Fernando Alonso - The Inheritor

Everyone inherits victory from time to time, don't know whats so weird about it.

Imagine how weird it must feel for Nick Heidfeld...

2006 - shuey engine going in suzuka help nando

People who genuinely think that, are those fans who started watching F1 at the end of the season (probably because it had previously clashed with their favorite reality show)
As already mentioned here, Michael gained 18 points previously due to 'nando's' 2 failures
Also note, shuey's engine let go after Alonso closed him down, the same scenario as today.

Sure, what else could it be but bitterness that's making me laugh at suggestions how Hamilton drove a wheelbarrow onto the podium today.

Well, whatever it is, it's definitely causing you to wildly exaggerate! The McLaren was clearly a wheelie bin.

Many people use same argument for why did McLaren keep Hamilton instead of Alonso

Alonso left McLaren on his own volition. It wasn't a case of being fired.

But the fact still remains; 50% of his legit wins where inherited. Is it not ?

Everyone inherited something out of somebody's retirement. Didnt Hamilton and Button inherit in Turkey due to Red Bulls clashing? Didnt Hamilton inherit in Silverstone due to Vettel's mistake? Didnt Fernando's crash in Monaco benefit Lewis?

That leaves us with Red Bull who have had overall the best package of the three. Why havent they won the championship still? Chances are few in F1 to get things right and mount a championship challenge. But they are falling over themselves in the process.

You should stop watching sports if retirements trouble you so much.

This is Alonso bash thread with many haters trying to find excuses for his great drive, but that doesn't mean you can troll. Button is usually a good measure of how good the car is, and McLaren was horrible today, Hamilton could not do better than 2nd with this car today even without his error.

Not to mention that Alonso list his place to Hamilton with his own mistake so I guess that makes them even in mistakes today.

Alonso took responsibility for the pitstop - but if you watch it from the overhead shot you can see he was on the mark.
Hamilton was passed by two drivers - one of them when he left the track.

So not even close, and Alonso's extra pace at the end nailed that fact to the wall.
Lady luck shone on Hamilton who started 4th, was passed twice and finished - second!?

But otherwise they were inseparable, yeah..!

This thread is a fail but there are really a few that believe that some driver's luck their way into wins and championships.

Hell, today, in the proper Alonso thread I heard Mansell lucked himself to 31 race victories and Keke Rosberg won his title by picking up the scraps.

So whats the big deal?

The fact is that Alonso is THE luckiest F1 driver to ever live. Nothing wrong with that, only its kinda hard to admit that for his fans...

The combination with him being a great driver, above mentioned luck and Ferrari that is now equally best with RBR is almost invincible

This year only :

He was gifted three wins, got extremely lucky with safety cars in Melbourne and Monaco, that 2nd place in Barcelona got some serious "touch from heaven"...you really cant get more luckier.

So what´s the big deal?

The fact is that Alonso is THE luckiest F1 driver ever to live. He is excellent in all conditions, has enormous commitment, is a great developer, is a team leader in the vein of Lauda, Senna and Schumacher and is a dream for sponsors because of his great and sympathetic personality.

That combination with him being a great driver and the above mentioned luck to be born with such excellent qualities means that we are looking possibly at another "era Ferrari" like the one that Schumacher pulled off just a few years earlier.

This year alone: he was there to collect three gifted wins - where were the other drivers when those wins were on offer?

guys won 3 of the last 4 races...

and to his credit, when he was ~50pts behind during the year he NEVER gave up... and was always positive about still being in it...

Ever heard the saying "You make your own luck"?

Many people use same argument for why did McLaren keep Hamilton instead of Alonso

As if it was McLaren's decision to part ways

Alonso left McLaren on his own volition. It wasn't a case of being fired.

It was a mutual decision. Mclaren didn't want Alonso there anymore than he wanted to stay.

"Since I was a boy I had always wanted to drive for McLaren, but sometimes in life things do not work out. I continue to believe that McLaren is a great team.

