I've snipped a bit from the Atlas 2004 review:-

"Trulli's form was a revelation in 2004. If anybody believed that Trulli would play second fiddle to rising Renault star Fernando Alonso, the Italian showed convincingly that he can do far more than just set blazing qualifying laps... His protestations, that the Renault outfit were no longer giving him competitive machinery, seemed justified when he joined new employer Toyota and was immediately and visibly quicker than any of the existing Toyota drivers."

From a journalist paid to be objective and an opinion I share. Alonso was clearly talented, but to suggest he destroyed Trulli is ridiculous: he was marginally better in 2003 and marginally worse in 2004.

Agreed totally.

Just because hes paid to be objective it doesnt mean he is or knows what hes actually talking about.

Explain to us how he was only maginally better in 2003 when he got almost double the points, more poles, podiums and wins??
In interested to see this explanation.

In 2004 Trulli got a few more points due to mainyl bad lucky for Alonso and a few mistakes, but was significantly slower in almost every race, so again your assessment has no correlation with reality.

It´s not domination as you don´t acknowledge the same with Button and Barrichello.
When you compair those two, you focus on qualifying. If we go back to Alonso-Trulli
the qualifying was dead even over 2 years. Why not being honest?
You only pick that part of performance that suits your agenda.

Regarding objectivity & knowledge, I think it's safe to assume that Atlas employ competent people; though, as you've never been mistaken for an objective poster, I can see why this might be a little hard to grasp.

20 points difference is not a huge deficit in a pretty decent car. Trulli might well have won in Japan, but for the rain in second qualifying; he seemed to be on the pace all weekend. That would have put a different perspective on those stats on which you rely so heavily.

That is if you stopped forgetting that Alonso was the one who was going to win in Japan if his engine didn't fail.

I don't know if he'd have won had Trulli got the pole. However, as it stands both drivers retired 5 times which helps even things out.

When retiring in the last part of the race expecting a clear win you have to assume a lot less than what you do with Trulli.

Stop trolling. I said Button beat Rubens this year already.

20 points is a big difference when its almost double your own points total. You assumption that Trulli might have won Japan is the longest straw grap Ive heard in a long time.
Fact is he didnt win win or look like winning and Alonso almost doubled his points in 2003 plus lapped him towards victory at Hungary. Domination as I said.

Yes, but if his 2004 form was a revelation to the journalist, then that journalist probably doesn't believe that he was only marginally worse than Alonso in 2003.

Well, I'm not sure if it's the same journalist, but if you look at the Atlas 2003 review you'll see that Trulli is regarded very highly (as is Alonso). I rather like the old Atlas reviews, where they try to be the 'BBC' of Formula One coverage. Certainly preferable to Arrows' "X is crap", "Y was destroyed", "Z is God incarnate" system

1. Some might still consider Trulli as one of the best qualifiers - but I don't think so, being outqualified by RS FFS. Just in case someone still uses that as a pro-FA argument.

2. This is a Lewis Hamilton thread...

Senna was one of the best qualifiers, but several outqualified him.

The qualifying system has change in 2006 from what it used to be. So your point is irrelevant.

Marginally better means 22 points in favour of Alonso in 2003.

Marginally worst means 1 point in favour of Trulli in 2004.

The word marginally is being misused.

In a race or two, but over the whole season? Somehow I don`t think Ralf Schumacher would outqualify Senna under any type of qual format over the season.

Trulli is a fantastic qualifier but his qualifying relies on him being happy with the team and the car, (though not to the same extent that his race performance does). EDIT: that can be said of all drivers, but I think it's more important to him than to most.
Being marginally outqualified by Ralf Schumacher is no disgrace, anyway.

I agree, and this was really the first season he hasn't really left an impression after his qualifying runs.
Maybe instead of thinking Trulli isn't a great qualifier, you have to re-think your rating of Schumacher, HSJ?

