planetf1.com

I repeatedly read that Alonso was awesome last season because he remained competitive right up until the last race in an average car. But how do we know that the F2012 was not a competitive car compared to say the Red Bull? The only real benchmark was Massa who seemed to be struggling with form due to setup and tire issues until the final third of the season (much like JB did in the McLaren) at which point he (and the car) looked very good. It seems the main reason everyone berates the F2012 is because Alonso kept saying how bad it was!

Maybe the F2012 was a pretty decent car (not a dog) and Alonso had a pretty decent season (not <insert superlative here>).

Pretty decent? That car was a very clear championship contender from Spain onwards - before that it was bad all right, the win in Malaysia was because of the wet conditions.

I thought this had been discussed to no end already, with roughly the same outcome (if any).

Get your popcorn ready anyone.

Anyway, I'll attempt to answer this reasonably: I think it'd indicate that both Alonso and Massa's form went through consistent ups and downs throughout the season, which is just hard to believe.

Look at the early races - Both drivers struggled. Alonso spun in Aussie quali, Massa didn't make Q3. Obviously the wet race in Malaysia is an anomaly, Alonso did very well to win. It was around Spain/Monaco where both drivers started to improve - Alonso was a contender for victory in all six races starting in Spain and ending in Germany. Massa was competitive at all six.
- In Monaco Massa was close to the front runners
- In Canada Massa had very impressive pace but spun early
- In Valencia both qualied badly but raced well, Massa was hit by Kobayashi
- In Britain they were second and fourth
- Germany is hard to judge since Massa got caught out by the timing of the rain in Q2 (this was team error to the best of my memory, but may be wrong)
Basically, Massa had a good run when Alonso was consistently fighting for victory. Then at the next race in Hungary, they both struggled. IMO this indicates that the inconsistency came from the car, not Alonso.

_________________
I don't follow F1 so I don't know what I'm talking about

Google Gary Anderson's BBC columns and have a read through them.

What started as a tank ended up a good machine but still not on the pace of the McLarens or Red Bulls.
Alonso maximised the Ferrari's incredible reliability.

_________________
"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."

We don't.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Rosberg - Bottas

What we do know is Alonso was smart during races where is car wasn't capable of challenging for victory. He took the most points available to him without fighting fights he had no reason to get mixed up in (start accidents don't count!)

_________________
Multi 21 or Catch 22?!

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

If I'm not mistaken, didnt they have a rather major upgrade early to mid season that involved a new chassis?

_________________

Hi, Cov...

Surely the fact that much of the media if not most, said it was not a good car, especially at the start, has to be worth something. Of course, the team/drivers saying that it was not as competitive as it needed to be has to worth something, and the post season accolades given to Alonso by even fellow drivers has to suggest something.

It is/was obvious to most everybody who has followed F1 that the Ferrari was no where near the best car to start the season, almost never near the fastest car (qualifying), and yes, the car got better as the season wore on, but at what point was it ever the best or the fastest car?

Sorry gang, try as hard as you might, you are not going to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear with the F2012.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

Heya Blake, howsit going! I'm off to bed so this will be very short! What I meant was just what I said, we don't know. What I think though is that it was a good car on average, probably not the fastest on sheer pace (at least not in quali), but reliable and fast enough to bring Alonso that close to the championship!

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Rosberg - Bottas

Not sure why you said start accidents don't count, he kinda cost himself the title with his shenanigans at Japan...

_________________
"Where are all the good men dead, in the heart or in the head?"

Give 'em hell Dani!

British Driver Supporter (and Daniel Ricciardo)

Why did that one cost him? Perhaps more so was the spa accident which wasn't his fault!

_________________
Multi 21 or Catch 22?!

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

He only lost the title by 3 points. Either or cost him the WDC most likely. The combination of both just twisted the sword into his chance further.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Barcelona

_________________
Supporter of:

Fernando Alonso
Pastor Maldonado
Sergio Perez
Michael Schumacher
Lewis Hamilton

In relation to the Red Bull and McLaren, know it wasn't a good car. In terms of out and out pace, over the course of the season, I'd rank it behind the McLaren and Red Bull, and on a par with the lotus at time. Alonso maximized the car's reliability. Only one in 2012 could you say the car's reliability let him down, and that was in Monza quali where he was on for a front row start which would have hugely changed the race.


