Montezemolo's interview:"Alonso is the best driver I've ever met"

No, just get your dates and numbers right, especially arguing from a high horse. It really helps!

It would be nice to stop arguing about something almost totally pointless. RB led the WCC, but not WDC for large parts of 2012 since the Alonso-Massa gap (e.g. 61 - 2 after 5 races) was larger than the Vettel-Webber gap, but there is not much other insight to get from that stat. 

I personally don't see any problems with Montys opinion.I think that big part of schumis succes was because there were no test limits.

 Ok, I am not going to touch this one...

Yeap, Vettel pretty much dominated the season.....though for sure it was much more tight during the first half....and that just reminds me how strong Kimi was during those first races...Again clear indication that when Kimi gets car to behave like he likes/wants, then he is going to be serious threat to anyone, Alonso and Vettel included.

I don't think it has much to do with Kimi overperforming, rather, Lotus had a more competitive car mainly because they were easier on the 2013 tires. Same as i don't believe Vettel was underperforming compared to the second half of the season. Redbull just weren't as strong.

This would be an insult to Shumi only if you did not rate Alonso as the best in the business. 

Shumi may have been faster, more talented based on what exactly? Both Massa and Luca who worked with both drivers have concluded that Alonso was the stronger of the two.. so you can argue that he achieved more which is fine .. Vettel also has.. so? We've been following f1 long enough to conclude that results alone does not give you an indication to rate a driver.

So with all things considered.. there is a very strong argument to be made that Alonso is the better Ferrari driver.

 

Luca:  "The Spaniard is a mix of Lauda and Schumacher; like the former he has the ability to drive every race lap as though it was qualifying, like the latter he has the intelligence to know when it's time to push and when it's time to look after the car."

When Massa teamed up with MS, MS wasn't in his prime anymore, so I would take Massa's comment here with a grain of salt.

And really, Luca on this instance seemed to really have forgotten MS drive in Hungary, where he made an extra pit stop, and according to Brawn and others was driving every lap as if he were running qualifying laps. MS drove like a maniac with the Benetton, if you check out out comments from that time, Berger comes to mind. But MS was given a car from 99 on he didn't had to push all the time, and I'd expect Alonso do the same, were the Ferrari that good.

Besides given the qualifying laps of Alonso in recent time, what is LdM implying? Alonso's qualifying isn't really his forte.

Actually, I'd like to hear more from more people sitting on the pit wall, as they have IMO a better picture on who's performing best when it matters.

Also after 2010 it's abundantely clear the LdM's message have even a political message in Italy..

http://adamcooperf1....om-the-pitwall/

At least I'd like to see more comments from other people than just LdM on this account. As it stands, there is a real possibility for Alonso to be the best, who has made the least out of it. But a lot of that is Alonso own making. He is not the victim of circumstances. If he were, then he squanders his status as being the best.

This is an extreme case here of only looking at the results.

 

Vettel pulls this off in the first lap:

 

[videos]

yet for some miracle managining to continue the race. Ferrari calls Alonso into the pits in 2010 by mistake, and your conclusion is that since one won and the other didn't, all the circumstances were the same so it means that Vettel did more. The conclusion for that is:

I can only admonish you to read more carefully.  I was responding to a poster who stated that no driver would have been able to win in the Ferrari from 2010 to 2012. 

I disagree because you cannot know what the outcome would be if there was a different driver with a different style, making different decisions with his team.

I used 2010 and 2012 as examples where, you had two different top teams and top drivers that went into a race with the lead and as I stated, FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, found themselves on a back foot during the race.  Yet the results did not come out the same because of the many variants that occur when you change any or all part(s) of a mix.  So I cannot agree that having a different top driver in Ferrari from 2009 to the present wouldn't have garnered them wins. 

That's all I was saying. 

Edited by bourbon, 24 December 2013 - 03:42.

I can only admonish you to read more carefully.  I was responding to a poster who stated that no driver would have been able to win in the Ferrari from 2010 to 2012. 

 

I disagree because you cannot know what the outcome would be if there was a different driver with a different style, making different decisions with his team.

 

I used 2010 and 2012 as examples where, you had two different top teams and top drivers that went into a race with the lead and as I stated, FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, found themselves on a back foot during the race.  Yet the results did not come out the same because of the many variants that occur when you change any or all part(s) of a mix.  So I cannot agree that having a different top driver in Ferrari from 2009 to the present wouldn't have garnered them wins. 

 

That's all I was saying. 

