Opinions on drivers - Who do you trust?

Jacques Villeneuve is not/was never in the category of ex-F1 drivers that know what they are talking about, so no need to bar him.

I agree with a few posts here. Know your facts, be seen to be fair, and also agree with trusting your instinct. I also think an ability to admit you called one wrong as well. I thought Piquet would make it big. I was wrong. Because when I look at someone's opinion, I want to see is it logical, and that the facts haven't been twisted to suit their agenda. There's a lot of this on these forums.

There's also some journalists, and a few organistations that I feel have their agendas that are clouding their articles. And I agree with sensationalism being a problem, especially in the print media. "Grosjean: Why he's the fastest Driver in F1?" might grab my attention, but then also leaves me feeling what a load of claptrap at the end of the article.

Drivers, I just feel that it's like football managers/forums these days/ Every decision that went your way is right and everyone decision that went against you was wrong, to the point that you can't take a word they say seriously. F1 isn't quite as bad as that, but it does go that way sometimes.

Ummmm...

Not saying he is alone in this, but as Alonso is the most recent case, I'll use him as two examples of an opinion who I can't trust.

Person 1 I can not trust, is one to apply an obvious double standard. In Alonso's case, his opinions always seem very political. The praise he is singing now for Hamilton, he was singing for Räikkönen in 2008, when he put down Hamilton like he is doing to Vettel now. His measure -their season as team-mates- also existed back then, but he uses a double standard.

Person 2 I can not trust, is one that gets his measurable facts wrong. In Alonso's case, he claims that in 2011 "Red Bull were first and second consistently". Dear Fernando, Red Bull scored 3 1-2s in 2011, just 1 more than your team scored in 2010. You will find no statistician who will consider 3 out of 20 even remotely 'consistent'.

It's very simple: be fair (no standards) and be true (know your facts).
Then we'll talk

Nope. And, ummmmm...

Jacques Villeneuve is not/was never in the category of ex-F1 drivers that know what they are talking about, so no need to bar him.

Nope again.

These are about people you don't trust and I have asked who you DO trust. Are you going to get there by a process of elimination?

Trust? There hasn't been a scribe in F1 since DSJ, MJT, Rob Walker, Innes Ireland or HNM III that would even come close to gaining my trust. Today's so called 'bloggers' or 'experts' for that matter are worthless. Nigel Roebuck is the only one of today's journos that I give any merit to.

Saying championships don't really mean anything and pole positions/fastest laps do? You wouldn't be a Hamilton fan, would you? :-) considering he almost lost 08, I'd rate it equal.

Pole positions and race wins happen easily if you're in the fastest car, but it doesn't take into account age and a variety of other factors. Fastest laps are pointless with the current tyre spec. Championships are the only constant.

I'm definitely not a Lewis fan( ) and I think you missed my point a bit.

I was just saying that picking and choosing which metric to use as an 'unbiased' measure is actually biased in and of itself and that anybody who uses statistics as their primary source of measure of a driver probably isn't worth listening to.

Anyways, I see somebody mentioned Martin Brundle and I'll agree with that. He doesn't seem to have any bitterness leftover from his time in F1 and is very sensible and acute with his observations for the most part.

You are correct.

Check this out P123. Read here It is part of the human condition, everyone is guilty of it, and it is beyond our control.

Interesting article. It gave me new strenght in being a fanboy (girl)

It surely seems difficult to be totally rational with the brains we have.
And maybe that's how it's meant to be. Computers can work with the rational tasks.
The question is which questions are solved best using the human brain, which using the computer.

It's a common question asked of drivers, ex-drivers, engineers, team principals, journalists, bloggers, and forum users etc across the whole gamut of motorsport series; "Who is the best driver or rider today?"

I don't trust anybody who even attempts to answer this question seriously. So, nobody.

About trust...

Well, I prefer listening directly the source -
I listen what the actual driver/teamleader says and try to analyse that with what I have inside my head.
Some of them are more direct, some more manipulative.
After some years of following the sport you have learnt some of the behavioural patterns of our dear F1 people.
You use that pattern as a filter when needed and can get a hint of why the person have given his/her comment.
So I trust the information drivers and teamrepresentans give most - after my own analyse of it.

So I do not care so much for journos - they have to take so much in consideration before they talk, for example their pitpasses...
But I kind of like Martin Brundle...