Mind you, Trulli has still been the faster qualifier, although with a much smaller margin than we've been used to. In Q2, him and Schumacher were as good as dead even.
In Q3 though, Trulli was on average a tenth slower, but that was with an average first stint being 2.25 laps longer than Schumacher's.


http://forums.autosport.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=90987

Trulli drove very good in 2004, but in 2003 he was generally not near Alonso in the races. Alonso's race win in Hungary showed a contrast to Trulli, who got lapped or nearly lapped by Alonso. That's a bit too much difference. While Trulli kept things even or slightly in his favourt in qual, my recollection from the year 2003 is that Alonso was the formidable threat in the races (to my favourite team McLaren, among others). Trulli had a few good races but most often he seemed to be pretty far behind Alonso.

The first half of 2004 was different; Trulli still qualified well but was still about as good as Alonso in the races. That's no doubt why the Atlas journo talks about a revelation, since it was after 2003.

I never quite got that, 'cause I thought Trulli's 2003-season was really good, so I remember being a bit surprised when some people talked about an almost turn-around in performance. Of course, he was doing better, certainly, in the first half of 2004, but the previous year wasn't so much worse that it would justify the label "turn-around".

(I ranked Trulli's 2003 perfomance as the fifth best, just behind Alonso.)

Back on topic, while reading some F1 stuff in internet I've ended up with this article from May 2002:

http://elmundomotor.elmundo.es/elmundomoto...1022856303.html

Alonso was quicker than Pedro de la Rosa in his first day driving the Jaguar from 2002. After that test Lauda tried to sign Alonso, but Briatore had already plans for him in 2003 as a race driver.

That test may not seem a big deal, but just compare it with how Hamilton has been comparing with Pedro in the recent tests (always some tenths behind) or how any driver in F1 compares with other stablished drivers when driving for the first time a car they are not used to.

Oh please don't destroy the Hamilton-hype just yet. Let's wait until mid-season 2007, okay?

Seriously, I don't think we can draw any conclusions so far. There are numerous possibilities for a team to let a driver look anything from awful to brilliant during testing, just as it suits their needs.

While I'm glad that he got the seat, just because it will be far more interesting to watch him than PdlR, I'm not really convinced that it is the best move for his career at this stage. I think if his laptimes stay within half a second of Alonso it will be a great achievment, but a lot depends on how he copes with the pressure. If he starts to get obsessed to match Alonso, he might get himself into a similar situation as JPM...

I think he both needs to be, and will be, closer to Alonso than half a second off. That really is too much even if it's Alonso in the other car. Hamilton is supposed to be a superstar, and I think he is, so he has to be fairly well in touch. I'm thinking more around two (to three) tenths on average for his rookie season.

Maybe. I admit that I haven't followed GP2 that much, so maybe you and others have already seen more. To me the emphasis is still on "supposed to be", F1 remains a different ballgame than the lower formulas where it can swing either way.

Supposed to be a superstar - stems more from a general opinion based on the categories he's driven up to now, not just GP2, where he was extremely good, even sensational at times.

But from testing he seems to cope well with F1 too, so his progression should be steady and mirror what he's done in GP2.

You're assuming that in all these cases the purpose of the test was for the driver to go as quickly as he possibly could. This is rarely the case in testing.

A few tenths behind is nothing. Also you're looking at the fastest lap. In my experience it is better to look at mean lap time of the other guys on track. Comparing best against mean lap time is often a good indicator of how hard someone was trying.

Don't forget McLaren may be making bigchanges to vehicle systems to adjust the the characteristics of the Bridgestones.

Ben

I agree with your view, Pep.

Comparing Hamilton and Pedro at the moment according to their testing times is not going good for Hamilton (who is regarded for some press as best than the second coming and some in this BB faster than Alonso and easily going to beat him next year)

He has been produced slower times that Pedro in the six times they have tested together. In the first four, AMuS reported he was testing with more revs and less fuel weight than Pedro. Aloso, the best times showed for Hamilton car were being done by Pedro as they changed drives in that test day.

After being announced to race in 07, Pedro set better times than him both days they have tested together.

Now, considering how low some people in this BB is rating Pedro, you can imagine how bad is that for Hamilton, who is unable to beat times of a second rated driver in testing. He is just getting used to the car and team though....