I don't think he mean race wins but Championship wins which i have to agree with. 2012 for sure, 2010 less sure but still confident.

It would be nice to stop arguing about something almost totally pointless. RB led the WCC, but not WDC for large parts of 2012 since the Alonso-Massa gap (e.g. 61 - 2 after 5 races) was larger than the Vettel-Webber gap, but there is not much other insight to get from that stat. 

I disagree.

It shows that the Ferrari was rather weak even in the first half of the season, and Massa wasn't able to extract any performance out of it.

RB was a very good car, as Webber was able to do well.

The conclusions of MetallurgicalHedonist are pretty OK, I'd say. 

No, just get your dates and numbers right, especially arguing from a high horse. It really helps!

Didn't know I need a horse to decode the post. Or is this one of the fancy internet slang when you say horse and I need to logoff this forum?

Didn't know I need a horse to decode the post. Or is this one of the fancy internet slang when you say horse and I need to logoff this forum?

Yeah, just bubble on senselessly instead of admitting a simple mistake which can happen to anyone. That's the spirit!

Vettel made a similar no. of mistakes.

I disagree.

 

It shows that the Ferrari was rather weak even in the first half of the season, and Massa wasn't able to extract any performance out of it.

RB was a very good car, as Webber was able to do well.

Yes, Ferrari was quite weak in the first races, Alonso extracted a lot from the car, Massa probably underperformed and RB was the most likely the better car. However, using some arbitrary races for WDC and WCC standings and then implying that this would say something meaningful about Vettel seems quite far fetched. First, we have years of data available, so this seems a bit random. Second, all it really says was that Vettel-Webber were closer (102 points difference) than Alonso-Massa (156 points difference) in 2012. 

Re:2010


This line is trotted out quite often. Heaven knows how it's considered a good defense for Alonso to have made a similar number of mistakes as a 23 year old driver in only his second year with a top team and only his first year as a serious WDC challenger.

It's not a defense of Alonso per se but first and foremost simply true. Of course if you don't like it feel free to attempt and de-value it. Shame you can't really use the term "ROOKIE", eh?

Of course Luca is saying that Alonso is the best, it´s part of the game. How would it look like if he said "naah, Schumi was better" when asked. We will hear it again when somebody(Vettel?) joins the team after Alonso.

I don't think it has much to do with Kimi overperforming, rather, Lotus had a more competitive car mainly because they were easier on the 2013 tires. Same as i don't believe Vettel was underperforming compared to the second half of the season. Redbull just weren't as strong.

Yet Grosjean was nowhere to be seen during the first half of the season while Kimi was scoring podiums...and during the second half of the year their roles  kinda switched around when Pirelli changed to 2012 tyres and Lotus to long wheel base. So while Red Bull wasnt as strong, I think Lotus quite well kept their performance over the year....it's just that during the first half the car was better suited for Kimi and during second half it suited better for Grosjean.

I disagree.

 

It shows that the Ferrari was rather weak even in the first half of the season, and Massa wasn't able to extract any performance out of it.

RB was a very good car, as Webber was able to do well.

 

The conclusions of MetallurgicalHedonist are pretty OK, I'd say. 

so if Karthikeyan was in the other red bull instead of Webber, and would've not scored a single point in the first 4 races, then the red bull would've been an even harder car to drive?

don't get me wrong, I agree that the ferrari was worse than the red bull in those first 4 races (not in the wet in malaysia, though, but overall definitely), but you don't solely judge a car based on the second drivers worse-than-piss-poor performance.

Yeah, just bubble on senselessly instead of admitting a simple mistake which can happen to anyone. That's the spirit!

Err... ok. So which mistake should I be admitting, if ever I made one? Please enlighten. Merry Christmas to you too

Err... ok. So which mistake should I be admitting, if ever I made one? Please enlighten. Merry Christmas to you too

Yeah, Merry Christmas!

Yet Grosjean was nowhere to be seen during the first half of the season while Kimi was scoring podiums...and during the second half of the year their roles  kinda switched around when Pirelli changed to 2012 tyres and Lotus to long wheel base. So while Red Bull wasnt as strong, I think Lotus quite well kept their performance over the year....it's just that during the first half the car was better suited for Kimi and during second half it suited better for Grosjean.

Yeah that's true. Hard to tell whether it was Kimi under performing/ Grosean stepping up in the second half or maybe vice versa in the first half of the season. Probably a bit of both. I think the switch to the 2012 tires definitely helped Grosean and took away some of Kimi's advantage resulting in Groseans impressive second half.

Luca has short memory...

