62 replies to this topic

[prty]

I think this deserves a topic on it's own.

http://esporte.uol.c...a-de-massa.jhtm (original article)
http://forum.planet-...mp;#msg_2605211 (translation)

Q: What was it like to deal with Briatore and Fernando Alonso inside Renault?

NP: Between me and Alonso, it was normal, no problems, we were friends… Of course, he is a smart driver and would never open the door to me, but when I needed, he talked to me, he was never arrogant. Briatore has a different character, it is harder to deal with him, a man who loves to scream, so, I did my job there and didn’t get much involved.

Q: And you never blamed Alonso in this whole saga…

NP: I think it wasn’t his fault, I mean, if it was, if he asked, I don’t know anything. But I think it is unlikely, the team wanted to bring a result to keep him on the team for one more year because he wanted out, the car was bad, And Alonso, you know how it is with him, if he doesn’t have a good car, he want to get out after the best equipment. But I think he never got involved.

[tifosiMac]

I think this deserves a topic on it's own.

I think too.. or do I? Yep, I think he didn't either.

[Bloggsworth]

I think too.. or do I? Yep, I think he didn't either.

Of course he didn't dear boy, of course he didn't; he's always the innocent party.

[highdownforce]

You guys are really late on these things, right?

AFAIK, NAP changed his speech to this tune after Massa started to boycott him.

[Augurk]

Of course he didn't dear boy, of course he didn't; he's always the innocent party.

Yep. Poor guy. Somehow trouble always finds him.

[prty]

Of course he didn't dear boy, of course he didn't; he's always the innocent party.

Well, maybe it's related to the fact that some always consider him the guilty party in everything and out of nowhere, so when reality hits, then they get a "sure, always innocent" effect?

[Ross Stonefeld]

I don't think he knew what was going on. To perform his role he didn't need to. Telling him brings no advantage but lots of risk, so the default assumption is that he didn't know and wasn't told what was happening.

[PretentiousBread]

I never really believed Alonso got involved. I don't see Singapore 2008 as a low moment for him, only for Renault.

[BRG]

Alonso didn't know, nor did anyone else..... because Junior made it all up with his Dad.

[se7en_24]

I don't think he knew what was going on. To perform his role he didn't need to. Telling him brings no advantage but lots of risk, so the default assumption is that he didn't know and wasn't told what was happening.

So when he said "Flav, why have you put me on this crazy strategy - it makes no sense" did he just get a wink back from the QPR owner and that was it?

[Risil]

Wasn't necessarily that crazy. Alonso was pretty far back on the grid after a qualifying mishap, and before the race everyone was talking about how this Singapore track was so tight and bumpy that there'd be about two hundred safety car periods. Alonso had a quick car, and a strategy that gambled on him fluking a good track position made a certain amount of sense. Certainly in Indycar midfield runners do it all the time.

[Incidentally I was just reading the Forix page for the race; shouldn't it contain a note talking about the evidence that came to light the year after?]

Edited by Risil, 02 March 2011 - 21:13.

[timmy bolt]

I've never believed Alonso was actively involved, he might of been suspicious or heard rumours and not brought it up, but i doubt he was involved directly, it doesn't make sense for him to go along with it.

That being said, Piquet's quote doesn't make a lot of sense either, i don't understand why Renault would do such a thing to retain a driver, Alonso would always know the win was a fair bit of luck (if the truth didn't come out and he didn't know about it prior) and it doesn't stop the car from being bad. Why that would make Alonso change his mind and stay with Renault is beyond me.

[Ross Stonefeld]

So when he said "Flav, why have you put me on this crazy strategy - it makes no sense" did he just get a wink back from the QPR owner and that was it?

I imagine they told him it was the best they could do that far down the grid and if they got a SC it'd work out, and Singapore is a race you're more likely to get a SC. None of that would appear out of the ordinary.

Going light was the only strategy that was really going to work, Renault just gamed the system to get the SC they needed and when.

[MrAerodynamicist]

McLaren put Lewis on the same crazy strategy in Monaco. Unless one wants to suppose some Heikki-was-going-to-crash-but-didn't plan, it would seem suggest drivers will accept crazy, outside-chance strategies.