"Yes, we have had our ups and downs during the season, which has made it extra-challenging for all of us, and it is not a secret that I never really felt at home.

"I know there have been suggestions of favouritism within the team and people say a lot of things in the heat of battle, but in the end I was always provided with an equal opportunity to win."

"We all believe that our joint decision to part company is for the best, and we will now continue to focus on our 2008 World Championship challenge."

Edited by tifosiMac, 27 October 2010 - 10:56.

As if it was McLaren's decision to part ways

Well they would have had the final decision if a contract was being terminated wouldn't they?

Edited by tifosiMac, 27 October 2010 - 10:55.

Well they would have had the final decision if a contract was being terminated wouldn't they?

Not necessarily, if you give your employer a notice, you can break the contract too, can't you?

Not necessarily, if you give your employer a notice, you can break the contract too, can't you?

"We all believe that our joint decision to part company is for the best, and we will now continue to focus on our 2008 World Championship challenge."

guys won 3 of the last 4 races...

and to his credit, when he was ~50pts behind during the year he NEVER gave up... and was always positive about still being in it...

Yep.

Didn't Mclaren chase Alonso away from a meeting at some point?

Didn't Mclaren chase Alonso away from a meeting at some point?

They had a meeting with Alonso and his manager 2 weeks after the end of the season, after which the separation was announced.

The Times reported the team fired him, and that fits IMO with the 2-week wait because I feel if Fernando was going to walk he'd have done that straight away. Anyway if he was fired that means he was up for taking on Lewis the next year, so credit to him for that.

Anyway on topic you have to be there to inherit, those wins are perfectly respectable IMO.

Today Fernando managed his tires really well. I am quite impressed by that. He was in a good position to challenge Vettel in the last few laps, but Vettel had engine failure before we could see any moves being made. If racing so competently makes Alonso an 'inheritor', well, then many F1 drivers can learn a thing or two from him.

No doubt he did.
But I seriously doubt he would have challenged Vettel in the closing stages.

Webber was out. His own engines are in short supply and one DNF while overtaking (in the dark) may have put paid to his chances.
Hamilton probably would ve tried but Alonso - i think not. He is smarter.

No doubt he did.
But I seriously doubt he would have challenged Vettel in the closing stages.

Webber was out. His own engines are in short supply and one DNF while overtaking (in the dark) may have put paid to his chances.
Hamilton probably would ve tried but Alonso - i think not. He is smarter.

IMO it would all depend on how Vettels tyres would do in the last laps. Hamilton and Massa had theirs shot completely, what would have happened with Vettels would have decided if Alonso would have had a go or not. Being hypothetically 3 to 4 sec faster, a move would have been fairly straightforward and not very risky.

All speculation of course.

But the fact still remains; 50% of his legit wins where inherited. Is it not ?

No, not really.

Let me start by explaining one thing: if you look at F1 as a team sport, suddenly things such as better reliability became part of the good work of the winning team, and not "luck".

Usually what you find is that there is a trade-off between speed and reliability, and not just for the car but for the driver too: a faster car/driver usually is more prone to failures. The best car/driver is not necessarily the fastest, nor the more reliable, but the one that finds the perfect balance between both aspects so that it optimises performance/maximises results.

If we leave aside for a second the impact that the driver may have, you could claim that winning because you have the fastest car is as "lucky" as winning because you have the most reliable one: in both cases you get the win because of a certain feature of your car and not because of your better driving skills.

From my point of view, the best driver is the one that knows the limits of his car, and pushes it to the point where he gets the best results - either because of a higher speed or of a better reliability. And the best car is the one that gives its driver the widest performance range, so that he can press other cars/drivers on their weakest point, speed or reliability.

So in general I don't really believe on "inherited" wins: if you get a win after another competitor has failed either because of a driver mistake or of a mechanical problem, it is because you did better than him either because of superior driving skills or a superior car - and that is as much a real win as getting first to the finishing line thanks to your car being the fastest.