Edited by rijole1, 19 January 2013 - 02:40.

Interesting article. It gave me new strenght in being a fanboy (girl);)

No, c'mon.

That shouldn't be what you take from that. Just because its instinctive doesn't mean its ok. I can show you scientific studies that show we aren't instinctively monogamous, but that shouldn't encourage you to go out and cheat on your significant other. The whole point of these studies is for us to be able to identify where we are irrational or flawed and correct it. Its called self-improvement.

Edited by Seanspeed, 19 January 2013 - 02:52.

No, c'mon.

That shouldn't be what you take from that. Just because its instinctive doesn't mean its ok. I can show you scientific studies that show we aren't instinctively monogamous, but that shouldn't encourage you to go out and cheat on your significant other. The whole point of these studies is for us to be able to identify where we are irrational or flawed and correct it. Its called self-improvement.

Interesting point of view. Thank's for your feedback

Quite honestly, I think you need to take in all the views from the engineers, team principals and drivers. They all get to see different pieces of the driver. Fellow drivers see their competitor's car control when behind and in front. They can see if the car looks unstable, has good grip, balance, corner speed, braking stability, etc. The engineers see the raw data. Who's braking later, getting on the throttle earlier, can handle the car through turns with DRS activated, etc. They know the weaknesses of the car they've built, so can tell when the driver is doing something really special. Team principals can speak to the other drivers in the pit lane and see their own raw data (whether they understand it is another matter!), but what makes the best driver to them is likely other qualities like team leadership, strong work ethic, good feedback, problem solving, comraderie, and just, plain winning. Journalists I place in a lower category because they are further removed from the information, and are reliant upon what others tell them. Yes, journalists have eyes and ears, but without the raw data behind why the car/driver is faster/slower at a given point, it's really just guesswork.

As has already been stated, no one can be 100% unbiased, but I do believe that people generally do try their best to be objective. I believe the likelihood of unvarnished honesty is increased when the survey is "blind." As I mentioned above, I think the ideal solution is to take in as much info as you can, from different sources, to make the best driver assessment, but if I had to pick which group would know best who IS THE BEST, I would pick the drivers. As drivers, they have the view from the seat of their pants how another car is handling, accelerating, and braking. They also have years of real-world experience ACTUALLY DRIVING high performance vehicles -- thus have a better sense of the difficulty/ease in pulling out a really good lap time. Nothing's perfect, and they're all fiercely competitive, but when their identity is kept hidden, I think, more often than not, they would tell the truth as they've literally seen it.

My two cents.

Edited by PoleMan, 19 January 2013 - 04:22.

I cannot trust anyone's opinion when it comes to drivers, except my own. It is completely subjective.

These are about people you don't trust and I have asked who you DO trust. Are you going to get there by a process of elimination?

I trust every one's opinion enough to give it consideration, unless/until they fail on (1)fairness and/or (2)truthfulness.
Of course, I'd trust Peter Sauber's opinion over that of Red Bull's catering lady, but I judge each instance on it's own context.
For instance, even if Barichello worked with Schumacher for more years than Paul Hemberey, I'd trust the latter's judgement on Schumi's tire saving skills more.

Edited by mnmracer, 19 January 2013 - 17:16.

I don't really trust any person in particular - for each of the statements I try to see why they say it and whether they have the knowledge to make those statements. [*] I try to use the sum of all inputs to form an opinion. A knowledgeable poster in a forum can have as much impact on this as a driver or journalist. The hard part for me is to see or admit when my own opinion is wrong and adjusting it instead of keeping pre-defined opinions.

[*] I don't even think Nigel Roebuck is unbiased, e.g. he had "Alonso is simply the best driver in the world right now, end of story." and "Vettels luck is almost a match for his consummate natural ability" in his 2012 driver overview although Vettel was less lucky than Alonso that season.

[*] I don't even think Nigel Roebuck is unbiased, e.g. he had "Alonso is simply the best driver in the world right now, end of story." and "Vettels luck is almost a match for his consummate natural ability" in his 2012 driver overview although Vettel was less lucky than Alonso that season.

The above quotes do not show bias.

[*] I don't even think Nigel Roebuck is unbiased, e.g. he had "Alonso is simply the best driver in the world right now, end of story." and "Vettels luck is almost a match for his consummate natural ability" in his 2012 driver overview although Vettel was less lucky than Alonso that season.