[Seanspeed]

I imagine they told him it was the best they could do that far down the grid and if they got a SC it'd work out, and Singapore is a race you're more likely to get a SC. None of that would appear out of the ordinary.

Going light was the only strategy that was really going to work, Renault just gamed the system to get the SC they needed and when.

I agree. Alonso had been so quick all weekend prior to his mechanical issues during qualifying, which was a MASSIVE letdown for the team and Alonso especially. Starting from the back at a street race is a disaster as there's no chance that you're gonna make up any significant ground on-track. His only chance was a nicely-timed safety car and Renault gave it to him not only for themselves, but also to keep Alonso happy, knowing that they were likely to lose him without some good showings to prove they aren't a lost hope.

It makes a lot of sense. I dont believe Alonso knew about things, cuz if he was privy to the plan, then it wouldn't have done anything in terms of actually feeling satisfied within the team(other than knowing that they'd risk their drivers for his sake!). The biggest benefit would have come from with him being out of the loop.

[Disgrace]

McLaren put Lewis on the same crazy strategy in Monaco. Unless one wants to suppose some Heikki-was-going-to-crash-but-didn't plan, it would seem suggest drivers will accept crazy, outside-chance strategies.

Not quite. Hamilton hit the wall and punctured a tyre, forcing him to pit. Then a pile-up at Casino Square meant the safety car came out and he all but inherited the win.

Now that I think about it, it may well have been the inspiration behind the Singapore rigging.

[Slowinfastout]

Ok, so who's gonna back check on the forum users who used to think Piquet was a lying sack of shite, and will from now on be saying the kid has credibility..

That's the fun part with this thing, right?

Anyway, Alonso maintains he didn't know anything about it all until questioned/informed a year after the facts, now THAT's fantastic.

Edited by Slowinfastout, 02 March 2011 - 21:59.

[AvranaKern]

i don't understand why Renault would do such a thing to retain a driver, Alonso would always know the win was a fair bit of luck (if the truth didn't come out and he didn't know about it prior) and it doesn't stop the car from being bad. Why that would make Alonso change his mind and stay with Renault is beyond me.

Well, maybe Renault had put a clause in the agreement stipulating in case of a win, then Alonso had no chance but to stay. Hence the farce.

Edited by ali.ünal, 02 March 2011 - 21:57.

[Slowinfastout]

The car suddenly became a podium contender after Crashgate, that's a much more effective way of retaining a driver.. though not much is gonna do against an offer from Ferrari.

Basic common sense.

The theory was that nice results were needed to retain Renault itself, which makes more sense to me.. a nice 'reliability' upgrade and they were back in the hunt.

Edited by Slowinfastout, 02 March 2011 - 22:04.

[MrAerodynamicist]

Not quite. Hamilton hit the wall and punctured a tyre, forcing him to pit. Then a pile-up at Casino Square meant the safety car came out and he all but inherited the win.

Now that I think about it, it may well have been the inspiration behind the Singapore rigging.

Wrong year. I'm talking about '09. He hit the wall in qualifying, plus had to change a gearbox, so he started in 16th. He made a scheduled pitstop on lap 10.

[AlanWake]

Only Alonso haters WANT to BELIEVE that Fernando was involved in it.

[Disgrace]

Wrong year. I'm talking about '09. He hit the wall in qualifying, plus had to change a gearbox, so he started in 16th. He made a scheduled pitstop on lap 10.

Okay doke, fair enough, forgot about that presumably as it didn't work.

[Watkins74]

Alonso didn't know, nor did anyone else..... because Junior made it all up with his Dad.

BS

[Slowinfastout]

Alonso didn't know, nor did anyone else..... because Junior made it all up with his Dad.

..and that's why Symonds and Briatore pleaded guilty.

[Stormsky68]

Alonso is innocent.

And pigs really do fly.

[Seanspeed]

Alonso is innocent.

And pigs really do fly.

Do you believe that Lewis knew nothing about Spygate in 2007?

Just curious.

