Did Alonso "Choke" In The 2012 World Championship?

I'm not the one who originally brought up Senna's 1993 season in comparison to Alonso's 2011 or 2012 seasons. You, in fact, did. You were the first one to take on this tangent.

But, STILL, your numbers are total garbage. Your numbers are full of ****. Here's why:

Senna accumulated those numbers in a 16 race season with 4 DNFs, most of them mechanical. [Hydraulics failure at Imola; Throttle failure in Hungary; Engine failure at Estoril.]

Alonso had a 19 race season in 2011 with no mechanical DNFs and 1 DNF in which he crashed out in Canada.

So, Alonso's similar points to Senna's is not even remotely comparable. Senna's was superior. WAY, WAY superior as he scored those points out of a possible 13 GPs vs Alonso scoring out of a possible 19 GPs.

NOT EVEN CLOSE. Senna KILLS Nando!

If you want to extend it to 2012, Alonso had 20 races (i.e. 25% more chances to score) and he had no mechanical DNFs and 1 of his 2 non-finishes was his own fault.

Again, Senna's 1993 was WAY, WAY superior.

Anyone with even half a brain would see that. LOL

Now, hopefully, we can get the thread back on track because, frankly, you don't have a leg to stand on when you say Alonso's seasons in 2011 and 2012 was like - or better - than Senna's in 1993. To think so is utterly laughable!

Edited by RayInTorontoCanada, 13 December 2012 - 02:34.

I never said there weren't varying levels of pressure. But this is a high-pressure job, from season beginning to season end. This goes for any pro-level sports participant. Simple as that. 'Choking' can happen on lap 14 of Australia as a driver hounds you from behind and you make a mistake under pressure, spinning off. Thats all choking is. Making a mistake under pressure. Thats always how I've heard it used. This 'only at season end' thing is like I said - a definition being tailor made to suit an agenda.

Again, you're conflating "pressure" and "title pressure". A driver hounding you from behind is not about title pressure. The topic under discussion is about choking under title pressure. That's what this thread is about. If you want to discuss occasions when a driver "choked" when he was being hounded from behind, start another thread because that's off topic here. If you want to pretend that this topic is about both types of pressures, or that one type leads to the other and so should be treated the same, that's your prerogative but you aren't fooling anyone.

Because you're the one who used "title pressure". Here you go:

Title pressure is there all season long.

Do you want a do-over?

Whatever, go hug your Samurai.

Again, just to be clear, I don't necessarily agree with the original poster you were replying to. It's just that your argument is so poor I had to step in.

Edited by boldhakka, 13 December 2012 - 02:56.

Nah, he did well to still be in contention to the very last round considering his Ferrari wasn't as quick as the Bulls or the Maccas.

And that's what I call double standards I why I though from the beginning this thread was a bashing fest. There's the usual hater talking about chocking and then the rest that have their opinions, some think Alonso could have done more, others he did an excellent job.

I'm the last person who can be accused of having double standards or a positive bias towards Vettel. I can't stand Vettel. He and his finger have always annoyed me as hell, and I hated him for undeservedly(or so I thought) taking away from Lewis the title of the Youngest Champion. It pissed me off that he had it so easy last year. But this year, I couldn't help but be impressed by him. He was far from perfect, but he upped his game when it mattered, showing a champion's mentality, and survived everything thrown at him. In my book, that's as far from choking as it can get.
But that topic isn't about Vettel. It's about Alonso.
Saying that Alonso choked isn't necessarily bashing if it's an honest opinion coming from a Ferrari fan. Alonso very disappointed me. Or aren't we allowed to express our opinions?

He drove well and got podiums in the last races but didn't manage to win when it was crucial.
He had a car which could deliver racewins.

I got the impression that he lost a bit of his selfconfidence when Vettel got his act together and the hunt began.
It's interesting that this year reminds so much about 2010 season.

Or maybe he just got a bit tired.

There was nothing anyone could really do once Newey and the RBR tech team fine tuned the aero on their car. Vettel delivered in the best car that had the best development. It's really that simple (and that difficult). If RBR had not figured out how to get the last bit of pace and driveability out of their car after the summer break then Ferrari and Alonso would have won. Because RBR was maybe 3 - 6 tenths quicker under race conditions than the F2012 and a bit more in qualy.

Neither team nor their drivers have any reason whatsoever to hang their heads. McLaren is the team that should be kicking themselves - they had a WDC and WCC winning car with a sweet spot they couldn't quite manage.