He is entitled to form opinions and, as a journalist, to express his considered view. I would expect him to have a view about which is the best driver at any given time. It would be extremely weak to pretend that he thinks they are all performing at the same level. If he displayed untoward bias, he would quickly lose credibility but that does not seem to have happened.

Anyone understanding the sport, watching all the races, and able to keep it sort of honest towards everyone in the grid has a very valid opinion.

I don´t neccessarily trust journos and insiders more than fans, especially when there are ignorant insiders like Carlos Miquel and fans like... lots of them here with deep understanding and passion. TV isn´t the ultimate info source, but it´s perfectly OK to form an informed opinion if you understand the sport first.

@apoka
You should put whole comment ,not one sentence out of context, he said also that Alonso made few mistakes and that Vettel was almost unbeatable in the fastest car.

"1. Fernando Alonso

In terms of what he did with what he had, Alonso’s campaign will stand among the very greatest, by any driver, ever. One thing to be constantly on it in an ultra-competitive car, quite another to be that way in a middling one. His Ferrari’s average qualifying position was seventh, but when it rained Fernando was both times on pole. In 20 races there were 13 podiums and – while necessarily on the edge – very few mistakes. He is simply the best driver in the world right now, end of story."


"3. Sebastian Vettel

World Champion yet again, and almost unbeatable in the fastest car. Vettel was often brilliant, but early in the season Red Bull was not the dominant force of 2011 and his head seemed to go down a little. Always an ebullient winner, if rather less gracious in difficult circumstances, he laid to rest suggestions that he can’t race – the drive from 10th to second at Spa was exceptional. Crucially, as we saw in Abu Dhabi and Brazil, his luck is almost a match for his consummate natural ability."

Helmut Marko...

But seriously, probably Martin Brundle.

Edited by Brandz07, 20 January 2013 - 12:13.

The above quotes do not show bias.

I meant specifically the luck aspect. If you mention that Vettel is lucky, then this is true for other drivers like Alonso or Räikkönen as well (see e.g. this thread - Vettel lost 37 points, Alonso gained 28, Kimi 57 - of course there is likely some inaccuracy in that analysis but the big picture should be roughly correct). The statement does not match reality, so I think there is bias. The point, in the context of this thread, is that I wouldn't blindly trust even very respected journalists (well, at least not everything they write) - you always should try to take all information and sources you have into account.

Oh, Ant Davidson. He's not looking to get back in F1 and not trying to boost his legacy or any of that crap so he stays somewhat objective. He's great on TV but I miss hearing him on the Five Live podcast.

I meant specifically the luck aspect. If you mention that Vettel is lucky, then this is true for other drivers like Alonso or Räikkönen as well (see e.g. this thread - Vettel lost 37 points, Alonso gained 28, Kimi 57 - of course there is likely some inaccuracy in that analysis but the big picture should be roughly correct). The statement does not match reality, so I think there is bias. The point, in the context of this thread, is that I wouldn't blindly trust even very respected journalists (well, at least not everything they write) - you always should try to take all information and sources you have into account.

The question of luck is subjective, and he has a different sense of it than you. All kinds of things can be counted or discounted. You say the statement does not match reality, but reality is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe, for example, he was thinking of Vettel's luck that his car was not damaged in the first lap incident in Brazil.

The question of luck is subjective, and he has a different sense of it than you. All kinds of things can be counted or discounted. You say the statement does not match reality, but reality is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe, for example, he was thinking of Vettel's luck that his car was not damaged in the first lap incident in Brazil.

So why would he talk of Vettel's luck that his car was not damage, while disregarding that in the very same race, Alonso was lucky to be on the podium (title position) in the first place? Even if your assessment was correct, there's two clear instances of luck in that final race, and he chooses to comment on only one; how clear a bias do you want?

So why would he talk of Vettel's luck that his car was not damage, while disregarding that in the very same race, Alonso was lucky to be on the podium (title position) in the first place? Even if your assessment was correct, there's two clear instances of luck in that final race, and he chooses to comment on only one; how clear a bias do you want?

How was Alonso lucky to be on the podium?

How was Alonso lucky to be on the podium?