[Slowinfastout]

Do you believe that Lewis knew nothing about Spygate in 2007?

Just curious.

That's a pretty good comparison. Hamilton was literally spared and/or ignored as if he simply wasn't around.. like Alonso in Crashgate.

That said he didn't rat the team and thus didn't explicitly need the immunity.. unlike the Alonso in Spygate and Piquet in Crashgate.

Edited by Slowinfastout, 02 March 2011 - 22:55.

[Stormsky68]

Do you believe that Lewis knew nothing about Spygate in 2007?

Just curious.

That's an interesting one. I believe Lewis would have known about it at the least. As for personally using it, that depends if you think Alonso would be the sort of person to share the advantage with one of his main competitors. There was email evidence at the time he and PDLR were trying simulator set-ups. Do you think they would have shared results with Lewis?

However the thread is about crashgate. Do you believe Alono is the sort of driver who chooses not to have any involvement in his race strategy?

PS Whats with the wave? Going somewhere?

Edited by Stormsky68, 02 March 2011 - 23:24.

[Henrytheeigth]

Like I said in the past, too bad they didn't use the 2009 Renault, not the good looking 2008 one to crash with hmm in the post race with Alonso and Flav chatting, Alonso sure looked innocent and surprised. A good actor perhaps? lol

[robefc]

McLaren put Lewis on the same crazy strategy in Monaco. Unless one wants to suppose some Heikki-was-going-to-crash-but-didn't plan, it would seem suggest drivers will accept crazy, outside-chance strategies.

Well there's a lot of talk on this forum about how alonso contributes so much to strategy etc whilst Lewis just does what the team tell him so, in the eyes of those who think that, your comparison would presumably not be valid.

Edited by robefc, 03 March 2011 - 00:10.

[Buttoneer]

I think we can drop the spygate please. there are enough threads discussing this already.

[DoodoolTalla]

when will this clown shut up.

[ViMaMo]

Alonso had many wins and podiums before Crashgate and his value as a driver was still top level. So why the hell would he involve himself in a crash strategy for just one lousy win? He won the next race !

It was Flavio trying to keep Alonso on the team, with false promises, fake results and torturing Piquet.

[fabr68]

The car suddenly became a podium contender after Crashgate, that's a much more effective way of retaining a driver.. though not much is gonna do against an offer from Ferrari.

Basic common sense.

The theory was that nice results were needed to retain Renault itself, which makes more sense to me.. a nice 'reliability' upgrade and they were back in the hunt.

Well, Crashgate or not, every single car Alonso has driven at Singapore has been a podium contender...

[prty]

Well there's a lot of talk on this forum about how alonso contributes so much to strategy etc whilst Lewis just does what the team tell him so, in the eyes of those who think that, your comparison would presumably not be valid.

That would only make sense if you assume that systematically every strategy suggested by the team is discarded by Alonso, or that he didnt agree with Singapore strategy. And assuming that makes no sense.

[Captain Tightpants]

Alonso might "never have gotten involved", but have you noticed how he has a knack for being in the midst of all these major controversies? First the Stepney Affair, then the Singapore Incident and in 2010, re-igniting the team orders debate ...

[WhiteBlue]

Alonso is innocent. And pigs really do fly.

Anna Nicoll Smith really married for love. Saddam Hussein really had weapons of mass destruction. Lee Harvey Oswald really killed Kennedy.

[fabr68]

Alonso is innocent.

And pigs really do fly.

The first one was proven, the second one is just wishful thinking by some.

Aluminum foil manufacturers love this forum.

[Ferrari2183]

Anna Nicoll Smith really married for love. Saddam Hussein really had weapons of mass destruction. Lee Harvey Oswald really killed Kennedy.

And Alonso and Hamilton were separated at birth and Ron's the father...

Can't take credit for that, heard it in another forum.

[tifosiMac]

Its the same old, who cares? Its just assumptions and people trying to score points off rival fans. I said the same in another thread with the assumptions Ron Dennis knew his team were cheating from the start. Its the same with Alonso and crashgate, there is no proof to suggest anything different so its a waste of everybodies time.