Late 1990s Schumacher is as good, if not better than Fernando.

 

If Kimi beats Fernando next year, what's Luca gonna say?

 

He forgets how bad Ferrari were before Michael was there, 1991-1995, The Scuderia only won TWICE... Then in '96, Michael wins 3 times, which is more than the entire '91-'95 period......

 

Don't get me wrong, Fernando IS the best on the grid, but to say he's THE best Luca has seen is quite high.

I think you also seem to forget that Schumi had an illegal car in the mid 90s . he was even banned for a race or 2... He had a significant traction advantage... and he also drove Hill into the wall to win the championship.  You also seem to forget that Schumi was up against hill ...was he ever rated as high as vettle or alonso? and you also seem to forget that in late 90s the tires were developed to his taste his liking and to his inputs.... .. you also seem to forget  he had todt  brawn rory ... he has the dream team.. and ferrari did more testing than anyone else... so multiple things fell in place for him..schumi was a great driver and i respect him but ppl tend to forget he had many things working in his favor. Ferrari also had huge influence in banning key developments of their competitors banned like beryllium mercedes engine. 

Edited by MJ999, 25 December 2013 - 22:45.

I think you also seem to forget that Schumi had an illegal car in the mid 90s . he was even banned for a race or 2... He had a significant traction advantage... and he also drove Hill into the wall to win the championship.  You also seem to forget that Schumi was up against hill ...was he ever rated as high as vettle or alonso? and you also seem to forget that in late 90s the tires were developed to his taste his liking and to his inputs.... .. you also seem to forget  he had todt  brawn rory ... he has the dream team.. and ferrari did more testing than anyone else... so multiple things fell in place for him..schumi was a great driver and i respect him but ppl tend to forget he had many things working in his favor. Ferrari also had huge influence in banning key developments of their competitors banned like beryllium mercedes engine. 

1) Furthermore, he had "Brawn-2009-esque" material in the first 5 or 6 gp-weekends in 1994. Don't anyone dare to say, "errrm, but what about Verstappen?" First, what is a Verstappen? I mean, without any F1 experience, Paul Tracy looked by in September 1994 during Estoril tests and set a time that was good enough for a fifth place in the Estoril qualifying which took place in the same month as those tests (meaning probably very similar weather and track conditions), whereas Verstappen and Lehto could only manage to be10th and 13th or  something like that in the Estoril-qualifying. So, neither Verstappen nor Lehto were real references.

2) In all his first four Ferrari years with all those runner-up championships, Schumacher had a much better car than Alonso did in his first four Ferrari years (plus one runner-up championship more for Alonso, btw, but that's not the point). Why better car? Well I think that when even Irvine could manage 5 podiums alone in 1997 whereas Massa only got 2 podiums more than 5 within THREE years (2010, 2011, 2012), then there's plenty of stuff to think about. And I'm not even mentioning the 1998 car which was even more impressive than let's say... all of the red cars from 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013.

Edited by MetallurgicalHedonist, 26 December 2013 - 00:30.

Well I think that when even Irvine could manage 5 podiums alone in 1997 whereas Massa only got 2 podiums more than 5 within THREE years (2010, 2011, 2012), then there's plenty of stuff to think about. And I'm not even mentioning the 1998 car which was even more impressive than let's say... all of the red cars from 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013.

Small addition: there is even more stuff to think about when you take into consideration that even Irvine in the 1998 car could get as many podiums as Massa in those freaking four last years combined at Ferrari (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013), unless everybody thinks that Massa was such a useless scarecrow after his tragic accident. Then we would have an explanation. But even if Massa wasn't the same after hungaro09, has he been really THAT useless since then, that he couldn't get much more podiums and better results overall than those poor amount of 8 podiums in four years? So, I guess all the cars combined (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013) were donkeys.

Now hang on guys.

In 1994

http://espn.go.com/a...04/1062927.html - There was launch control software found, but no evidence of it actually being used, traction control software and launch control software were found in other cars.