It is exceedingly difficult to win ONE GP much less a Championship. And to win multiple championships in a row is even more amazing.

Mark Webber is a proven race winner - even from 2012. Something that cannot be said about Flippy (this season). MW had exactly the same car as SV and was not subjugated to the status FM was - yet he was thoroughly overshadowed by Seb. That tells a lot about how good SV actually was again. I find it almost obnoxious when some Ferrari fans try to console themselves by claiming the fight was between Newey and FA - while totally disregarding the fact that some years ago no-one claimed that the fights were between Byrne and Häkkinen.

RBR was very good this season as they have been a while now but I´m not sure if FA "needs" the boost of falsely claiming that he actually was driving a Fiat Punto.

If the definition of choking applies to the likes of McL in 2007 (not just LH but the team) then in 2012 FA did not choke but did he "find an extra gear" when it really mattered, no he did not but was slower and dependent of his teammate.

If you want to extend it to 2012, Alonso had 20 races (i.e. 25% more chances to score) and he had no mechanical DNFs and 1 of his 2 non-finishes was his own fault.

I disagree with your opinion that Alonso was to blame for one of his two DNFs.

And I have always found it fascinating how people are happy to correct points lost because of mechanical failure, but not points lost because of a slower car.

I was talking about 2011 when Alonso scored 73 points in old money. Alonso scored 82 this year and his car was MUCH worse than Senna's ever was in 1993 for 1/4 the year.

Bottom line, your knowledge about the sport is limited for reasons I've already described in my earlier post which you wouldn't (couldn't) respond to. Only a fool would say Alonso choked this year.

Out of curiousity - which driver do you support?

Funny how this thread has gone from your belief that Alonso "choked" and now you keep bringing up Senna's 1993 season (one of the best individual seasons ever) to compare with Alonso's 2012. So which is it? LOL

Can we stop playing this game about Alonso's car being SO BAD, please? It was the most reliable car on the grid by far, on some tracks the second fastest race car and the third fastest overall. Overall it was the second BEST car by far, as shown in the constructors. Since when has anyone on the grid won the WDC in not the best car anyways? Not for a long time.

Bottom line is that even if Alonso didn't have some great speed in the final races, it is still much better than real choking, which means making a mistake/misjudgement and losing car parts and huge chunks of points.

I think a potentially interesting topic of debate has been lost because of the way the thread has been presented.

Did Alonso choke? In my opinion no you can't say that he did, as 'choking' would imply that he made mistakes under pressure.

Did Alonso appear to suffer from a dip in form in the last few races? Well I think thats a very interesting question. Massa certainly apepared to gain a lot of ground compared to Alonso in the last few races pace wise. What were the reasons for that? If Alonso had had Massa's pace in those races would he have won the title?

I think a lot of how we judge the F2012 and Alonso's year depends on how we view Massa. When Massa was having slow results we say well the car is useless and Alonso is performing super human feats. When Massa gets better results it seems that suddenly he has upped his game. Considerably. Its certainly strange.

It isn't an attack on Alonso to sensibly consider his form in the run in to the title. Personally I felt his form dipped somewhat and that he could have won the title. But his form over the whole season was good, and the title is about all 20 races. The overall package wasn't there to get it done this year.

Can we stop playing this game about Alonso's car being SO BAD, please? It was the most reliable car on the grid by far, on some tracks the second fastest race car and the third fastest overall. Overall it was the second BEST car by far, as shown in the constructors. Since when has anyone on the grid won the WDC in not the best car anyways? Not for a long time.

Clearly Ferrari was 3rd best car, McLaren had significant reliablity issues which cost them so much its unreal.

And Alonso didnt choke. Not even close.

He didnt perform to his best in the last two races, but then Vettel was far from his best in Brazil, was he?

He didnt perform to his best in the last two races, but then Vettel was far from his best in Brazil, was he?

Whoa. I guess that depends on how you view the first lap.
Apart from that Vettel was brilliant. Fastest lap on lap 2 in a damaged car, and after being spun round he caught back up to Alonso on pure pace, despite having to work his way through the pack. It was a pretty special drive at a time where it seemed like the world was throwing everything at Vettel. That was a really clutch performance, and definately the opposite of choking.

You suffer a from a backlash? You find claims that Alonso has delivered one of the great seasons that unbearable?