Well if you want to say that everyone has a different sense of luck, you could argue that Lewis and Hulkenberg colliding provided Alonso some fortune, couldn't you?

I meant specifically the luck aspect. If you mention that Vettel is lucky, then this is true for other drivers like Alonso or Räikkönen as well (see e.g. this thread - Vettel lost 37 points, Alonso gained 28, Kimi 57 - of course there is likely some inaccuracy in that analysis but the big picture should be roughly correct). The statement does not match reality, so I think there is bias. The point, in the context of this thread, is that I wouldn't blindly trust even very respected journalists (well, at least not everything they write) - you always should try to take all information and sources you have into account.

Nigel was expressing an opinion. Sorry, but I can't raise my interest level above 'meh' when statistical analysis is involved. Not that I don't know a bit about statistical analysis, it just leaves me cold and a bit bored.

How was Alonso lucky to be on the podium?

Because until this happened, he was 16 seconds off the podium, moving further away from it every lap.

Well if you want to say that everyone has a different sense of luck, you could argue that Lewis and Hulkenberg colliding provided Alonso some fortune, couldn't you?

I could argue a lot of things, but I'm not going to bother as it is off topic.

I could argue a lot of things, but I'm not going to bother as it is off topic.

So its worth arguing over until somebody brings up a point that proves you wrong, right?

Eh, whatever.

Great thread Really good question, very intriguing.

I certainly don't trust team principles, they are obviously going to have a bias toward their current/own drivers, same goes for all team personnel really.

Journalists don't have access to any real insider info and what info they can garner will inevitably come from a team member, see above for the reason this then becomes invalid (maybe a few years down the line we might find something out about driver A or B) and see below for the why some of their opinions hold water, since that's their job and what they do constantly.

Personally i think if you or i look at all the information available to us (Be it lap times on the FIA website from all sessions or all the footage available) and have an open mind putting any of your own subjective opinions to one side about all the drivers, over a period of time you can make a reasonable assessment between team mates, their relative strengths, weaknesses and who, by and large is the quicker of the two. Comparing between drivers who are not team mates is futile, especially when discussing "raw speed" or an ability to be easy on the tyres, since these are both highly dependant on the car. (see Mercedes 2012 Vs Lotus 2012)

So its worth arguing over until somebody brings up a point that proves you wrong, right?

Eh, whatever.

In Brazil, Hamilton was unlucky but Hulkenberg lost his chance due to his own error.

But the real counterpoint is that Vettel was lucky to be able to continue in Brazil by comparison with Alonso getting a DNF for a less violent imact in Japan. But the comparison with Alonso does not even need to be made. Roebuck simply suggested that Vettel was lucky, and that is at least one case in which he was.

Great thread Really good question, very intriguing.

I certainly don't trust team principles, they are obviously going to have a bias toward their current/own drivers, same goes for all team personnel really.

Journalists don't have access to any real insider info and what info they can garner will inevitably come from a team member, see above for the reason this then becomes invalid (maybe a few years down the line we might find something out about driver A or B) and see below for the why some of their opinions hold water, since that's their job and what they do constantly.

Personally i think if you or i look at all the information available to us (Be it lap times on the FIA website from all sessions or all the footage available) and have an open mind putting any of your own subjective opinions to one side about all the drivers, over a period of time you can make a reasonable assessment between team mates, their relative strengths, weaknesses and who, by and large is the quicker of the two. Comparing between drivers who are not team mates is futile, especially when discussing "raw speed" or an ability to be easy on the tyres, since these are both highly dependant on the car. (see Mercedes 2012 Vs Lotus 2012)

Shh, don't let objectivity ruin this!

Seriously, there's enough raw data out there to allow anyone interested in comparing drivers for instance to do so. However, the data has to be understood, adjusted and analyzed with the proper statistical tools. Of course, that's a lot of work and it's easier and more interesting to rely on the opinions of others and to find justifications that reinforce fans' preferences anyway...

Edited by RealRacing, 21 January 2013 - 14:00.

The question of luck is subjective, and he has a different sense of it than you. All kinds of things can be counted or discounted. You say the statement does not match reality, but reality is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe, for example, he was thinking of Vettel's luck that his car was not damaged in the first lap incident in Brazil.