It's all about expectations at the end of the day. The F2012 wasn't a dog. It wasn't god awful as it was at the start of the year, but at the same time, for a team of Ferrari's standard, it clearly wasn't good enough. To only win 3 races and 2 pole positions over a season of 20 races is not good enough for Ferrari standards.

_________________
Forza Fernando !

Because it was directly his fault. If he scores some points at that race instead of crashing into Raikkonen, he wins the title.

_________________
"Where are all the good men dead, in the heart or in the head?"

Give 'em hell Dani!

British Driver Supporter (and Daniel Ricciardo)

You could, for example, give some credit to the opinion of a certain sir Frank Williams:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gy983N3t3Q&t=57m28s

Q: Fernando vs Sebastian, who do you think is going to win it?
A: Probably Sebastian, because he is in the better car.
Q: Ferrari got anything left in that car, you think? Do you see any improvements coming?
A: (Smiles) Fernando
Q: (Laughs) He is driving well this year, Fernando.
A: Superb driver


Crystal clear! (Apart from any mistranslations on my side, but I think I got the meaning of mr William's opinion quite accurately).

It was a racing accident. He was reacting to Jenson.

Not really, watch the first 10 seconds of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt2pc7wb7d0

Yeah Jenson moves kinda towards him but there's a huge (in F1 terms) amount of space between them, Alonso then squeezes Raikkonen onto the grass, causing the crash.

_________________
"Where are all the good men dead, in the heart or in the head?"

Give 'em hell Dani!

British Driver Supporter (and Daniel Ricciardo)

I really feel that was the 2012 in a nut shell across the board, not just with Ferrari. There were weekends when Red Bull's straight line speed, made them look vulnerable. A lot of blame for McLaren was placed on their pit stop problems (rightfully so), but there were weekends when they looked to be trailing Red Bull and Ferrari, and even Lotus with on track performance. Yet at times both were clearly the class of the field as well.

I do think with the F2012s, you almost have to issue 2 grades... one on a full weekend basis, with the car not being very good... and another simply for race conditions, with the limited DRS usage, when it was a much better car and would get a higher grade on under those circumstances than it would under Friday-thru-Sunday circumstances.

I think the F2012 wouldn't look so poorly under the 2013 DRS regulations.

It was preventable, yes, but still a racing incident. And as you can see Jenson makes a very sharp turn to the left to get a decent line for the turn and Alonso goes even further to the left. It wasn't some huge mistake by Alonso, just a little misjudgment and he paid the price for it.

It was a misjudgement and a racing incident but was still Alonso's fault, which is the original point I was making.

_________________
"Where are all the good men dead, in the heart or in the head?"

Give 'em hell Dani!

British Driver Supporter (and Daniel Ricciardo)

Alonso was in front Kimi should've braked... Much like webber v Ham in Singapore!

_________________
Multi 21 or Catch 22?!

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

They were on a straight ...

_________________
"Where are all the good men dead, in the heart or in the head?"

Give 'em hell Dani!

British Driver Supporter (and Daniel Ricciardo)

We all know that the F2012 was a crap car from the start, but Ferrari is no slouch designer at all. They ended up with something opposite of Mercedes, a car that had loads of potential. Don't think they ever reached it fully though, hence it underperformed the whole season with only 3 wins.

Because it wasn't a Newey

It seems just like asking what if Vettel had a bad car... Repetitive to hear and everybody secretly knows the answer no matter what they say.