Elsewhere, the OP has used capitals and bold to exclaim how "I WAS THERE!!!" in 1993 (or words to that effect). So was I. Have been since 1984, in fact. And I regard Alonso's 2012 as directly comparable. I'm happy for people to disagree on that, though. What I can't abide is the tone of this thread of many of the comments in it, which clearly have no respect whatsoever for the opinions of others. I'm sorry if people are emotionally offended by a claim that Alonso's 2012 season compares with Senna's 1993 (pockmarked as that was with the odd weekend off the boil, much like any other season) but that's their problem, quite frankly. No one drives a season without the odd lull here and there.

Arguing about whether someone had the pace to beat someone else requires some study of the lap times through the race and elsewhere and they suggest to me that Vettel cruised through most of the Indian Grand Prix well within the car's parameters (given that laps 55, 56 and 60 were all 0.7 seconds faster than their predecessors), that the Ferrari was never going to beat the Lotus at Abu Dhabi. That Ferrari hastily developed some new parts for Alonso's car that sent the machine backwards rather than forwards. Massa set faster lap times than Alonso for precisely 11 of 71 laps at Interlagos. It's a similar story at Austin. Claims about Massa "besting" Alonso at these events are being bandied about as though true without supporting evidence being presented to back up the case. I don't see how these things can realistically be disputed, tbh. Simply making facile claims such as "well, he should have won at x, y and z" without offering any supporting evidence for those claims doesn't really cut much ice. You really have to study the data to get a better sense of how these races really unfolded, and for much of them the RBR (in Vettel's hands at any rate; Webber's season fell apart as it often has in the past) was unbeatable in my view.

Good well reasond post, especially the bits in bold. IMO at least

You still haven't answered me about the driver you support (I'm guessing it's Hamilton or Raikkonen, in typical Alonso-hater fashion).

I'm not the one who originally brought up Senna's 1993 season in comparison to Alonso's 2011 or 2012 seasons. You, in fact, did. You were the first one to take on this tangent.

Oh really?

How anyone can sit up and say Alonso was "flawless" and "drove like Senna in 1993" is beyond comprehension. I saw Senna's entire career and have every one of the 93 season's races on tape...and let me tell you, Alonso's 2012 was NOTHING like Senna's 1993.

Senna didn't need to have his teammates - Andretti and Hakkinen - purposely held back and grid dropped in 1993 in order to outscore them.

You said all this before I posted anything about 1993. LOL try again...

Again, Senna's 1993 was WAY, WAY superior.

Sorry, but Senna was the equivalent of 58 points behind Prost in 1993, Alonso was 3 behind Vettel. I don't care if the RB8 was much less dominant than the FW15 because, quite frankly, Senna's car was so much better for the entire year (particularly the beginning) than the F2012 it's not even funny.

Now, hopefully, we can get the thread back on track because, frankly, you don't have a leg to stand on when you say Alonso's seasons in 2011 and 2012 was like - or better - than Senna's in 1993. To think so is utterly laughable!

Says the guy that has already been chastised by the moderators for being unable to keep his own thread on track as well as bringing up 1993 LONG before I did. Case in point:

Keep your thread on track would be a good start.

You want to keep the thread on track, here you go:

Only a fool would belive that Alonso choked in the 2012 championship. He had the third best car, occasionally the fourth best car, and came within 3 points of the WDC. Common consensus within the F1 media is that Alonso was the driver of the year. He beat Hamilton, Button, Webber, Raikkonen etc. etc. in a car that started the year 2.5 seconds off the pace and ended .7 off the pace and finished the year with 5 podiums despite a HUGE speed deficit in qualifying thanks to uncompetetive machinery relative to his rivals.

Choke? LOL. Give me a break. The end.

It should also be noted that I haven't seen any "Hamilton choked" threads from you considering he had a better car in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 than Alonso. Where is that thread?

The responses in this thread say it all - it makes no sense

Edited by TifosiUSA, 13 December 2012 - 15:41.

That's the end of the Senna discussion, thank you.

Please stay on topic, which is about Alonso's 2012 campaign. Please keep it civil. If you have no sensible comment to make, then don't post and move on to a thread you like.

Posts deleted. There is a separate thread regarding the Autosport Team Principals top-10.

Mark Webber is a proven race winner - even from 2012. Something that cannot be said about Flippy (this season). MW had exactly the same car as SV and was not subjugated to the status FM was - yet he was thoroughly overshadowed by Seb. That tells a lot about how good SV actually was again. I find it almost obnoxious when some Ferrari fans try to console themselves by claiming the fight was between Newey and FA - while totally disregarding the fact that some years ago no-one claimed that the fights were between Byrne and Häkkinen.

