planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Oct 26, 2014 6:58 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:18 pm 
Dear all, a gentle reminder not to get personal in this thread. Criticise the post, but not the poster!

Regards,

Mod_Yellow


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 3928
ashley313 wrote:
Wins aren't always what wins a season - sometimes reliability and consistency are more important, which is why determining what is a "good car" depends on the season and must take reliability into consideration equally with saturday pace, sunday pace.


You can be the judge of that, but if you are racing a guy who strings together 4 straight wins at crunch time in the WDC fight I think they are very important. Red Bull was too reliable for Alonso to win the title in the 3rd/4th best car. Mclaren on the other hand were beaten by that same consistency, reliability and good work on the pit wall.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:06 am
Posts: 2334
Eva09 wrote:
The Ferrari was the most consistently competitive and reliable car in the field. Alonso figured out the new tyres quicker.

The McLaren was unreliable. But it was faster.

The Red Bull faster. But it wasn't quite as reliable or consistent.


Agreed! Good summary.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 3928
POBRatings wrote:
Eva09 wrote:
The Ferrari was the most consistently competitive and reliable car in the field. Alonso figured out the new tyres quicker.

The McLaren was unreliable. But it was faster.

The Red Bull faster. But it wasn't quite as reliable or consistent.


Agreed! Good summary.


Reliable yes. Consistently competitive no way, Ferrari had 3 races of being outside the top 10 and by the end of the year miles behind Mclaren and Red Bull. The Red Bull was good for a podium challenge every single race except Spain. A Red Bull crossed the line in the top 4 in 18/19 races in which at least one car finished. The only race the car was bad was in Spain

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 9:04 pm
Posts: 1122
lamo wrote:
POBRatings wrote:
Eva09 wrote:
The Ferrari was the most consistently competitive and reliable car in the field. Alonso figured out the new tyres quicker.

The McLaren was unreliable. But it was faster.

The Red Bull faster. But it wasn't quite as reliable or consistent.


Agreed! Good summary.


Reliable yes. Consistently competitive no way, Ferrari had 3 races of being outside the top 10 and by the end of the year miles behind Mclaren and Red Bull. The Red Bull was good for a podium challenge every single race except Spain. A Red Bull crossed the line in the top 4 in 18/19 races in which at least one car finished. The only race the car was bad was in Spain


They were fairy cakes at Monza and that's about it. People might argue that the Ferrari was very reliable but it was NOWHERE NEAR the Red Bull (and/or Macca) in Australia, China, Bahrain, Hungary, Singapore, Belgium, Korea, Abu Dhabi, USA. And winning at Japan and Brazil would have been incredibly tough as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 3928
You say the Red Bull was bad in Monza, which is correct, but that is exactly where Ferrari was for over half the races. Vettel was on for 4th before he got his drive through at Monza.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 3439
Location: Nebraska, USA
Listen fellow forumites....

There is no way that the faction that wants to see this all as merely Ferrari trying to make Alonso look good is going to see it as anything else, no matter how much common sense is posted. There appears to be a great need by some here to diminish the job done by Alonso this year, as apparently they see it as a threat to the credibility of Vettel. So by their reasoning, they simply must "destroy the myth" that is Alonso drove great this season...and that appears to be their purpose.

The simple truth is... Sebastian Vettel won the WDC fairly and more power to him. It is also true that Alonso drove in an inspired manner this year, and many, indeed even most, of the medial and F1 personnel have recognized it and praise him for it. No matter how some try to spin it, it is also simple truth that the 2012 Ferrari was not a match for the Redbull, nor as fast as the McLaren who because of their own troubles failed to earn the runner up positions that they probably should have gotten.

Either those who know the sport are in large part of a huge conspiracy to make Alonso look good by degrading the Ferrari car, or.... they really believe that the car was not as capable as the Red Bulls, and that Alonso really did extract the most out of the car. I for one am not buying the massive F1 media/personnel conspiracy theory.

That said, this thread has gone further than it should, and I for the life of me, cannot see how view are going to change from here on out in it.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 2:48 pm
Posts: 546
I would say:
- Alonso's performance in the 2nd half of the season was probably over-rated, as the F2012 had become somewhat competitive by then
- Where Alonso really did well is the 1st half of the season where the car wasn't competitive and other teams/drivers haven't yet figured out the Pirelli tires. Alonso had them figured out sooner than the rest, and this was the main reason why he did so well in spite of a really bad car in the 1st half.

Either way, you gotta give credit where credit is due, firstly to Ferrari for turning a bad car around over the course of the season, and to Alonso for figuring out the tires much faster than the others did.

A question like "How do we know that the F2012 was not a good car?" is very simplistic and doesn't quite do the matter justice.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 1:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 9:04 pm
Posts: 1122
lamo wrote:
You say the Red Bull was bad in Monza, which is correct, but that is exactly where Ferrari was for over half the races. Vettel was on for 4th before he got his drive through at Monza.