Also

 

 

The World Motor Sport Council hearing surrounding Benetton and the fuel fire at Hockenheim was brought forward to September 7, with the disqualification of Schumacher at the Belgian Grand Prix also moved to the same day.^[28] The night before the hearing, however, the FIA were informed by Larrousse, one of the other teams competing in the championship, that they were informed by Intertechnique in May to remove the filter from the refuelling rig, a point Flavio Briatore made in prior meetings that all but four teams had removed the filter. The FIA in the hearing judged that Benetton had not tried to cheat by removing the filter from the refuelling rig, but the governing body did say that the team removed it without authorisation from  to try to gain an advantage.^[1] Thus the team were found guilty of the offence, but escaped punishment due to this valid plea in mitigation.^[9]                                                                

 The only other rumblings of foul play in terms of Schumi having a advantage came from Jos in relation to their own teammates battle, who claimed that Schumi was using electronic aids during 1994. According to Byron Young (a known Schumi hater) Johnny Herbert made similar claims that Schumi was favored.

http://joesaward.wor...-as-he-sees-it/

These could very well could be sour grapes though, and there is not real evidence to confirm it if we are honest.

It does all look very shady, and we can all give our opinion (I believe that the Benetton used launch control in 1994, and several observers and experts agree with me) but outside of that there is little to no evidence of outright cheating, or Schumacher himself being aware of any foul play.

Edited by sennafan24, 26 December 2013 - 01:11.

Sorry, but before getting a pain in the ***, here comes another very small addition to what I've written and LdM has said (namely that Alonso is the best driver he's ever met):

Alonso has, after 2012, arrived in the zone where one could really seriously discuss, whether Alonso is even better than Senna. To such an extent is Alonso's performance. And I'm a die-hard Senna fan who writes this.

, Paul Tracy looked by in September 1994 during Estoril tests and set a time that was good enough for a fifth place in the Estoril qualifying which took place in the same month as those tests (meaning probably very similar weather and track conditions), whereas Verstappen and Lehto could only manage to be10th and 13th or  something like that in the Estoril-qualifying. So, neither Verstappen nor Lehto were real references.

 

 

Interesting, but that does still not directly act as evidence that Schumi and Tracy were gifted better equipment, or were granted illegal aids. It might show that Verstappen and Lehto were sub-par drivers though, but even then one could argue that the data Tracy logged was inconclusive as it was set at a different time and date, the track could very well have been very different in terms of its conditions (track evolution)

I am not outright saying there was not foul play in 1994, I actually believe there was, but there will never be hard evidence to prove it.

Now hang on guys.

 

In 1994

 

http://espn.go.com/a...04/1062927.html - There was launch control software found, but no evidence of it actually being used, traction control software and launch control software were found in other cars.

 

What's the last left corner in Interlagos called before the "engine part" of the track begins? Mergulho or Juncao? Nah, I think it's Juncao. Well, this corner is traditionally very very very slippery and up to that point (Juncao) Senna was 1.5 seconds ahead in the qualifying and in Juncao where you must have a beast of a traction-packed car, after completion of his lap, Senna is only 2 or 3 tenth in front of Schumacher's time. And since the last sector is an engine-sector and the Renault engine was very good, I guess most of the time was lost in this very very very slippery left corner (i.e. Juncao).

No matter what (with or without traction control): the B194 must had been a traction beast.

Small addition: there is even more stuff to think about when you take into consideration that even Irvine in the 1998 car could get as many podiums as Massa in those freaking four last years combined at Ferrari (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013)

Alonso has, after 2012, arrived in the zone where one could really seriously discuss, whether Alonso is even better than Senna. To such an extent is Alonso's performance. And I'm a die-hard Senna fan who writes this.

Edited by Jovanotti, 26 December 2013 - 10:43.

Whenever I read "Die-hard fan" I immediately think they are Bruce Willis fans

Whenever I read "Die-hard fan" I immediately think they are Bruce Willis fans

i like the first two, so I believe I´m a "Die-hard fan" too

Alonso has, after 2012, arrived in the zone where one could really seriously discuss, whether Alonso is even better than Senna. To such an extent is Alonso's performance. And I'm a die-hard Senna fan who writes this.

It is hard to compare eras. And I get there is a argument based on Alonso making less mistakes and not getting tangled up with backmarkers and other cars as much as Senna did. But I still disagree.

Senna was just too fast for me to rate Alonso over him, and by 1991 Senna had a very high consistency level as he adapted when the best of 11 points system was dropped, and drove more carefully to get the most out the system. When he did not have a DNF/or race hindering Mechanical problems in 1991, Senna scored a podium in every race he started. His racecraft was superb, as Berger and Prost never finished more races ahead when both cars finished over a entire season, and I do not have to say anything about his qualifying I think.

Alonso is a great driver, maybe the best of his era, I am actually very 50/50 between Alonso and Schumi, and some will see I am being very generous to even consider Alonso close to Schumi. hence why LDM's comments are so very polarizing. But in relation to Senna, I think Alonso lacks a certain something in his outright speed to be classed as better than Senna, one was quicker in their era relative to the rest of the field than the other.