_________________
Don't be quick to judge or the verdict might come back to you.

The F2012 was a championship contesting car. It was easily the most reliable car on the grid and apart from suffering from pace on qualifying day, it always was a very good race car. Why has it been made out as a "really" slow car? That is to do with FA's personality. He constantly kept pushing the team to deliver a faster car and to motivate them to do better. Also, SV had made F1 boring in the past two years, so the media did what they could to glorify Alonso' heroism. I think FA, SV and LH respect each other. Just that medias of their respective nations do everything possible to put down the other.

_________________
Sebastian Vettel
Michael Schumacher
Nico Hulkenberg

I don't think I can answer this in detail without getting b*tched at, so I'll just say, "we don't."

_________________

Well, I guess that says it all.

I am a bit confused. You see, all year long, we heard people supposedly in the know, claiming that the Ferrari was not a "good car". As the year went on the car got better, yet still we were told that it was not the equal of other cars in the chase. We were told that Alonso initially, and later Massa were doing a great job in a car that was not as good as their competition. And now, once again, in the great PF1 forum, we learn that all of those people didn't know a damn thing. Even the other F1 people who suggested that the car was not where it needed to be... they apparently didn't know a damn thing. And, obviously, Blake, who watched the Ferrari's struggling to make the podium, with but a few real chances to win races, in part due to their seldom being anywhere near the pole times, and I was thinking it the car just was not quite there... But then, obviously I don't know a damn thing.

However, now that I know where all the knowledge rests, right here in the PF1 forum, my F1 knowledge can be filled with the one stop knowledge bank of this forum.

I fully acknowledge that the F2012 was apparently great car, held back by the incompetence of Alonso and Monza. Shame on Steffano & Luca for keeping such incompetence on the payroll for the sake of making the Ferrari team look bad for the sole purpose of allowing Fernando Alonso to look good, as we learned through the season. Shame on them for having basically sabotaged Filipe Massa until it was obvious that Nando had their only real WDC chance... damn crooked people that they are, having been bought off by Santander... another thing I have learned in here this year.

Oh, woe is me.... watching mighty Ferrari reduced to attempting to disguise the fact that they had the best car... just to please a sponsor and one of their drivers.

I am just crushed.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

Because qualy position in Formula 1 is not important?

First off, let me start that I think Alonso, Vettel and Hamilton pretty evenly matches. It's always easier if we assign numerical values so let's assume Vettel and Hamilton are the fastest guys over one lap in F1, absolutely matched. And then let's assume Alonso is a tenth (which is not really true but just for the sake of my argument let's leave it like that) slower which is of course very simplistic approach not taking into account numerous factors but over the length of the season it should show something. Qualy pace is very indicator of the overall package (unless you are Mercedes and HATE your rear tyres) and could serve as a good comparison between the pace of the cars as there is not traffic, safety cars, yellow flags, botched pitstops, etc which can affect the race I'll now take both (best of Vettel/Hamilton and Alonso) these guys fastest Q time and compared it.

Australia: 1,5s slower than Hamilton.
Malaysia: 1,3s slower than Hamilton.
China: 1,1s slower than Hamilton.
Bahrain: 1,0s slower than Vettel
Spain: 0,6s slower than Hamilton
Monaco: 0,4s slower than Hamilton
Canada: 0,4s slower than Vettel.
Valencia: I won't count that as I believe Ferrari made a tactical mistake and P11 and P13 didn't show Ferrari's true pace.
UK & Germany: wet
Hungary: 0,9s slower than Hamilton
Belgium: 0,1 faster than Hamilton
Italy: Mechanical problem, probably good enough for pole
Singapore: 0,9 slower than Hamilton
Japan: 1,3s slower than Vettel
Korea: 0,2s slower than Vettel
India: 0,5s slower than Vettel
Abu Dhabi: 0,9 slower than Hamilton
US: 1,9s slower than Vettel. Massa who outperformed Alonso was 1,5s off.
Brazil: 0,9s slower than Hamilton. Massa who outperformed him again was 0,5s off.