He got his drive through because he pushed another driver off the track.
It was fairy cakes compared to the Macca, Ferrari and the Sauber, it wasn't worse than the Merc or the Lotus.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:29 pm
Posts: 1376
Location: Wrexham, UK
Blake wrote:
Listen fellow forumites....

There is no way that the faction that wants to see this all as merely Ferrari trying to make Alonso look good is going to see it as anything else, no matter how much common sense is posted. There appears to be a great need by some here to diminish the job done by Alonso this year, as apparently they see it as a threat to the credibility of Vettel. So by their reasoning, they simply must "destroy the myth" that is Alonso drove great this season...and that appears to be their purpose.

The simple truth is... Sebastian Vettel won the WDC fairly and more power to him. It is also true that Alonso drove in an inspired manner this year, and many, indeed even most, of the medial and F1 personnel have recognized it and praise him for it. No matter how some try to spin it, it is also simple truth that the 2012 Ferrari was not a match for the Redbull, nor as fast as the McLaren who because of their own troubles failed to earn the runner up positions that they probably should have gotten.

Either those who know the sport are in large part of a huge conspiracy to make Alonso look good by degrading the Ferrari car, or.... they really believe that the car was not as capable as the Red Bulls, and that Alonso really did extract the most out of the car. I for one am not buying the massive F1 media/personnel conspiracy theory.

That said, this thread has gone further than it should, and I for the life of me, cannot see how view are going to change from here on out in it.

Here here. Bravo sir :thumbup:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:30 am
Posts: 90
The 1992 Ferrari is a famous lemon, yet Alesi's average qualifying position was 7th, which is the same as Alonso's last season (in the dry), and nobody would suggest Alesi was as fast as Alonso, which tells you exactly how bad the F2012. It was not a good car, it was mediocre at best and the performance numbers prove it. 7th avg qualifying position with Alonso as the driver, average 4th fastest on race day, and probably worse if you consider the Ferrari drivers are a class above the Williams and Sauber ones.

There was not a single weekend, where Ferrari were quickest, not 1, which is something even Sauber and Williams managed. The car was dog slow, and without Alonso would be classified as one of the very worst red cars of all time.

Many people say it was good enough to allow Alonso to almost win the title, but Alonso did that despite the car not because of it. do not confuse performance with results, they are often not very related. In performance Ferrari deserved about 5 podiums at best.

I think it was 5th best car behind even the Sauber, which was often a rocket ship but wasted by incompetent drivers. Once again the numbers back it up even before you factor in the Alonso factor. Massa was the real reflection of the cars performance, which shows what a miracle it was to almost win the title in that car. Probably the most amazing driver performance in history. Certainly no better.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 1:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 3890
Location: Belgium
Prophet wrote:
Massa was the real reflection of the cars performance, which shows what a miracle it was to almost win the title in that car. Probably the most amazing driver performance in history. Certainly no better.
Well done Felipe! :lol:

Since no driver can perform better than the car will allow, and since Massa bested Alonso in the final few races, I feel I can't agree with your assessment. It wasn't the best car, I'll grant you that, but it was good enough to allow a top driver to stay in the hunt for the title until the very last race.

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

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
Most amazing driver performance in history? oh boy.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 5:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:48 pm
Posts: 1378
ashley313 wrote:
Most amazing driver performance in history.

Yes yes yes we all know you don't have to keep telling us every 10 seconds. 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 1:50 am
Posts: 1042
Blake wrote:
I guess I got my answer.

I give more credence to the quality of the team strategies, pit work as well as exceptional driving by Alonso initially and at the end by Massa.

What is the definition of a "good car". It is a good car because it could beat a Marussia, HRT, or Lotus? I did not see a Ferrari that was able to qualify for the front row on a regular basis. As a result, even if it's race pace was better than the qualifying pace, the drivers were constantly having to work their way through the cars ahead of them on the grid. That often made wins all but impossible. It also put the cars/drivers at greater risk, not a desirable situation.

It is usually acknowledged that the McLaren was the fastest car on the grid for most of the year. The Red Bulls managed to again win the WCC as well as the WDC, as their cars had a good combination of qualifying and race pace. Ferrari managed to overcome the shortcomings of the car to finish second in both championships, but as I said, it was as much or more the team strategies, pit work, persistency and good effort by the drivers... and some errors by the competition... to pull what at best was the third (or even 4th) best car on the grid into those positions.

Good on Ferrari for getting so many pundits and F1 personnel to buy into their self-degrading little game that they forced on us.

Kind of makes one wonder though............why would Ferrari want to make Fernando look good by saying they have created a poor car??? Does that seem like a wise thing to do for a company that builds ultra-expensive exotic cars with a reputation as great performance???