Now hang on guys.

 

In 1994

 

http://espn.go.com/a...04/1062927.html - There was launch control software found, but no evidence of it actually being used, traction control software and launch control software were found in other cars.

 

Also

 

 

 The only other rumblings of foul play in terms of Schumi having a advantage came from Jos in relation to their own teammates battle, who claimed that Schumi was using electronic aids during 1994. According to Byron Young (a known Schumi hater) Johnny Herbert made similar claims that Schumi was favored.

 

http://joesaward.wor...-as-he-sees-it/

 

These could very well could be sour grapes though, and there is not real evidence to confirm it if we are honest.

 

It does all look very shady, and we can all give our opinion (I believe that the Benetton used launch control in 1994, and several observers and experts agree with me) but outside of that there is little to no evidence of outright cheating, or Schumacher himself being aware of any foul play.

this is taken from wikipedia

After an investigation by Intertechnique at Benetton's team factory, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) revealed that the team had been using an illegal fuel valve, without a fuel filter, that pumped fuel into the car 12.5% faster than a normal, legal fuel valve that had a filter.^[6]

^{12.5% faster  pitstops over the season do the maths how many seconds you end up saving? also please tell me which other team was caught without the fuel filter?}

this is taken from wikipedia

 

After an investigation by Intertechnique at Benetton's team factory, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) revealed that the team had been using an illegal fuel valve, without a fuel filter, that pumped fuel into the car 12.5% faster than a normal, legal fuel valve that had a filter.^[6]

 

 

^{12.5% faster  pitstops over the season do the maths how many seconds you end up saving? also please tell me which other team was caught without the fuel filter?}

We got a warning about this topic above, so I will PM you my response 

Re: Alonso or Schumacher....

For those who say Schumacher had better cars than Fernando is a little bit of leap.

Schumacher TRULY did not have the best car or on equal terms until 2000 season.

Fernando had a good car in 2003 (he made the difference over Trullli, 2004 was a strong second half even though JT won at Monaco. 2005: He had a great car right away, a bit slower than the Mac, 2006 equal car with Schumacher, 2007: most likely the best car) 2008-2009 were slow cars, 2008 he did some incredbile stuff there..

2010-2013: only 2010 or first half of 2013 is where Fernando a car capable of matching RB (Tires, though).... 2011-2012 no way...

Now Schumacher: 1991-1995 the cars he had were not as good as McLaren or Williams in those years. 1996-1999 same thing. 2000 was equal with Mac, a bit slower. Then 2001-2004 best car overall....

Edited by George Costanza, 26 December 2013 - 16:16.

Sorry, but before getting a pain in the ***, here comes another very small addition to what I've written and LdM has said (namely that Alonso is the best driver he's ever met):

 

Alonso has, after 2012, arrived in the zone where one could really seriously discuss, whether Alonso is even better than Senna. To such an extent is Alonso's performance. And I'm a die-hard Senna fan who writes this.

I am sorry, Schumacher's 1997-1998 seasons were on par with Alonso's 2012. You should watch 1997 all over again, espeically Spa 1998 where he was 2-3 seconds faster than anyone else.... In the wet. Before he crashed with DC, it would be even better Spain 1996.

Don't get me wrong, Fernando's 2012 season was among the very best, but to say he's better than Ayrton is not quite sound...

For me, Michael's finest season of racing is 2000. He was under obscene pressure. This where Monty forgets I guess, that Ferrari had not won a WDC since 1979 and it was Michael Schumacher who got it done.

Edited by George Costanza, 26 December 2013 - 16:09.

Current Ferrari chief "insert name here" believes current Ferrari driver "insert name here" is the best driver in F1 history. Current Ferrari driver fan creates thread about current Ferrari chief saying current Ferrari driver is the best after current Ferrari driver is beaten to the WDC once again.

 

 

Now Schumacher: 1991-1995 the cars he had were not as good as McLaren or Williams in those years. 

1991 - Fair enough

1992, I found his performances a tad overrated when I watch back, his first win was down to lucky timing more than anything, and Brundle was closer to Schumi than the stats show.

1993, the Benetton was at least equal to the Mclaren, it had the more powerful engine for 9 or 10 races, but the McLaren did have better traction control in the early stages. 

1994, the Benetton car was the best early, Newey stated just a few months ago that the Williams car was a shambles early on, and only after Senna passed away did it become the best car or at least equal to Benetton. I will concede that one overall, as Schumi did have that race ban, that took away his early advantage he amounted when he had the best car.

