safest assumption is that he would be on Massa's level. All else is rather speculative.

Yes, the car was obviously not good enough, not even close.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 339
SwSpeed wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Of course, it is worth it. Räikkönen would be on Massa's level (as he was in their common time), which would mean three catastrophic seasons for Ferrari.


Lol, did you read any of the discussion?


Yes, lots of speculative ifs and maybes - but in the end the most plausible scenario is that one.

Btw, Ferrari failed to produce a sufficiently competitive car for four seasons in a row now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 8:49 pm
Posts: 1499
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Of course, it is worth it. Räikkönen would be on Massa's level (as he was in their common time), which would mean three catastrophic seasons for Ferrari.


Are you saying being on Massa's level is something to be ashamed of. Wonder what you think of Alonso then :lol:

Had Alonso been at Massa 's level , he probbaly would be 3 x champ now


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:07 pm
Posts: 668
Soren wrote:
Do not, I repeat - do not, take anything at face value of what Andrew Benson writes. He is the biggest Alonso fanboy out there and is trying hard to pass as a journalist. The amount of horse manure he has produced is stacking up. There is absolutely no credibility to what he is saying unless he backs it up with real quotes. When called on it, he either ignores or back tracks. Stay clear is my sound advice.

I would say that your attack on Benson is a bit unjustified given the usual standards in this forum! ;)

We had a full thread about a blog entry by a supporter ;) on the whole 2008-09 Ferrari saga, which was presented by some as an extraordinary piece of well researched journalism. In defense of the blogger, it has to be said that he openly described his blog as a biased approach to F1 :) . Plus, for some Leo Turrini is considered a reference in terms of objectivity.

So, you may well be right about Benson (I don't know him that well), but he is just balancing the approaches when it comes to Alonso :-P I am sure that we can find similar examples for every other driver.

One thing is true, though: all these comments and discussions keep us going through the off-season, so they do serve a purpose! :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 2:02 pm
Posts: 85
It is easily noticeable that Andrew Benson is the biggest Alonso fanboy out there. Not only that, he feels the constant need to belittle Raikkonen's and Schumi's achievements to praise Alonso, which is totally uncalled for and unprofessional. How the BBC employs him is beyond me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 3150
Location: Belgium
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Of course, it is worth it. Räikkönen would be on Massa's level (as he was in their common time), which would mean three catastrophic seasons for Ferrari.
Is there a specific reason why you think Räikkönen would 'only' be at Massa's level? (Which, at any rate, was nothing to be sneezed at.) Perhaps we are forgetting that Massa came closer than anybody had ever imagined, to becoming world champion in 2008, and that in both 2008 and 2009 the car suited him better than it did Räikkönen.
Are you perhaps saying the car would continue to have suited Massa better than Räikkönen? And if so, do you see a specific reason why Alonso has failed for three consecutive years to win the title?


Well, you added the 'only'. ;)
He was on Massa's level when they were teammates for almost three seasons, so the safest assumption is that he would be on Massa's level. All else is rather speculative.

Yes, the car was obviously not good enough, not even close.

You are right, I added the only. But only (sorry! :D ) because you wrote that being at that level would mean three catastrophic seasons for Ferrari.
Yet looking at their times together, Räikkönen and Massa won two titles and two near-misses out of six title posssibilities. Alonso and Massa scored 'only' two near-misses out of six. Catastrophic? Perhaps, but hardly on Räikkönen's side.
I understand it was claimed by Ferrari they wanted a driver who could lead a team. Well, perhaps they do. Not that I believe for a second that drivers lead F-1 teams, at least not while they are driving, but perhaps they do. Any suggestions? ;)

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

Maria de Villota


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:29 pm
Posts: 1360
Location: Wrexham, UK
This thread is still going? I wonder if this'll become a never-ending thread story.