"Win on Sunday, sell on Monday".... a long time saying about race cars.

So Ferrari has a new approach. Tell the world "We have not made a car as fast as a our competition, yet please buy from us on Monday"
;)


Blake, your second sentence is the one I agree the most. Alonso's and Ferrari's success last year was the result of many factors and Alonso's driving was only one of them. How important it was is hard to say but no doubt it was an important one.

Digressing a bit, debates in this forum start mostly for four reasons IMO:

1. Because a post addresses only part of the truth and not the whole truth.
2. Because a post jumps to conclusions without considering all the arguments.
3. Because a post is interpreted as an indirect message instead of a direct one.
4. Because a post jumps to conclusions without considering all the arguments and/or links such conclusion directly to a different conclusion reached also without considering the respective arguments (trust me, it makes sense if you think about it).

Case in point:

1. Poster says the F2012 was slow compared to the top cars. It seemed to be true so the post itself is probably correct. However, that’s only part of the truth because the F2012 wasn’t JUST slow and nothing else. Therefore it’s also correct to add that the F2012 was the most reliable car too for example. Out of everything else, this is the healthiest and smartest kind of debate: Posters piecing the WHOLE truth together without jumping to a conclusion until the end.

2. Poster says the F2012 was slow last year and therefore all of Alonso's success is because of him. Well, as per above, it’s most probably true that F2012 was slower than the other top cars. However saying that all of Alonso's success is because of him is a very simplistic conclusion. It doesn't take into consideration all other internal and external factors, such as team strategies, reliability, crew performance, driver preferences, mistakes and failures of the competition and so on.

3. Poster says Alonso did very well last year because the F2012 was slow. Another poster interprets it as an attack to another driver (Hamilton for example) and replies that Alonso didn't do any better than Hamilton because the F2012 was the most reliable car and Ferrari was a better team. Now the first poster is wrong for jumping to conclusions based on part of the arguments. However, the second poster is twice wrong, first for interpreting the OP as an indirect attack to Hamilton and second for also jumping to conclusions based on part of the arguments.

4. Poster says Alonso did better than another driver last year (Vettel for example) because the F2012 was slower than the RB8. In this case this poster is twice wrong: first for jumping to conclusions about Alonso without considering all the arguments, second for jumping to conclusions about Vettel without considering all the arguments like for example the difference in experience or the respective teammate competition.

If you recall our debate about Alonso’s involvement in the Spygate you’ll see that it’s also a perfect example of some of the above.

Going back to your post, I overall consider it mostly on point, mentioning Ferrari’s qualifying issues, the risks of mid-grid starts, Ferrari’s achievements as a team, etc. But you still leave out a few aspects like Massa’s poor(ish) performance until the last few races which disadvantaged Ferrari for most of the season, especially compared to McLaren and Red Bull. An argument can be made that had Massa performed the entire season to the same level of the last few races, Ferrari might very well have won the WCC. Again, this is arguable and as for you I’m well aware that you didn’t claim to include every single aspect in your post so I’m not criticizing you. I’m simply saying that even a considerate poster such as yourself couldn’t contemplate everything, so imagine now a different poster, especially one with an agenda.

As for Ferrari’s approach, well, I think your argument is null. Even when Ferrari dominated and won the WCC for 6 years in a row they praised Schumacher, Barrichello, Bridgestone, Michelin and their competition but never their car to my knowledge so I don’t see why they should do so now. To my understanding, this is a common trend in F1 where the teams praise the drivers and the competition but not themselves and the drivers praise the team and their rivals but not themselves. I honestly hated Ferrari's negative perception last year. Sure, Ferrari didn’t deserve a heap of praise but they did deserve some nonetheless. After all, let's not forget that Ferrari finished second in the WCC, beating McLaren in the process and not too far from Red Bull. Why was there such a negative perception is an interesting question.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:30 am
Posts: 90
Fiki wrote:
Prophet wrote:
Massa was the real reflection of the cars performance, which shows what a miracle it was to almost win the title in that car. Probably the most amazing driver performance in history. Certainly no better.
Well done Felipe! :lol:

Since no driver can perform better than the car will allow, and since Massa bested Alonso in the final few races, I feel I can't agree with your assessment. It wasn't the best car, I'll grant you that, but it was good enough to allow a top driver to stay in the hunt for the title until the very last race.



The season was 20 races long, so Massa being slightly quicker than Alonso in a few races does not undermine what i was saying. The car was good enough for Alonso to stay in the title hunt, not just any 'top driver' whatever that means. Most people classed Massa as a top driver until Alonso showed up anyway. Has a car with 7th avg grid position enough fought for the title so strongly? I don't think so.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 11:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 4957
Location: Ireland
Greg92 wrote:
4. Poster says Alonso did better than another driver last year (Vettel for example) because the F2012 was slower than the RB8.