1995, I agree, Williams was better, but Schumi had better strategies and made less mistakes.

I do not think Schumi had it as bad these years as made out though. Schumi did have 1996 as a year when he had a sub-par car, but Alonso was fed dogs in 2008 and 2009 which were worse.

Edited by sennafan24, 26 December 2013 - 17:10.

Alonso was great but his 2012 is way overrated, he got very very lucky with other's strategy and pit stop failures and retirements that came just in the right time and that made him look like 'a magician'. Hamilton in 2012 was superior to Alonso in 2012, but that gets overlooked by almost all fans because of McLaren's incompetence.

Alonso was great but his 2012 is way overrated, he got very very lucky with other's strategy and pit stop failures and retirements that came just in the right time and that made him look like 'a magician'. Hamilton in 2012 was superior to Alonso in 2012, but that gets overlooked by almost all fans because of McLaren's incompetence.

You will get roasted for posting that probably, but I actually agree to a extent 

Alonso was great but his 2012 is way overrated, he got very very lucky with other's strategy and pit stop failures and retirements that came just in the right time and that made him look like 'a magician'. Hamilton in 2012 was superior to Alonso in 2012, but that gets overlooked by almost all fans because of McLaren's incompetence.

I don't think that Hamilton was "superior" to Alonso in 2012, but he did perform at least on par that year.

IMO Alonso's 2006 was stronger than his 2012.

Alonso was great but his 2012 is way overrated, he got very very lucky with other's strategy and pit stop failures and retirements that came just in the right time and that made him look like 'a magician'. Hamilton in 2012 was superior to Alonso in 2012, but that gets overlooked by almost all fans because of McLaren's incompetence.

With all due respect, I find it sursprising that you think that the F1 pundits and paddock members would be so easily fooled, while some enlightened fans wouldn't. Alonso's 2012 season won him praise not just from armchair experts, but from the people in the know.

And yes, Hamilton did have a very good year too; that was also acknowledged by people who know a thing or two about F1, but they explained their resons for ranking him slightly below Alonso at the time. For example,

http://www.jamesalle...rivers-of-2012/

http://sports.ndtv.c...drivers-of-2012

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

http://www.racer.com...ticle/270645/2/

Alonso was great but his 2012 is way overrated, he got very very lucky with other's strategy and pit stop failures and retirements that came just in the right time and that made him look like 'a magician'. Hamilton in 2012 was superior to Alonso in 2012, but that gets overlooked by almost all fans because of McLaren's incompetence.

Hamilton had a great season, but not superior to Alonso's for me, Alonso's 2012 was a once in a career type of season. Id say Vettel's 2013 campaign was the same.

Hard to award one of these to Hamilton, yet. I think there is more to come.

I am sorry, Schumacher's 1997-1998 seasons were on par with Alonso's 2012. You should watch 1997 all over again, espeically Spa 1998 where he was 2-3 seconds faster than anyone else.... In the wet. Before he crashed with DC, it would be even better Spain 1996.

 

Don't get me wrong, Fernando's 2012 season was among the very best, but to say he's better than Ayrton is not quite sound...

 

For me, Michael's finest season of racing is 2000. He was under obscene pressure. This where Monty forgets I guess, that Ferrari had not won a WDC since 1979 and it was Michael Schumacher who got it done.

yes schumi won and he did a great job but everyone wanted ferrari to win and bridgestone chose the hard compound for suzuka to newey's surprise...mclaren needed the softer compound to make their car work. also you have to remember mclaren was far more unreliable than ferrari that year...and in qualifying ferrari had the edge .

Alonso was great but his 2012 is way overrated, he got very very lucky with other's strategy and pit stop failures and retirements that came just in the right time and that made him look like 'a magician'. Hamilton in 2012 was superior to Alonso in 2012, but that gets overlooked by almost all fans because of McLaren's incompetence.

I agree, however, it is never just the driver.  Alonso/Ferrari is overrated for 2012 relative to other combinations.  For example, it was well below that of Hamilton/Macca and Vettel/RBR,  But that is not to take away from Alonso/Ferrari's performance on the whole, which was very good - just not better than Hamilton/Macca or Vettel/RBR.

Still it is not unnatural for the team head honcho to praise his driver and proclaim him the best.  To be honest, I find his abundant praise of Vettel in that same speech more noteworthy.

Edited by bourbon, 27 December 2013 - 00:32.

Easy: 1998 was McLaren vs. Ferrari, the competition during the last years was much more intense.
 