The Ferrari was the better car compared to the RBR @ Malaysia, Canada, Germany, Spain and Italy. That's 15 out of 20 races the Ferrari was not as good as the Red Bull. Add the fact that McLaren also had stronger package for the majority of races, Lotus were pretty close them over a season and in the beginning of the season even the likes of Merc, Williams and Sauber were performing better. During the Spain-Germany (6 races) period the car found a lot of pace (after being horrible in the first four) but even then it didn't have massive advantage over the others. They could have never taken poles in Silverstone and Hockeinheim in dry conditions.

And yes, the F2012 is a brilliant car. It would do pretty well against your average Toyota Camry and BMW 325 but sadly for Ferrari a Formula 1 car is judged by the competition and in 2012 they were on the back foot pretty much the whole season.

A " bad " car would not have finished 2nd in the constructor's championship.It was a good car but not the best or the fastest. That was the redbull and mclaren respectively.

How do "we" (the fans) know it was not a good car? By observing the car and driver. If anyone makes the effort to closely observe how the car is behaving, how much the driver is struggling, they can learn from it.

Unless you want to be blindly led around by the nose by some pundit and believe anything they are saying without truly comprehending what's happening on the track, go to the trouble to learn about vehicle dynamics, the science and art of racing. You can do it. Most of us can pick out a quality soccer player on the pitch, we know enough about the game to understand the sport and separate the BS from quality play. It can also happen in racing, learn the science and art of racing, and you will be informed and educated.

Surely Kimi was trying to negotiate that first corner in the very edge of the track. Really unbelievable. Impossible overtake, devastating consequences for the championship fight.

On topic.
If you can't grab pole positions (only two and it was in wet weather conditions) your title chances decrease dramatically. It was a chaotic season and Fernando took all the advantadge he could of it in spite of his not great F2012.

It wasn't a good enough car, which was improved to become a good enough car.

That it was good enough is shown by the fact that it got a top driver to within 1 mistake of winning the title. Given how Ferrari allowed itself to end up with a car that wasn't good enough, I feel Alonso should be "allowed" an error.

Alonso was lucky not to get damaged at the start in Monaco when hitting Grosjean, and unlucky to be knocked out by the same driver's mistake at Francorchamps, evening things out. But his attempt to block Räikkönen twice at Suzuka was his mistake. That he expected Räikkönen to lift shows he still has a few things to learn about racing. Quite a surprise at his level of expertise.

(Look at the clip that was posted; he arrives just too late on the left side of the track to prevent Räikkönen coming alongside. And once alongside, he has to respect that and leave room. He must have known he had just hurt his championship very badly when giving the interview in which he tried to shift the blame on Räikkönen.)

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

Maria de Villota

Hahaha why don't you go and teach him =D

It was always a good race car from the start of the season. Maybe not so good in qualifying but all the talk about it being a dog of a car is all BS. It was just Alonso playing the great political game trying to make everyone think he was fighting an uphill battle with a car that was apparently "1 second slower".

I'm sorry but you don't compete for wins in the dry if you car is 1 second slower, no matter what driver you are.

Why don't you go and check lap and qualifying times for the first races. Thanks =D

F2012 was indeed a good good car but not great like Mclaren. Alonso commented that the car was bad because it is hard to drive, but that doesn't mean the car hasn't got the speed if it is driven correctly. Alonso proved it with his skill. Still F2012 only awful the early part of championship, so did Red Bull. Slow in qualifying doesn't mean slow in race. F2012 is better without DRS.

If you read my post properly I said it was a GOOD RACE CAR and not so good in QUALIFYING. The first few races it wasn't brilliant in either yes. But neither was the Red Bull.

I'm not sure I understand why that is funny. Either he understands this - which makes his remark about Räikkönen needing to lift a cheap shot at a faster competitor - or he doesn't, which means he threw his third title away.
Isn't he a member of the GPDA? If so, I suppose he was present when this group finally worked up the courage to confront Schumacher about intimidation. Räikkönen isn't a member of the GPDA, but he has just completed a season in which he showed the value of avoiding accidents and the way to go wheel-to-wheel without causing accidents either to himself or others.

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

Maria de Villota