Both MW and FM are proven race winners. Both have come very (with a bit of an edge to FM) close to a WDC. So I don't share your view of their relative merit.

Webber had significantly more KERS issues in a car that is probably set more towards Vettel's technique and preferences. When the car and tires and strategy suited him - say Monaco - he was excellent. Monaco has been considered an important talent and career measuring stick in F1 for ages.

Clearly, the "fight" was between two TEAMS. The Newey led team won. Pretty simple.

Let's congratulate the winners, celebrate the sport (of what's left of it) and look forward to next year.

That's the end of the Senna discussion, thank you.

Please stay on topic, which is about Alonso's 2012 campaign. Please keep it civil. If you have no sensible comment to make, then don't post and move on to a thread you like.

Agreed!

On Topic, then:

Points following the Summer Break:

Red Bull .... 214
Ferrari .... 211

McLaren .... 185

Lotus ..... 111

So, we can all clearly see just how close it was between Red Bull and Ferrari following the break.

At the break, Alonso's lead was 40+ points...and Red Bull was only able to score an extra 3 points more than Ferrari from that point (Summer break).

This idea that the Ferrari, from the break onwards was "the 3rd or 4th best car" is plain rubbish.

Webber scored 55

Massa scored 97 ... but was held back/grid dropped behind Alonso at Korea, Austin, Interlagos.

Alonso scored 114 ... but some of these were gifted courtesy of Massa as stated in the previous line.

Vettel, however, was the MAJOR factor in extracting that extra 3 points for Red Bull over Ferrari following the break.

It's quite clear from the numbers that the Ferrari was very close to being "the best/co-best racing package". The numbers don't lie. And yet...and yet, Alonso coughed up a 40+ points lead - INSPITE of gifts from Massa - and lost the championship.

That's what we call "choking" in North America.

40+ points lead. Ferrari scores only 3 points less than Red Bull from that point. Alonso gets gifted points from Massa. Loses Championship. Choke.

Someone asked me "which driver do I support?".

Well, I actually don't "support" "drivers" as much as I support "teams"/"cars".

I, historically, "support" Ferrari.

So when Alonso goes about jerking off about how he was "flawless", I say BullShit. He crashed out of Japan out of his own accord mostly...and, inspite of Massa gifting him points and the Scuderia manipulating the grid in Austin in his favour and providing him with a solid, fast racing car, he failed to deliver and tossed up a 40+ points lead at a time when the car got out-scored by only 3 points.

Edited by RayInTorontoCanada, 14 December 2012 - 13:59.

^^^

Hey buddy, choking is just too strong a word to use for Alonso's title running. Shall we just say that Seb raised his game come crunch time, while Fred suffered a slight bilp in form.

^^^

Hey buddy, choking is just too strong a word to use for Alonso's title running. Shall we just say that Seb raised his game come crunch time, while Fred suffered a slight bilp in form.

My friend, that's one way to look at it.

Edited by RayInTorontoCanada, 13 December 2012 - 18:59.

Read, learn, apologize for this thread.

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/104812

Read, learn, apologize for this thread.

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/104812

read, learn, apologize for this post.

Posts deleted. There is a separate thread regarding the Autosport Team Principals top-10.

Might I say that given the enormous pressure he brought on himself during his Mclaren tenure, he was very competitive in the second half of the season? That wasnt choking. Ofcourse some can again twist this around.

I dont see where he choked in 2005 and 2006, but then he was lucking into positions right?

In 2010 and 2012 we have seen Alonso/Ferrari being the only ones challenging Red Bull till the end for the WDC.

Edited by ViMaMo, 14 December 2012 - 08:47.

The F2012 was an ok car, but it wasn't the best car on the grid at any point during the season. At best, it was the third best car on the grid.

Maybe not the best(maybe Sauber was better in Malaysia, maybe Williams ,Lotus were better in Spain), but better than RBR and McLaren in many races. Also when you finish, you car is better than other cars who didn't finish.
F2012 was very fast in races. Also car/tyre package is important. Car can be very fast, but if it didn't manage tyres right it will be slower. Tyres play BIG role this year. For Alonso luck of course. He was lucky that year, no question about it. Ferrari admitted it. He was unlucky only at Spa. In last 5 races only India was on merit. Other were big gifts from the fate.