_________________
"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 339
Fiki wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Of course, it is worth it. Räikkönen would be on Massa's level (as he was in their common time), which would mean three catastrophic seasons for Ferrari.
Is there a specific reason why you think Räikkönen would 'only' be at Massa's level? (Which, at any rate, was nothing to be sneezed at.) Perhaps we are forgetting that Massa came closer than anybody had ever imagined, to becoming world champion in 2008, and that in both 2008 and 2009 the car suited him better than it did Räikkönen.
Are you perhaps saying the car would continue to have suited Massa better than Räikkönen? And if so, do you see a specific reason why Alonso has failed for three consecutive years to win the title?


Well, you added the 'only'. ;)
He was on Massa's level when they were teammates for almost three seasons, so the safest assumption is that he would be on Massa's level. All else is rather speculative.

Yes, the car was obviously not good enough, not even close.

You are right, I added the only. But only (sorry! :D ) because you wrote that being at that level would mean three catastrophic seasons for Ferrari.


I do not think that Massa's level is a bad level. But the competitiveness of the Ferrari during the past four seasons was not good enough, so that two drivers of Massa's level would have - most obviously - meant catastrophic seasons (for Ferrari standards, that is).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:25 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 4807
F1yer wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Of course, it is worth it. Räikkönen would be on Massa's level (as he was in their common time), which would mean three catastrophic seasons for Ferrari.


Are you saying being on Massa's level is something to be ashamed of. Wonder what you think of Alonso then :lol:

Had Alonso been at Massa 's level , he probbaly would be 3 x champ now

You've totally lost me there :?

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 2nd


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:29 pm
Posts: 1360
Location: Wrexham, UK
Actually y'know what I'll just wade in with what I think...

Kimi and Felipe @ Ferrari
2007 > Kimi WDC Champ, 110 points > Massa 4th in WDC, 94 points. 16 point difference.
2008 > Massa 2nd in WDC, 97 points > Kimi 3rd in WDC, 75 points. 22 point difference.
2009 > Kimi 6th in WDC, 48 points > Massa 11th in WDC, 22 points. 26 point difference.

in 2009 it's worth noting that Massa missed 8 races. But up to his accident, the points standings were:
Massa 22 points > Kimi 10 points, 12 point difference.

Fernando and Felipe @ Ferrari
2010 > Nando 2nd in WDC, 252 points > Massa 6th in WDC, 144 points. 108 point difference.
2011 > Nando 4th in WDC, 257 points > Massa 6th in WDC, 118 points. 139 point difference.
2012 > Nando 2nd in WDC, 278 points > Massa 7th in WDC, 122 points. 156 point difference.

So, using the common factor between the two (Massa). Alonso has beaten Massa by the equivalent of 5.3 race wins per year on average, whilst Kimi was beaten/being beaten by Massa in two of the three seasons they raced. Kimi defeated Massa by the equivalent of a win and a third place in 07, was beaten by two wins and a 7th in 2008, and was being beaten by a win and a 7th place just after the halfway point in 2009. Felipe actually fared better in 2010 than he has since, so you can't say he lost that much pace after his accident, and he's been on form lately as well. From what I can gather with those statistics, Fernando has been much better compared to Felipe than Kimi.

As such, it was worth replacing Kimi with Fernando, according to statistics, and by all accounts Ferrari seem happier with Alonso around. But that one I can't backup other than what I've read on the forums etc.

Assumptions that can be drawn... if Fernando has been on average 5 wins worth of points ahead of Felipe by the end of the year, and you applied the same margin to 2007-2009 as though he was driving the Ferrari alongside Massa, then Fernando would have been 2007 and 2008 World Champion. But that's an assumption, and is pure speculation on my part.

_________________
"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."


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: Badgeronimous, Blake, coulthards chin, dizlexik, F1creep, JohnnyGuitar, LKS1, mds, motorfinger, pokerman, Yellowbin74 and 6 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 : 0.157s | 14 Queries | GZIP : Off ]