Of course, there are different viewpoints. My point is that I wouldn't trust a single expert - he is only human as we all are and may mistakes or have some bias. While luck is subjective, you can at least partially quantify points won/lost because of luck as an indicator in this case. And it's a season overview, so picking single events over the big picture is misleading (btw. even in those events you could argue that Vettel was also unlucky to collide with Senna since he did not see him and we has unlucky in Abu Dhabi over the weekend since he would have finished higher up without misfortune of any drivers). Actually, this is exactly how bias is introduced - you remember only certain aspects/events/races which fit their viewpoints better, while forgetting easier about others. Almost all of us do this. That is my main point: I try not to trust a single source, but combine expert opinions with those of journalists, intelligent forum posts, statistics etc. to get a picture.

I wouldn't even trust him to give me an objective view on Andretti and (G)Villeneuve.

I agree - he's not objective at all IMO...

I trust no-one.

Fans - especially fans in internet forums are idiots. Massive trolling idiots.
Journalists are biased. Autosport, La Gazzetta dello Sport, Turun Sanomat...they all carry bias on something.
Drivers are also biased, narrowminded and see everything from own narrow perspective. Depending on their success or lack of it - their views also mirrors attitude on fellow drivers, teams, journos.
Team chiefs/owners/partners are sweet-talkers of their money wasting companies. They tell only what's necessary, adjusting information released into public, which might help them or harm rivals on their mission.

Of course, there are different viewpoints. My point is that I wouldn't trust a single expert - he is only human as we all are and may mistakes or have some bias. While luck is subjective, you can at least partially quantify points won/lost because of luck as an indicator in this case. And it's a season overview, so picking single events over the big picture is misleading (btw. even in those events you could argue that Vettel was also unlucky to collide with Senna since he did not see him and we has unlucky in Abu Dhabi over the weekend since he would have finished higher up without misfortune of any drivers). Actually, this is exactly how bias is introduced - you remember only certain aspects/events/races which fit their viewpoints better, while forgetting easier about others. Almost all of us do this. That is my main point: I try not to trust a single source, but combine expert opinions with those of journalists, intelligent forum posts, statistics etc. to get a picture.

I'm not one of the people who specifically said I trust NR. I was merely pointing out that referring to Vettel's luck does not necessarily indicate bias from him.

It would be very easy to get drawn into discussing the specific events of last season, as another poster seems to want, but it would be off topic.

Personally I only ever trust my own opinion on anything, being the paranoid rationalist (philosophically speaking) that I am.

In terms of people who I think has the least biased opinion, however, I have to go with Martin Brundle, Peter Sauber and Kimi Raikkonen ( ).

I rarely trust current team principals (unless they give out factual statements on their own team), journalists always have an agenda (got to sell the news), drivers like to play mind games. I actually do take into consideration ex-drivers' views, but only concerning drivers that they are unfamiliar with (i.e. I trust David Coulthard when he rates Perez or Grosjean, but not when he talks about Webber, Button or Schumacher.)

As for Nigel Roebuck, I believe that anybody who states his own opinion and quotes "end of story" has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

I am pretty sure any of us can trust Webber.

I like Frank Williams' opinion on drivers as its akin to my own. He likes a racer and they are called racing cars after all.
I've always listened to Ross Brawn's opinions too... Not sure he's trustworthy though.
Chris Horner on the other hand is clearly untrustworthy. As for Flavio Briatore.....nobody trustworthy would wear thongs at his age. Which by a process of elimination means Alonso and Schumacher can't be trusted either...
I think I'll stop there as its clear the only way to answer the question is through a process of elimination and by virtue of the fact F1 is full of smoke and mirrors I can save myself the bother...I can't trust any of them..

I am pretty sure any of us can trust Webber.

I cannot.

I trust Brundle & Coulthard.

I try mostly to trust only reason, which makes it rather difficult to trust much and many, especially not yourself.

Pretty much all of the pundits are pretty bad and hold onto the same flawed assumptions and misconceptions the average fan does and hop on the same band wagons. They all repeat the same old tired manta's no matter how disproven they have become. I really don't trust anyone. I don't think the sport is rocket science though, and the truth is pretty easy to see with an objective eye.

The one I least trust would be Mark Hughes. Wrong on pretty much every single analysis he does. Near the end of last year after Monza he wrote how things were looking good for Alonso and that 'Speed would not be Ferrari's problem down the stretch, when that is exactly what the problem was and had been from race 1. Then you have edd straw proclaiming Vettel was a better racer than Senna, after the 2011 season. lol.