We can ask ourselves, did he extracted the maximum from the car? Or all year he was on the same level as his last races? Other were just worse back then. And from Massa form we judge that Alonso slip in the end. Maybe Alonso level was the same whole year, just Massa improved a lot. Where Alonso stay on the same level. What is the other option, Massa keep his level(from season start) and Alonso slip below Massa level or Alonso worsen his form and Massa improved his(and they meet in the middle).
When you lose with 3 points, and you under-perform in last races this is where you lose the WDC. You can't say I lost it in Spa, because everybody have their Spa. You can't expect other to make mistake so you can win the WDC.
Somebody compare him with Senna, I don't remember Senna waiting for other to make mistake? If he wanted something he just take it. Back then they were even harder in enforcing what they wanted.

Edited by ivand911, 14 December 2012 - 10:48.

Read, learn, apologize for this thread.

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/104812

All it says is that they considered Alonso the best driver this year.
It doesn't say "the team bosses thought Alonso was clearly on a different level than Vettel and Hamilton", nor does it say "Alonso drove a perfect season", nor does it say "Alonso did not have a dip at the end of the season." All it says is, "the team bosses thought Alonso was better". If they'd rate Alonso a 10 and Vettel a 9.9, it would still yield the same result.

Maybe not the best(maybe Sauber was better in Malaysia, maybe Williams ,Lotus were better in Spain), but better than RBR and McLaren in many races. Also when you finish, you car is better than other cars who didn't finish.
F2012 was very fast in races. Also car/tyre package is important. Car can be very fast, but if it didn't manage tyres right it will be slower. Tyres play BIG role this year. For Alonso luck of course. He was lucky that year, no question about it. Ferrari admitted it. He was unlucky only at Spa. In last 5 races only India was on merit. Other were big gifts from the fate.

We can ask ourselves, did he extracted the maximum from the car? Or all year he was on the same level as his last races? Other were just worse back then. And from Massa form we judge that Alonso slip in the end. Maybe Alonso level was the same whole year, just Massa improved a lot. Where Alonso stay on the same level. What is the other option, Massa keep his level(from season start) and Alonso slip below Massa level or Alonso worsen his form and Massa improved his(and they meet in the middle).
When you lose with 3 points, and you under-perform in last races this is where you lose the WDC. You can't say I lost it in Spa, because everybody have their Spa. You can't expect other to make mistake so you can win the WDC.
Somebody compare him with Senna, I don't remember Senna waiting for other to make mistake? If he wanted something he just take it. Back then they were even harder in enforcing what they wanted.

You cannot use Massa as proof Alonso slipped because that would mean that Massa's level stayed the same while Alonso lost pace. If that is true then Alonso would have finished the last races at the bottom of the grid instead of the streak of podiums he got.

Massa just came back to his own self and was driving like the Massa that beat Raikkonen and took Hamilton to the championship wire, that is all.

Choking is failing to perform due to lack of mental strength. This was not the case with Alonso. Red Bull did a fantastic job in creating a much superior car towards the end of the season and Vettel did a superior job cashing on it.

Alonso finished the last race 2nd. and Vettel 5th. If the Ferrari car was as fast as Red Bull then you can say that Vettel won the WDC spite of chocking in the last race.

...Also when you finish, you car is better than other cars who didn't finish.

F2012 was very fast in races. Also car/tyre package is important. Car can be very fast, but if it didn't manage tyres right it will be slower. Tyres play BIG role this year. For Alonso luck of course. He was lucky that year, no question about it. Ferrari admitted it. He was unlucky only at Spa. In last 5 races only India was on merit. Other were big gifts from the fate.

We can ask ourselves, did he extracted the maximum from the car? Or all year he was on the same level as his last races? Other were just worse back then. And from Massa form we judge that Alonso slip in the end. Maybe Alonso level was the same whole year, just Massa improved a lot. Where Alonso stay on the same level. What is the other option, Massa keep his level(from season start) and Alonso slip below Massa level or Alonso worsen his form and Massa improved his(and they meet in the middle).
When you lose with 3 points, and you under-perform in last races this is where you lose the WDC. You can't say I lost it in Spa, because everybody have their Spa. You can't expect other to make mistake so you can win the WDC.

Edited by RayInTorontoCanada, 14 December 2012 - 13:48.

All it says is that they considered Alonso the best driver this year.
It doesn't say "the team bosses thought Alonso was clearly on a different level than Vettel and Hamilton", nor does it say "Alonso drove a perfect season", nor does it say "Alonso did not have a dip at the end of the season." All it says is, "the team bosses thought Alonso was better". If they'd rate Alonso a 10 and Vettel a 9.9, it would still yield the same result.