Really? And, nevertheless, Alonso was much much closer to the championship in more than one of those "much-more-intense" seasons (2010, 2012) than Schumacher (e.g. in 1998).

It is hard to compare eras. And I get there is a argument based on Alonso making less mistakes and not getting tangled up with backmarkers and other cars as much as Senna did. But I still disagree.

 

Senna was just too fast for me to rate Alonso over him, and by 1991 Senna had a very high consistency level as he adapted when the best of 11 points system was dropped, and drove more carefully to get the most out the system. When he did not have a DNF/or race hindering Mechanical problems in 1991, Senna scored a podium in every race he started. His racecraft was superb, as Berger and Prost never finished more races ahead when both cars finished over a entire season, and I do not have to say anything about his qualifying I think.

 

Alonso is a great driver, maybe the best of his era, I am actually very 50/50 between Alonso and Schumi, and some will see I am being very generous to even consider Alonso close to Schumi. hence why LDM's comments are so very polarizing. But in relation to Senna, I think Alonso lacks a certain something in his outright speed to be classed as better than Senna, one was quicker in their era relative to the rest of the field than the other.

Oh, not to be misunderstood: I don't rate him above Senna. Probably no one is. He is "the man" (and that still underrates him). What I said was, that, after 2012, Alonso reached the zone where one can discuss, whether he is above or at least on par with Senna.

I am sorry, Schumacher's 1997-1998 seasons were on par with Alonso's 2012. You should watch 1997 all over again, espeically Spa 1998 where he was 2-3 seconds faster than anyone else.... In the wet. Before he crashed with DC, it would be even better Spain 1996.

There was a car/team which was clearly better than Ferrari, namely RedBull (which was the same in 1997 or 1998 from Ferrari's perspective... in those years the better cars were Williams-Renault 1997 and McLaren-Mercedes 1998 respectively). But in addition to that, in 2012, there were other teams (yes, team"S" not one team) which were, to put it mildy, also not really worse than Ferrari (namely McLaren and sometimes Lotus and sometimes even Mercedes). And in all of those mentioned other teams (McLaren, Lotus, Mercedes), there were sitting zillions of WDCs (4 out of those 6 cockpits were occupied by WDCs, to be accurate). And still look at Alonsos achievements in that year alone.

Not in 1,000 years were 1998 or 1997 nearly as impressive as Alonso's 2012.

In that case, let's say, apart from the team which was, in 1998, stronger than Ferrari (namely McLaren), Williams should've been additionally at least as strong as Ferrari in that year with both other champs of that time, Hill and Villeneuve, sitting in the Williams cars. That would be comparable to Alonso's 2012.

 

1992, I found his performances a tad overrated when I watch back, his first win was down to lucky timing more than anything, and Brundle was closer to Schumi than the stats show.

 

After sorting out his "problems" in the first four gp-weekends, Brundle was, in most of the remaining races, permanently only one, two or three seconds around Schumacher, may it a few seconds infront or behind him (Silverstone, Hockenheim, Monza). Also in those cases where one of them DNFd (Imola, Canada, Hungary). And even in Belgium up to that incident where Schumacher changed the strategy, Brundle was following him like a shadow, even in the rain.

Brundle is so underrated regarding Schumacher's teammates. I would even go that far to say that, up until N.Rosberg, Brundle was the best / strongest teammate Schumacher ever had who raced against him as a teammate, at least one full season.

I should stress I consider Lewis and Alonso tops for 2012, pretty even. With Seb 3rd. That is just my rating on pure driving ability (do not worry Seb fans. I had them in reverse order in 2013 to what I had them in 2012) I get why Alonso's 2012 is such acclaimed, but I believe Lewis deserves equal credit. I actually watched the 2012 season review this past week, and my perception is that Alonso's 2012 is brilliant, but I have seen better.

As someone said above, 2006 is at least equal, maybe better.

Either way, I think I will review this comment in a year, as next year is a very stern test for Alonso with who his teammate is. There is more pressure next year, than there was this year in my view.

Edited by sennafan24, 27 December 2013 - 00:50.

yes schumi won and he did a great job but everyone wanted ferrari to win and bridgestone chose the hard compound for suzuka to newey's surprise...mclaren needed the softer compound to make their car work. also you have to remember mclaren was far more unreliable than ferrari that year...and in qualifying ferrari had the edge .