You summed me up with number 4!
There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that this was the reality of the 2012 season.

Down the line Prost will be remembered for his unbelievable performance in 1986 and (because he didn't win the damn thing) Alonso's performance last season will unfortunately be largely forgotten. They're on a par with each other to me.

_________________
"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: Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 1:59 pm
Posts: 125
So what's 100% clear so far (I think) is that, over the course of the season, the Ferrari was not as good as the RB and Macca. I don't think that's a debatable point. The Lotus could be considered a match at some points of the season, but I don't know where to put it relative to the Ferrari, so let's call it even.

So, at best, a driver in an F2012 should have finished in 5th, and at worst, 8th. Take big mistakes from Macca and maybe one of the F2012 drivers could have gained a spot, maybe even two. So, anywhere from 8th to 3rd.

Alonso finished 2nd, 3 points away from 1st. *THAT* was all him.

I really wish people would stop questioning how good the season Alonso gave us was. It was a f*cking amazing display of driving. It hurts that he didn't win, but I look back at this season fondly. For Alonso fans, it's what F1 is all about. Amazing highs, gut-wrenching lows, and all driven along by the dogged determination of one of the best drivers of the world.

---

IMO, neither of the accidents (Spa and Suzuka) cost him the title - I prefer to think it was losing to Webber in Silverstone after deciding to run the primes for the second stint and the options for the third (where everyone else, including Ferrari at other races, had been doing the opposite). Everyone knew the car didn't work so well on low fuel, so I was really questioning their decision to run the options for the third stint. When that happened, I immediately said, out loud, that those 7 points just cost us the championship. He was helpless against the RB's charge.

What REALLY hurt me as a fan of his, though, was simply not being able to see Alonso race at two of the best tracks F1 has to offer. Hurts even more seeing how well Massa did. More so than the potential points lost, I really wish I had been able to witness Alonso tackling Spa and Suzuka in what could end up being be considered the peak of his driving career. Not having been able to see that hurts, a lot.

This guy deserves more than two titles. I don't know how anyone could argue otherwise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 5713
The Ferrari was better than the Mclaren though. Note how I didn't use the word faster. Lewis drive as well as Alonso and look where he finished in the championship.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Rosberg - Bottas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 6:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 9:29 pm
Posts: 866
Location: Qart-Hadast
Covalent wrote:
The Ferrari was better than the Mclaren though. Note how I didn't use the word faster. Lewis drive as well as Alonso and look where he finished in the championship.
So your point is that McLaren made mistakes Ferrari didn't, and despite having a faster car for most of the season they ended lower in the standings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 1:50 am
Posts: 1042
crespo wrote:
So what's 100% clear so far (I think) is that, over the course of the season, the Ferrari was not as good as the RB and Macca. I don't think that's a debatable point.


What's almost 100% clear so far (I think) is that, over the course of the season, the Ferrari was not as FAST as the RB and Macca. As for as GOOD I think that's a debatable point.

crespo wrote:
The Lotus could be considered a match at some points of the season, but I don't know where to put it relative to the Ferrari, so let's call it even.


? The Lotus COULD be considered a match at SOME points of the season so let's call it even? Well then, by the same logic, Ferrari could be considered better at some points of the season so let's call it the best car.

crespo wrote:
So, at best, a driver in an F2012 should have finished in 5th, and at worst, 8th. Take big mistakes from Macca and maybe one of the F2012 drivers could have gained a spot, maybe even two. So, anywhere from 8th to 3rd.

Alonso finished 2nd, 3 points away from 1st. *THAT* was all him.


By this logic, at best a Mercedes, Sauber or Williams driver should have finished 9th, and at worst, 14th. Take big mistakes from Macca and maybe one of these drivers could have gained a spot, maybe even two. So, anywhere from 7th to 12th.

These drivers won 3 races, as many as Alonso and Button and more than Webber and Kimi. *THAT* was all them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:30 am
Posts: 90
crespo wrote:
So what's 100% clear so far (I think) is that, over the course of the season, the Ferrari was not as good as the RB and Macca. I don't think that's a debatable point. The Lotus could be considered a match at some points of the season, but I don't know where to put it relative to the Ferrari, so let's call it even.
.


Folks have short memories. The Lotus was much better for at least half the races, and close in the rest, plus more reliable, It was clearly better than the Ferrari especially when you consider a rusty kimi, 2 years out of the sport, doubled Massa's points total.

I would say Ferrari were better than Hamilton's car, when you factor in the unreliability he had, but Button had no excuses.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
There's a difference between fastest and "best" because "best" includes more than speed, and everyone will have a different formula for weighting the categories that make up "best".

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 10:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:04 pm
Posts: 213
Location: Baabda Lb
Alonso played it safe in the second half of the season.He wasn't aggressive as his rival Vettel was.


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: Google Adsense [Bot], RaisinChips and 1 guest


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