[Captain Tightpants]

Saddam Hussein really had weapons of mass destruction.

He did ... in 1991.

[Fontainebleau]

Like I said in the past, too bad they didn't use the 2009 Renault, not the good looking 2008 one to crash with hmm in the post race with Alonso and Flav chatting, Alonso sure looked innocent and surprised. A good actor perhaps? lol

Oh, but they did! Grosjean hit the wall in 2009 in exactly the same turn Piquet did in 2008! How could you forget that, it was one of the highlights of the weekend - poor Bob Bell couldn't believe his eyes...

[Fontainebleau]

Well there's a lot of talk on this forum about how alonso contributes so much to strategy etc whilst Lewis just does what the team tell him so, in the eyes of those who think that, your comparison would presumably not be valid.

Alonso does want to have input in his strategy: sometimes they listen to him (Japan 2008), sometimes they don't (China 2009) - and that was one of the reasons he never had a great relationship with Pat Symonds, by the way.
After the Singapore qualy, Alonso was interviewed by the Spanish TV and he said that he needed a miracle to be in the points - and that is why he would agree to go with a wild strategy: nothing to lose, and if he is lucky with an SC he may end up in the points.

[Desdirodeabike]

Its the epitome of naivety to believe that Alonso knew nothing about what was going to happen. If he was not completely in on all the details, he certainly knew about it. He may be a huge douchebag but he is not stupid. Not to mention that he is completely immersed within his team.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I wouldn't assume he would know his teammate's strategy. All he would know that he was pitting early so he'd have to really go for it in his first stint to make use of that strategy, and then hope for the best.

[Atic Atac]

Its the epitome of naivety to believe that Alonso knew nothing about what was going to happen. If he was not completely in on all the details, he certainly knew about it. He may be a huge douchebag but he is not stupid. Not to mention that he is completely immersed within his team.

IIRC, when Alonso was called in one of the engineers objected to pat because they could be out for one or two more laps in free air and earn time.

If the engineers in charge of the tactics were unaware of the plot, why should Alonso be in?. Which is the advantage of telling the driver? He will get nervous, after winning he will feel guilty, he can speak to someone and say something wrong.... If you don´t tell him everything is ok.

The only objection is that Alonso would not agree to that strategy, but it has been said quite a few times that there was no other choice. They were doomed and with nothing to loose it´s ok to do things different.

It´s the same as last year´s monaco strategy. You are dead last so you pit in the first turn and hope for the best.... and it worked. Weird, but worked.

[Mr2s]

Ok, so who's gonna back check on the forum users who used to think Piquet was a lying sack of shite, and will from now on be saying the kid has credibility..

That's the fun part with this thing, right?

Anyway, Alonso maintains he didn't know anything about it all until questioned/informed a year after the facts, now THAT's fantastic.

No, the fun part was watching Alonso in his **** box pull away from the World champion after the second (non Piquet, non Schumacher old boy club) safety car.

Edited by Mr2s, 03 March 2011 - 11:58.

[Mr2s]

Alonso might "never have gotten involved", but have you noticed how he has a knack for being in the midst of all these major controversies? First the Stepney Affair, then the Singapore Incident and in 2010, re-igniting the team orders debate ...

But have you noticed not only that Alonso had some of the same staff as the more controversial michael schumacher in both their teams, but the majority of posters on UK forums try to blame or involve Alonso for everthing and schumacher for nothing?

[Ross Stonefeld]

Wtf, Schumacher gets a free ride here?

[cardin]

I imagine they told him it was the best they could do that far down the grid and if they got a SC it'd work out, and Singapore is a race you're more likely to get a SC. None of that would appear out of the ordinary.

Going light was the only strategy that was really going to work, Renault just gamed the system to get the SC they needed and when.

This was better discussed in the 2009 crashgate thread. Instead of the of the "I belive" or 'I don't believe' on this thread, t was discussed what could go wrong with the strategy. The conclusion was that the window of oportunity was so narrow(3 to 5 laps, IRC) and the probabilities of it working so low that such strategy would be unworkable. If Alonso couldn't see that he's clueless verging on moronic.