Now, I fully agree that in certain situations it becomes obvious that Lady Luck has been on somebody's side; but to claim that luck is the key factor in 50% of somebody's wins is not realistic: the person on the receiving end must be doing something really well to get those results consistently. It becomes what is known as "the champion's luck" - it looks casual, but if you look hard into it it is mostly due to hard work.

In order to win first you have to finish.

Get it right. It's "In order to finish 1st first you have to finish."

You have every right to be upset about your favourite driver losing the title, but there is absolutely no need to bash the winning driver for that.


2005 - I think both Raikkönen and Alonso had an excellent season, both with very few mistakes, and exploited almost every opportunity that was given to them. Kimi generally won when his car was good enough and Alonso generally won when his car was good enough. That Kimi would have won more races than Alonso without the car problems is down to the fact that he had a faster car through most of the season. After the first few races, Renault opted for a slightly slower, but more reliable car, while McLaren had to take risks and go for the faster yet more unreliable car. If Kimi had had a reliable engine, maybe the car wouldn't have been so fast, you know, everything has its cost... That season's result didn't depend on the drivers IMO, both would have deserved it fully. I think their performance was equal. Alonso had a better car, so he won the WDC - why should we bash him for that?

2006 - I think Alonso drove better than Schuey overall, or at least equal, his performance was definetely not worse - and if you mention Suzuka, why don't you mention the other races where Alonso's car failed?
It's very difficult to judge two drivers' performance in comparison to each other, especially in a season like 2006 when neither Renault nor Ferrari was dominant, so many fans might say that Schumacher drove better for this reason or for that reason.... and as I said we can't really judge that, so it's acceptable to argue that Michael should have won because of his superior driving skills (even though I don't agree with that at all, as for 2006).
But... saying that Schumacher deserved it more because of Suzuka, and that Alonso won it by luck? Just because it happened at the end of the season and not some races earlier than Monza and Hungary?

2010 - This one is the most arguable because Alonso hasn't been at his best this year... He's made many mistakes, he got angry over things he shouldn't have, he lost many points due to his own fault. Okay, you might say that Vettel drove better and also that he deserves the WDC more. It's clear that Vettel had more problems with the car. It's also clear that without these problems, he would lead the WDC... but that's because Red Bull's had the fastest car in the majority of the races.
Look at what I said about 2005, similar things apply to 2010. The fact that he's up in P1 usually and he 'should have' won the most races doesn't necessarily mean that he has been the best driver - it means that he's better than Webber, but you can't really compare him to drivers in other cars.
Look at Sunday's Korean GP - how can you tell that Vettel drove better than Alonso? Why are you (Vettel fans) so sure? Can't it be that Red Bull is a faster car? And can't it be that Alonso was driving just as well in that Ferrari, but only in P3 because the two guys in front of him were sitting in a faster car? And if we say that Vettel's and Alonso's performance were equal (because they both reached the maximum positions - P1 by Vettel in the fastest car and P3 by Alonso in the second fastest car), than why bash Alonso just because his team prepared better engines? And you really shouldn't bash him for taking P2 because of Webber's own mistake...
F1 is a team sport where the car is more important than the driver in terms of results, that's a truth you have to accept if you want to follow motorsport. Your driver is winning because of the car, losing because of the car or because of his mistakes (except those very few occasions when crashes with another driver). He is not losing because the other driver is lucky....

I think Vettel would deserve this WDC. But he can't win it, because he doesn't have a good enough car - too bad. But it's not Alonso's fault... And Alonso drove some exraordinary races, I don't think he would be soooo undeserving of this WDC as you make it out... It would be his 'worst' WDC, but still deserved more than some other WDCs in F1 history, I think.

To sum it up: you can bash Alonso for spygate, crashgate, or many other things if you'd like, but why bash him for the mistakes which the mechanics of other teams/engine suppliers made...?

Edited by postajegenye, 27 October 2010 - 18:01.

No, not really.

Let me start by explaining one thing: if you look at F1 as a team sport, suddenly things such as better reliability became part of the good work of the winning team, and not "luck".