You are funny. Then with that same logic, then you can say Alonso is a 3 time WDC with Vettel. Because both's points can be rounded off to 300.

Vettel beat Alonso in the championship but the majority of the F1 bosses think Alonso drove better in the season. Just deal with it.

Red Bull did a fantastic job in creating a much superior car towards the end of the season and Vettel did a superior job cashing on it.

But what about the points after the break?

Red Bull 214

Ferrari 211


And...what about Webber's points after the break?

Webber 55

v

Massa 97


So, given the numbers, how can you say the Red Bull was a "much superior car towards the end of the season"?

How can you say that?

Massa made a mockery out of Webber at Interlagos. You don't do that to a double Monaco GP winner (Webber) if their car (the RBR) is "much superior car towards the end of the season".

The real numbers don't add up.

I do, however, agree that Vettel did what you suggested. He drove like a Demon possessed at places like Spa, Abu Dhabi and Interlagos, for instance...

But what about the points after the break?

Red Bull 214

Ferrari 211


And...what about Webber's points after the break?

Webber 55

v

Massa 97


So, given the numbers, how can you say the Red Bull was a "much superior car towards the end of the season"?

How can you say that?

Massa made a mockery out of Webber at Interlagos. You don't do that to a double Monaco GP winner (Webber) if their car (the RBR) is "much superior car towards the end of the season".

The real numbers don't add up.

I do, however, agree that Vettel did what you suggested. He drove like a Demon possessed at places like Spa, Abu Dhabi and Interlagos, for instance...

Just look at the WCC points and you see who had the better car. An if then you still have doubts, just ask the F1 Team Principals

Edited by fabr68, 14 December 2012 - 14:01.

You are funny. Then with that same logic, then you can say Alonso is a 3 time WDC with Vettel. Because both's points can be rounded off to 300.

Vettel beat Alonso in the championship but the majority of the F1 bosses think Alonso drove better in the season. Just deal with it.

Read again: "All it says is that they considered Alonso the best driver this year."
Did I say it was not the case? No, don't put words in my mouth, it looks poor on you.

All it says is that Alonso was better than Vettel, not how much better.

Like James Allen put it perfectly: "In terms of race performances, getting the job done and all-round consistent skill and commitment, it’s impossible to separate them... The cop-out would have been to make them joint first, but there was a small distinction between them"
He also ranks Alonso 1st and Vettel 2nd. Like he said, it doesn't mean "Alonso dominated Vettel in performance", it means that Alonso was considered better, which could, like in the case of JA, mean "Less than the width of a cigarette paper".

This vote does not make a distinction how much better or worse.
To act like it means Alonso was considered a league of his own, is putting words into people's mouth.

Just look at the WCC points and you see who had the better car. An if then you still have doubts, just ask the F1 Team Principals

The WCC points show the Ferrari was on par with Red Bull at the end of the year

The WCC points show the Ferrari was on par with Red Bull at the end of the year

Do you seriously believe that????

But what about the points after the break?

Red Bull 214

Ferrari 211


And...what about Webber's points after the break?

Webber 55

v

Massa 97


So, given the numbers, how can you say the Red Bull was a "much superior car towards the end of the season"?

How can you say that?

Massa made a mockery out of Webber at Interlagos. You don't do that to a double Monaco GP winner (Webber) if their car (the RBR) is "much superior car towards the end of the season".

The real numbers don't add up.

I do, however, agree that Vettel did what you suggested. He drove like a Demon possessed at places like Spa, Abu Dhabi and Interlagos, for instance...

I'm not a fan of the spirit of this thread, but I'm definitely learning a few things from posts like these. Thanks for the numbers.

I'm not a fan of the spirit of this thread, but I'm definitely learning a few things from posts like these. Thanks for the numbers.

The nastier, uncivilized posts by some of the more militant posters have been deleted by the good moderators. It helps when you have the real numbers after the summer break.

And, this thread is all about AFTER the break. At the break Alonso was up 40+ points. After the break Red Bull scored only 3 more points than Ferrari.

Those are the facts, like it or not.

Just look at the WCC points and you see who had the better car.

You've changed your tune, my friend!

You previously said that Red Bull had created:

... a much superior car towards the end of the season...

But that's not how the numbers pan out. Massa blitzed Webber after the break and he ran circles around the Monaco/British Grand Prix winner in Brazil. Massa made Webber's RBR look like a Toro Rosso at Interlagos!