Edited by azda, 26 January 2013 - 02:28.

I agree those are certainly secondary measures which can move a driver up or down in their historical ranking. I think I made a fair point in saying that historically Championships won seems to be the ultimate ranking guide (adding potential championships and championships outside F1). What do you think?

If it was the ultimate ranking Schumacher would always be ranked 1st, and Senna down the order, as he has more than double Senna's titles, yet the exact opposite happens. The exact opposite. Senna is usually rated ahead of Schumacher for the exact reason mentioned by wiser heads. Its not just about statistics its about how you achieve them. Championships are obviously a factor but far from the main critera. Its a much broader measure, that comes from experience and wisdom not simply pointing at numbers, although that is of course much easier and convenient for some.

Edited by azda, 26 January 2013 - 05:52.

If it was the ultimate ranking Schumacher would always be ranked 1st, and Senna down the order, as he has more than double Senna's titles, yet the exact opposite happens. Senna is usually rated ahead of Schumacher for the exact reason mentioned by wiser heads.

What´s that reason? Nostalgia? Rose tinted glasses? Popularity contests? People liking and rating character over performances? None of these come from "wise heads".

What´s that reason? Nostalgia? Rose tinted glasses? Popularity contests? People liking and rating character over performances? None of these come from "wise heads".

Charisma, demeanor, and looks. In that order.

What´s that reason? Nostalgia? Rose tinted glasses? Popularity contests? People liking and rating character over performances? None of these come from "wise heads".

Relying on one team/designer to bring you all your success (Clark/Stewart)
Winning all your races in the best car, and from the front (Fangio)
Winning all but three of your races from the front (Senna)

Edited by mnmracer, 26 January 2013 - 17:00.

Nigel Roebuck & Martin Brundle. That's it.

Journalists who blindly retweet a story without checking it first should be ignored from that point onwards. Jon Noble comes to mind:-

28th September 2012:
Jon Noble ‏@NobleF1
More fall out from driver announcements... Jenson Button has stopped following Lewis Hamilton on Twitter...and added Sergio Perez instead

1st October 2012:
@JensonButton
@NobleF1 Never followed him... Makes a story though!!

1st October 2012:
Jon Noble ‏@NobleF1
@JensonButton Yeah I realised! Apologies!

As for Nigel Roebuck, I believe that anybody who states his own opinion and quotes "end of story" has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

I have to say that I can't stand the guy.

Having read a lot of his articles he does know a lot about the top drivers of any era he watched, but he knows next to nothing about the guys further down the grid which I find unbelievable. Fortunately he knows better than to proffer an opinion on them. However it is noticeable for example in the motorsport 2012 F1 review where guys like Jody Scheckter could talk about any driver on the grid and analyse how well he thought he did while NR kept totally silent for any of the midgrid drivers and below. For someone who is paid purely to report on F1 I find thats an astonishing gap in his knowledge/interest.

Also his bias against particular drivers gets tiring. If Michael Schumacher discovered the cure for cancer I fully expect NR to write that every life saved by the cure is of course cheapened by the knowledge MS used TC in 1994 blah blah blah.

Its worth listening to NR's interview with Karun Chandhok where the latter cuts the former down to size over his opinions regarding KERS and DRS as politely as possible but quite firmly. NR just ends up sounding like the opiniated guy for whom everything was better back in the old days without any underlying logic.

Vastly overrated journalist IMO.

Edited by Talisman, 26 January 2013 - 18:09.

Charisma, demeanor, and looks. In that order.

Then Sebastian would be GoAT in my opinion.

Journalists who blindly retweet a story without checking it first should be ignored from that point onwards. Jon Noble comes to mind:-

I think far too many journalists look for a story where there is none nowadays, as opposed to writing op-ed pieces on what happens behind the scenes where they are privileged to have a peek at. I far rather have a well-thought out piece (or even better an interview) about the troubles Ferrari faced throughout the 2012 season than 5 similar sounding articles all proclaiming Alonso the greatest without in depth coverage on what exactly his odds are. Just stating the Ferrari was a bad car that Alonso overcame isn't news - going into the details of how Ferrari and Alonso worked together to improve the car would be far more interesting and a worthwhile read.