The Ferrari was not the quicker car, 14 out of 17 fastest laps were McLaren's. And fastest laps were Michael's forte, he only had two all season.  It only held a slight edge in qualifying. I still think that if Mika's engine did not fail in USA GP, it would have been anyone's guess at Sepang, but with a SLIGHT edge to Michael and Ferrari.

And, do you recall Schumi's poor summer run that season, starting at Monaco? Suspension failure, Engine failure in France, Accident in Germany and Austria. Mika's car retired in the first two races, and of course USA. He actually finished more races than Schumi. It's just that Michael drove unbelieveable in the last four races. Any mishap, Mika would have been the champion that season.

Edited by George Costanza, 27 December 2013 - 01:08.

I should stress I consider Lewis and Alonso tops for 2012, pretty even. With Seb 3rd. That is just my rating on pure driving ability (do not worry Seb fans. I had them in reverse order in 2013 to what I had them in 2012) I get why Alonso's 2012 is such acclaimed, but I believe Lewis deserves equal credit. I actually watched the 2012 season review this past week, and my perception is that Alonso's 2012 is brilliant, but I have seen better.

 

As someone said above, 2006 is at least equal, maybe better.

 

Either way, I think I will review this comment in a year, as next year is a very stern test for Alonso with who his teammate is. There is more pressure next year, than there was this year in my view.

Fernando's first half of 2006 was very dominant.... A first class display. BUT would I put it better than 2012 or 2013? probably not.

Fernando's first half of 2006 was very dominant.... A first class display. BUT would I put it better than 2012 or 2013? probably not.

2013? Interesting choice my man, I felt Alonso's 2013 was vastly underrated by some, but still a notch below his 2012 and 2006 efforts.

Alonso's 2006 was dominant, but like Seb in 2013, he maximized his chances when the car was lacking and when the car was strong, he adapted to both scenarios well, some drivers cannot do that.

As others have said, it is interesting timing for LDM to say these things, but I do not think the chocie of Alonso as best driver in recent memory is as laugable some make it out to  be.

Really? And, nevertheless, Alonso was much much closer to the championship in more than one of those "much-more-intense" seasons (2010, 2012) than Schumacher (e.g. in 1998).

 

 

Oh, not to be misunderstood: I don't rate him above Senna. Probably no one is. He is "the man" (and that still underrates him). What I said was, that, after 2012, Alonso reached the zone where one can discuss, whether he is above or at least on par with Senna.

 

 

There was a car/team which was clearly better than Ferrari, namely RedBull (which was the same in 1997 or 1998 from Ferrari's perspective... in those years the better cars were Williams-Renault 1997 and McLaren-Mercedes 1998 respectively). But in addition to that, in 2012, there were other teams (yes, team"S" not one team) which were, to put it mildy, also not really worse than Ferrari (namely McLaren and sometimes Lotus and sometimes even Mercedes). And in all of those mentioned other teams (McLaren, Lotus, Mercedes), there were sitting zillions of WDCs (4 out of those 6 cockpits were occupied by WDCs, to be accurate). And still look at Alonsos achievements in that year alone.

 

Not in 1,000 years were 1998 or 1997 nearly as impressive as Alonso's 2012.

 

In that case, let's say, apart from the team which was, in 1998, stronger than Ferrari (namely McLaren), Williams should've been additionally at least as strong as Ferrari in that year with both other champs of that time, Hill and Villeneuve, sitting in the Williams cars. That would be comparable to Alonso's 2012.

 

 

After sorting out his "problems" in the first four gp-weekends, Brundle was, in most of the remaining races, permanently only one, two or three seconds around Schumacher, may it a few seconds infront or behind him (Silverstone, Hockenheim, Monza). Also in those cases where one of them DNFd (Imola, Canada, Hungary). And even in Belgium up to that incident where Schumacher changed the strategy, Brundle was following him like a shadow, even in the rain.

 

Brundle is so underrated regarding Schumacher's teammates. I would even go that far to say that, up until N.Rosberg, Brundle was the best / strongest teammate Schumacher ever had who raced against him as a teammate, at least one full season.

Good Points, sir. yes Schu was up aganist JV and Hill, who were not in the same class as Seb, Fred, Kimi or Lewis.... BUT what he did in 1994-1995 or even 1996 aganist a surpremely dominant Williams team (far more dominant than Red Bull of current era and even more dominant than Ferraris in 2000s) Given what JV and Hill could do in THOSE Williams, now IMAGINE what Ayrton or Schumacher could have done in those cars, would be quite a show... People forget that Damon Hill could have very well been a 3 time WDC himself, which would put him in quite esteem category....