Edited by RayInTorontoCanada, 14 December 2012 - 15:53.

Do you seriously believe that????

Have you bothered to actually check the numbers. The difference is less than 2% in WCC points (after the summer break).

I would most definately say that the Ferrari was at last the shared best car for the second half, not 2nd, definitely not 3rd, and in no way 4th or worse.

If we look at how Massa rose in the WDC table after the break he is only beaten by Vettel, Alonso, and Button. He beats Hamilton (by 24 points, 33%), Räikkönen (by 6 points, 6.6%), and Webber (by whopping 42 points, that is 76% more than Webber). From Alonso's point of view, he is only beaten by Vettel (45 points, 28% less, or Vettel 39% more); he beats Webber by 104 points, that is 189% more!



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

PS. Of course, we can also claim that Hamilton choked at the sharp end, Button choked at one third into the season, Webber at the half way point.
PPS. And of course, back to the topic, compared to his team mate Alonso choked ever so slightly at the sharp end, which costed him the WDC. This choke is much smaller than those of the others' but so is the difference on WDC points.

Do you seriously believe that????

How about you look at the context of the post I'm quoting ;-)

Oh, and by the way...

there were some people here before the summer break, who sorted the teams like this:

RedBull (Vettel 122 = 11.1 / race) >> McLaren (Button 76) == Lotus (Grosjean 76) >> Sauber (Kobayashi 29) == Mercedes (Schumacher 29) > Ferrari (Massa 27)

This is obviously in the order of the slower driver points. If we apply this, then the order for the end-season is:

Ferrari (Massa 97 = 10.8 / race) >> McLaren (Hamilton 73) >> RedBull (Webber 55) >> Lotus (Grosjean + d'Ambrosio 26) > Mercedes (Schumacher 20) == Sauber (Perez 20)

so, because this logic was (not?) working then, this logic does (not?) work now?

Edited by l2k2, 14 December 2012 - 16:37.

PPS. And of course, back to the topic, compared to his team mate Alonso choked ever so slightly at the sharp end, which costed him the WDC. This choke is much smaller than those of the others' but so is the difference on WDC points.

Well, he was lucky that the points lost by his 'chokes' or performance dips, were leveled by others' mechanical issues.
For instance, if he had qualified better in India (Massa with a mistake in his quali lap was marginally behind) he could have caught Webber at the start or in the first laps. Now he ended up inheritting 2nd place anyway because of Webber's KERS issues.

Choking is failing to perform due to lack of mental strength. This was not the case with Alonso.

The "I'm racing Newey" campaign clearly demonstrates a lack of mental strength, and character for that matter.

I think Fernando clearly has some mentality issues. When the pressure mounts he makes very small mistakes and that kind of showed in 2010 an 2012 IMO. Does he chock? Not quite but it has some influence. Lets not even compare 2012 Alonso [an excellent year] with 1993 Senna [A completly diferent level year as much as i hated Senna].

Alonso managed to gather a good points advantage in the first part of the year because of his merits and consistency, but some bad luck, a small mistake and somehow a only good performance in the second part of the year prevent him to hold on to his lead. Was it the wrong aproach? No. An inteligent driver would do just that. He almost got away with it.

With regards to the relative strength of the cars, it's clear to me that the Ferrari was not a strong qualifying car but was competitive in the races (within a couple of tenths most of the time). However, it's perfect reliability makes up for some of that (especially relative to the McLaren).

Also, it was the best starting car on the grid, which mitigated its qualifying deficit somewhat. Fernando gets (takes?) a lot of credit for those starts but Massa was also lightening off the grid so I think the car should get some credit for that.

My biggest annoyance with threads like this is that mistakes and underperformance are judged by their consequence rather than for the mistake itself. For example, Vettel crashed at both Abu Dhabi and Brazil but got away with it. Had those incidents ended his race (particularly Brazil) then Vettel would be the one under scrutiny for choking. The error from the driver would have been the exact same but the perception of that error different. This applies to all drivers and all mistakes.

My biggest annoyance with threads like this is that mistakes and underperformance are judged by their consequence rather than for the mistake itself. For example, Vettel crashed at both Abu Dhabi and Brazil but got away with it. Had those incidents ended his race (particularly Brazil) then Vettel would be the one under scrutiny for choking. The error from the driver would have been the exact same but the perception of that error different. This applies to all drivers and all mistakes.