Usually what you find is that there is a trade-off between speed and reliability, and not just for the car but for the driver too: a faster car/driver usually is more prone to failures. The best car/driver is not necessarily the fastest, nor the more reliable, but the one that finds the perfect balance between both aspects so that it optimises performance/maximises results.

If we leave aside for a second the impact that the driver may have, you could claim that winning because you have the fastest car is as "lucky" as winning because you have the most reliable one: in both cases you get the win because of a certain feature of your car and not because of your better driving skills.

From my point of view, the best driver is the one that knows the limits of his car, and pushes it to the point where he gets the best results - either because of a higher speed or of a better reliability. And the best car is the one that gives its driver the widest performance range, so that he can press other cars/drivers on their weakest point, speed or reliability.

So in general I don't really believe on "inherited" wins: if you get a win after another competitor has failed either because of a driver mistake or of a mechanical problem, it is because you did better than him either because of superior driving skills or a superior car - and that is as much a real win as getting first to the finishing line thanks to your car being the fastest.

Now, I fully agree that in certain situations it becomes obvious that Lady Luck has been on somebody's side; but to claim that luck is the key factor in 50% of somebody's wins is not realistic: the person on the receiving end must be doing something really well to get those results consistently. It becomes what is known as "the champion's luck" - it looks casual, but if you look hard into it it is mostly due to hard work.

Very good points and I agree with most of them. As a team Ferrari won fair and square and there was no luck involved. As a driver Alonso was lucky but, as you put it, it's the luck of champions. In other words if he was not doing the best with the car he had and wasn't up there to collect, no amount of luck would make him win. My only objection is when you say that the best driver is the one who knows the limits of the car. When it comes to mechanical failure, specially the one Vettel sufered last sunday, the drivers have very little control over it. Gone are the days of manual gear shifting and no telemetry. Nowadays every aspect of the motor performance is monitored by the pit crew and any necessary parameters change are relayed to the driver by his engineer and the driver changes it no questions asked.

Alonso has had his share of luck but i think since pretty much since 05 every champ has had some luck.

2005 - unreliable macca helps alonso

Forgot about the 2005 season when McLaren was throwing away the championship by reliability problems, despite KR outpacing FA regularly.

I think some people need to understand that winning in F1 isn't just about being the fastest guy out there. If it was, why race on Sunday after qualifying ?

I think some people need to understand that winning in F1 isn't just about being the fastest guy out there. If it was, why race on Sunday after qualifying ?

Well said

Forgot about the 2005 season when McLaren was throwing away the championship by reliability problems, despite KR outpacing FA regularly.

You make it sound like Kimi did all the good work, McLaren the bad work. Fact is, Kimi wouldn't have been out-pacing Alonso if the McLaren wasn't so blindingly fast, so you can't blame McLaren without also giving them credit for giving the chance to fight in the first place. Also, the fact Kimi's car often broke rather than Montoya's suggests the influence of the driver on reliability.
As someone else said: winning isn't just about blinding speed.

Edited by topical, 30 October 2010 - 07:22.

Another unsuccessful attempt to take away achievements from Alonso.

In 2006 Schumi retired in Suzuka, but Alonso retired in Monza while hunting down 2nd place and in Hungary when he lost a wheel; he also lost a win in China thanks to the same mechanic and Renault's election of tires.

This happens to everyone, including Massa in Hungary 2008 or others. There's no such thing as inheriting. Reliability is just another factor in the game and it counts as muchs as car speed or driver skills. Pushing the driver ahead is just another means to make him force his machinery and it might turn out fruitful as proved.

If Alonso wins the WDC this year then he will deserve it. If he does win it I just hope it's by more than 7 points so we can avoid the inevitable team order **** storm.

But it ain't over yet! The last raced showed us anything can happen, Alonso could suffer a DNF and that could change everything.

Once more!

Don't worry about Alonso, Mark is going to take him out in the race.

Once more!

