planetf1.com

Alonso doesn't squeeze people if he sees a gap he will commit to it and try and block as much as possible. Schumacher seems as if he has a PHD in squeezing... just look what he did couple years back to Massa Canada and recently Barachello.
You seem to have forgotten it was raining in Brazil and Alonso was on slicks, Vettel had similar issues but they bought him in early. Ferrari, I do not know what in Gods world they were doing keeping him out for that long.

_________________
Pressure: You're either giving it, or taking it.

Really?

_________________
"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."

He really did squeeze Kimi at Suzuka and another very notable example was Monza 2011.



Not sure how you view this. Alonso and Vettel both pitted at the end of lap 10, up until which they both were running mediums. Alonso went off in lap 5 and 10.

I don't know how you saw Suzuka, but that was a racing incident, not a squeeze (and by the way, I do not agree with your attempt to put the blame squarely on Alonso). As for Monza 2011, please review the analysis that the BBC (or maybe Sky, I am not totally sure) did comparing the 2012 incident with the 2011 one. Unfortunately I do not have the link, maybe somebody else can provide it.

In an article on Autosport.com called "Why 2012 was Alonso's best", Ed Straw writes:

Since the squeeze was a double movement, I find it hard not to agree that Alonso shot himself badly in the foot in Japan.

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

Maria de Villota

Look, when a driver is next to you with a significant part of the car, and you move his side resulting in the fact the driver has to go off-track or lift in order not to collide, that's a squeeze.

It was a racing incident, but a squeeze nonetheless.



Who's talking about a comparison with the 2012 incident? Alonso moved, Vettel had to move accordingly or it would have been a nice crash. That is called "squeezing".

Which significant part of Raikkonen's car was alongside Alonso's in Suzuka? Raikkonen's front wing touched the back of Alonso's rear tyre; for example, if I am not mistaken the current overtaking rules state that in order to gain the position a car's front wing has to be level with the other car's rear wing, which Raikkonen's wasn't. This video is far from great, but at 0:10 you can see the moment in which Raikkonen's car raises dust from tocuhing the dirt - please check the position vs Alonso's car https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvnlrK6bfRs That is why I call it a racing incident, but not a squeeze, and why I disagree with your opinion that Alonso is to blame for this incident.

As fro Monza 2011, the analysis I mentioned shows how Vettel always had enough room for his car, something that he did not leave Alonso in 2012. That is why I think the second one is a squeeze, while the first one isn't.

I believe the rules state that if any portion of the overtaking car is alongside then it must be given racing room, Kimi drove off the track because Alonso forced him off the track

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

Current Standing: 16th

Agreed.
Hamilton imo would be close to Fernando as well, and Kimi if he is as fast as he was before retiring in 2009.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com

So right about Alonso's performances in the Ferrari!

Alonso's average grid position was 6.1, Vettel's 5.1 and Hamilton's 4.3.
Alonso's average race-finishing position was 3.2, Vettel's 3.3 and Hamilton's 5.5.

It is clear that the Ferrari was inferior in single-lap speed, therefore started further back on the grids. YET Alonso finished higher than the other two! His starts have become legendary, and the number of overtakes he managed, with no major errors.

Imo Alonso must rank up with any of the greatest drivers. The opposition Fernando faced from Schumacher, Raikkonen, Hamilton and Vettel has been at least as competitive as that of Senna and Prost: Piquet, Mansell, Berger and the young Michael S.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com

_________________

I don't think so:
"Thanks to Charlie Whiting who sent a letter to every team.

"any driver defending his position on a straight and before any braking area may use the full width of the track during his first move provided no significant portion of the car attempting to pass is alongside his. Whilst defending in this way the driver may not leave the track without justifiable reason."

To further clarify the situation he later added: "For the avoidance of doubt, if any part of the front wing of the car attempting to pass is alongside the rear wheel of the car in front this will be deemed to be a 'significant portion'."

Autosport.com"

http://www.racedepartment.com/forum/thr ... ers.53470/

As I said, since I understand that Raikkonen's front wing hit Alonso's tyre from behind I don't think it can be said that the front wing was alongside the rear wheel. I said level with the other car's rear wing, but I think that we can agree that in order to be at least alongside the rear wheel the front wing has to be at least level with the rear wing?

Edit: I have realised that we are going off topic here. Shall we move this discussion to another thread? We may even consider opening a thread in the in-depth section to discuss how the overtaking rule was/should have been interpreted in this and other overtakes - I am sure there will be plenty of incidents in the future that will lead to the same discussion, it may be helpful to have all of them together in one discussion thread.

If one had to pick one, I think the majority would put the blame on Alonso rather than on Kimi. But really it was a racing incident.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Rosberg - Bottas

Raikkonens front wing clipped Alonso's tyre on re-entry of the track. By then Raikkonen had lost some terrain with regards to Alonso.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZoESZe0mCs => at around :32 and onwards it's pretty clear they were actually (front) wheel to (rear) wheel.

edit: also:


Yup, Vettel drives two wheels off-track just for fun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPnQC3eEYqg => pause at :07.



For me, that's a squeeze. If it isn't for you, well, clearly we have different definitions for squeezing and we can stop discussing it.

Just one last point then, i'm referring to the intial move by Alonso when Kimi's car was partially alongside which forced him off the track not when the contact was made when Kimi was trying to get back onto the track

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

Current Standing: 16th

I dunno what you're looking at but I can see a clear gap between the cars that Vettel has opted not to use.

_________________
"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."

Keep in mind Alonso had been moving left, forcing Vettel to react promptly, take another arc and thus being forced off-track with two wheels. For me that right there is a clear squeeze.

At least we're not discussing the Raikkonen squeeze anymore. So that whole "Alonso doesn't squeeze" thing can be thrown in the bin.

Oh let it go. Anthony Davidson debunked your theory in the most public way possible.

Suzuka was a racing incident but if blame had to be placed on someone it would have to be Alonso. He reacted poorly to Button moving in on his right.

The only thing that bugged me about that entire scenario was that Alonso shouldn't even have been there! If Raikkonen hadn't spun in qualifying, Alonso wouldn't have been near him on the grid, wouldn't have touched him off the start, would've collected a handful of points and won the WDC...

_________________
"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."

also don't forget the rule was different that year

Whereas you are right about different starting positions and possibly different outcomes of the start, the fact is that Alonso went left to block off Räikkönen, and came too late to do so. During an interview afterwards, he said he didn't understand why Kimi didn't lift. I don't think there's a better indication that Alonso squeezed on purpose, and caused his own DNF.
Also; if Räikkönen hadn't spun, he might well have ended up closer to Alonso than Alonso might have wished.

Again from Autosport, this time from the race report:

Vettel versus Alonso at Monza was "debunked" by Davidson? I remember discussing that phase here on the forum, and I can't recall having been convinced by what he showed.

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

Maria de Villota

True! Kimi could also have put in a solid lap and could still have been close to Alonso on the grid. It would be wrong to suggest that could not have happened.

I still don't think events would have transpired as they did. But saying that, if Alonso was further up the grid maybe Grosjean would have rear-ended him instead of Webber (and picked up another race ban for meddling with a Ferrari ).

And I dunno about you but I think the general consensus is that Davidson's run-through was spot on.

_________________
"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."