Good point.

i think this applies to all sports as well. You can make a blatant error, but if the puck doesn't end up in the back of your net everyone quickly forgets. It's those errors that lead to losses everyone remembers the most.

My biggest annoyance with threads like this is that mistakes and underperformance are judged by their consequence rather than for the mistake itself. For example, Vettel crashed at both Abu Dhabi and Brazil but got away with it. Had those incidents ended his race (particularly Brazil) then Vettel would be the one under scrutiny for choking. The error from the driver would have been the exact same but the perception of that error different. This applies to all drivers and all mistakes.

Very good point.

Incidently it was Vettel who should have driven a save race, trying to stay out of trouble, be there at the end. But it was him who was (over)aggressive and made a major incident which would have him retired 9 out of 10 cases.

It was Alonso who should have driven aggressively and take risks. But it was him who played it very cautious, drove carefully to the point of even his teammate had to let him pass. Reminded one of Abu Dhabi 2010 when he did not even try an ovetaking attempt. Alonso always deferrs and gets very cautios in high pressure situation when he is actually supposed to attack.

Edited by Kucki, 26 December 2012 - 20:13.

My biggest annoyance with threads like this is that mistakes and underperformance are judged by their consequence rather than for the mistake itself. For example, Vettel crashed at both Abu Dhabi and Brazil but got away with it. Had those incidents ended his race (particularly Brazil) then Vettel would be the one under scrutiny for choking. The error from the driver would have been the exact same but the perception of that error different. This applies to all drivers and all mistakes.

I don't think we saw the best of Alonso in the last couple of races, but he hardly 'threw it away'. He didn't make any major mistakes and nor did he suffer a Reutemann-style total capitulation. There are very few drivers who I think are impervious to this kind of pressure; even Schumacher, for instance, used to suffer noticeably from pressure at vital points in title, particularly earlier in his career.

With regards to the relative strength of the cars, it's clear to me that the Ferrari was not a strong qualifying car but was competitive in the races (within a couple of tenths most of the time). However, it's perfect reliability makes up for some of that (especially relative to the McLaren).

Autosport reckoned that in race pace Ferrari had the 3rd best car. Behind Red Bull and Sauber...that would suggest that Alonso, far from over-achieving in a hopeless car, did pretty much what one would expect, and the real over-achiever was Hamilton, who would have won about 8 races in the 4th best car without things outside his control going tits up.

With regards to the relative strength of the cars, it's clear to me that the Ferrari was not a strong qualifying car but was competitive in the races (within a couple of tenths most of the time). However, it's perfect reliability makes up for some of that (especially relative to the McLaren).

Also, it was the best starting car on the grid, which mitigated its qualifying deficit somewhat. Fernando gets (takes?) a lot of credit for those starts but Massa was also lightening off the grid so I think the car should get some credit for that.

So true, the ferrari was the most underrated car of the season. Sure, it started a dog but alonso had super luck to get massive points (and a win in rain), but at a point in the season it was even the pace-setter. And like you say, the faster starting car by a margin.
Regarding the choking, if you see massa outperforming alonso by a clear margin in the last two races, you could perfectly argue that yes, he got shaken at the end and didnt extract everything from the car, both in qualy and race trim.

Autosport reckoned that in race pace Ferrari had the 3rd best car. Behind Red Bull and Sauber...that would suggest that Alonso, far from over-achieving in a hopeless car, did pretty much what one would expect, and the real over-achiever was Hamilton, who would have won about 8 races in the 4th best car without things outside his control going tits up.

Nobody who actually watched last season would say McLaren was consitently 4th fastest car on Sundays. Some Sundays, yes, but then there were others when it was second and a few when it was up with RB. That's not to say LH wasn't very good, he definitely was, but he wasn't that amazing.

"Third fastest car" has potential to be fifth or six on the grid. "Fourth fastest" is seventh or eighth. Not necessarily third or fourth on the grid.

The relative grid positions of Massa versus Alonso is probably a better indicator of the F2012's pace in qualification than our arguments. Alonso was one or two rows ahead of Massa at most races - until after the summer break. That told us all we needed to know about the "speed of the F2012" compared to other cars.

Seems like the F2012 started out about 1 - 1.5 sec back and gradually moved to about .5 back. Then Red Bulls technical team worked out the flow separation problem, the car was a rocket and they won going away. Tremendous advantage running from the front row. But Vettel still had to make it work. And he did.

How did the Red Bull suddenly become the fastest car in the field?
McLaren was faster 10 times, and about equal 3 times, not to mention other teams at times.