I can smell the frustration from here...
Anyway you should wait until the end of the race to see how everything develops.
But I understand this thread is kind of a free ticket to have a go to certain driver. I mean, you can say whatever you want now, knowing that if tomorrow or in the next one Alonso does not finish the race, nobody is going to bump this thread to show how pointless it is.

I agree that Alonso is the biggest inheritor ever, but he puts himself in that position. Don't know what's problem with that.

Having supported a group of drivers during the last 25 years that always seamed to be struck by bad luck whenever they would be in a good position, yes I have some frustration built in. I have no issue to recognize that Alonso is the best driver on the grid by a margin, he does an awesome job at putting himself on the position to capitalize from others misfortune, I just wished he would get less opportunities to do that

Suzuka 2006 was an amazing race from him. From memory he was behind both toyotas and both ferraris off the startline, yet by the end of the all pitstops he was a handful of seconds behind schumacher and catching him, forcing ferrari to push extra hard and arguably contributed to his engine failure.

Yep, and I've been watching the 2006 season review - Alonso and Schumacher suffered bad luck. I think it evened out by the end.

Once more!

The race hasn't even started yet.

Wow we've got great diggers around here

Don't worry about Alonso, Mark is going to take him out in the race.

That's where Massa comes into play.

Forgot about the 2005 season when McLaren was throwing away the championship by reliability problems, despite KR outpacing FA regularly.

BS. Raikkonen was never faster than Alonso. It was just a matter of the MP4-20 being a considerably faster car than the R25.

You make it sound like Kimi did all the good work, McLaren the bad work. Fact is, Kimi wouldn't have been out-pacing Alonso if the McLaren wasn't so blindingly fast, so you can't blame McLaren without also giving them credit for giving the chance to fight in the first place. Also, the fact Kimi's car often broke rather than Montoya's suggests the influence of the driver on reliability.
As someone else said: winning isn't just about blinding speed.

Montoya's car failed too people just tend to remember Kimi's dNFs because he was competing against Alonso for the WDC. But you are right the Mclaren was a bullet compared to the Renault.

BS. Raikkonen was never faster than Alonso. It was just a matter of the MP4-20 being a considerably faster car than the R25.

Because it was being driven faster?

Suzuka 2006
Korea 2010

Each time he was good enough to be in a position to profit from the bad luck of his direct competitors, but he is definitely also kissed by Fortuna, the Goddess of Luck.

Valencia 2012

Having supported a group of drivers during the last 25 years that always seamed to be struck by bad luck whenever they would be in a good position, yes I have some frustration built in. I have no issue to recognize that Alonso is the best driver on the grid by a margin, he does an awesome job at putting himself on the position to capitalize from others misfortune, I just wished he would get less opportunities to do that

I understand what you say. But others could think that you are even luckier if you inherite a car that is a rocket and you can not profit from anybody's misfortune since your car puts you and your team mate on P1 and P2.

For every "inherited" win or good luck, there some is bad luck, its the same for all drivers.

For example, Fernando inherited from Schumacher in Suzuka, but was on the end of a FIA farce at Monza (combined with an engine blowout), a wheel nut not on properly when he was the lead of Hungarian GP that year too.

For every "inherited" win or good luck, there some is bad luck, its the same for all drivers.

What a ridicule statement. Luck does not even out, otherwise Alesi would be WDC (not that I think he'd be a worthy camp, quite the contrary). Count how many wins FA inheretited because the guy in front of him in P1 hit trouble, and how many he lost

You make it sound like Kimi did all the good work, McLaren the bad work.

Actually this sounds like coming from a mouth from today´s LH fan. McLaren let down Kimi back then

Don't worry about Alonso, Mark is going to take him out in the race.

I'm gonna hate him if he doesn't

What is happening is scandalous. I don't know of any other sports other than F1 and World Wrestling Federation where they artificially arrange winners and losers in the name of providing "excitement and competition". At least the wrestlers know that beforehand when they sign up.

Actually someone should tell Maldonado that "his specialty" is very ethical in one circumstance.

Edited by jerriy, 04 November 2012 - 01:05.