Just to compare testing times, performances and purposes in testing. In 2002, Lauda asked Renault to get Alonso to test the Jaguar in a one day-off to assess the performance of two young drivers with prospects to driver for Jaguar in Silverstone. Alonso got the third best time of the day and was quicker than Pedro. Lauda was so impressed with Alonso that he wanted to sign him.

Two articles from that one-off test day:

How can you compare with someone that has driven an F1 car for several years to one that has only just started learning it?

Interesting. I had forgotten that the test was meant as a direct comparison between Jaguar's testdrivers (Courtney got some testing, but Lotterer can't have run much I think) and Alonso.

It's not too often that they're as blunt about it, telling the press like this.

Alonso clearly showed his speed.

Right or wrong, that's the way it goes. Once the season starts, that will most definitely be the comparison. He's not just racing against rookies...

I recall that in 25 years of Ron Dennis reign there are only 2 drivers made an F1 debut at McLaren.
Michael Andretti in 1993 and now almost forgotten Jan Magnussen in 1995. Both of them failed badly in F1, which is why I think Ron has been so cautious with Hamilton's debut in the last races of 2006. The reasons behind Andretti's disappointment are well known, but what's happened with Magnussen is still kind of a mystery.

Magnussen won almost everything in carting and lower Formulas and he was the first to be labeled as "the second Senna". His career before F1 was fast and brilliant like Raikkonen's and Alonso's, Jackie Stewart had a very high opinion on him, and he made a debut in F1 at the age of 22 years and some months. He qualified behind Blundell, finished on Blundell's tale 10th, most of the people said it's a nice performance, but to be honest it wasn't any special really. After that, his results were mediocre everywhere, including CART and F1, and very soon he went nowhere and disappeared in some second-rated autosport series.

I'm really worried something like this could happen with Lewis. He is going to debut at McLaren at the same age as Magnussen. His performances in lower Formulas were good, but at this moment he's appearing not so fast and error-prone behind the wheel of F1 car, whereas elite drivers - Schumacher, Hakkinen, Raikkonen, Alonso - impressed right from the start. Meanwhile Mika makes his moves around, and he wouldn't do this if he had no feeling that Hamilton failure is highly possible and then he can grab the second McLaren drive.

I really want Lewis to emerge as a new F1 star, but there are some tendencies which are quite contrary, I'm afraid.

I will wait until after a few races in 2007 before I make a reasoned appraisal of Lewis Hamilton.

I also think comparing Lewis to Michael Andretti and Jan Magnuson is missing the point.

The fact that those 2 failed to make it big does not necessarily mean Lewis will be like wise does it?

The main point is that Hamilton best times have been boosted in his first tests compared with the other tester. I don't consider that to be an impressed debut for his first F1 tests while he has been touted as the best thing since slice bread, according to some F1 poundits and fans.

Why were the reasons McLaren did that?

In a few months everyone will know the real score. All of this debate is actually pointless beyond this point. It is obvious that he might prove mediocre. Also he might beat Alonso. We'll see soon enough. December's holidays are upon us. Soon it'll be January with loads of testing then the short month of February and finally racing in early March.

By Monaco, some people here will eat humble pie and face jeers, others will be happy and do the jeering. Or maybe fate, performances, and results will create some weird equilibrium between the Alonso and Hamilton camps thereby leading to more arguments and debate.

I do not believe Mac are in the job of artifically making a driver look good. If they did not think LH was upto the task, then quite simply he would not have got the job.

What is it about LH that you have such a problem with? Is it just because PDLR wasnt given the drive?

That would certainly be true for other drivers not engaged in a long-term relationship to McLaren like LH is. In his case I would not dismiss entirely the possibility that he get's a little more help than normal.

Indeed, however how would Hamilton be helped by engineered results on false pretenses?

I honestly don't know for sure if we can be comparing the test times at all ... so I will reserve my opinion about this kid till mid season next year. The way I would see it is that 2007 is a year for familiarisation for him .

However good the car is for 2007 , I still expect that Lewis will be behind Alonso . If he really does give Alonso a fair run for his money then I would be very very surprised. Without watching him race a F1 car , its hard to make comments . Lets give him 6-7 races and see what he does..but I have a feeling that he could turn out to be another Jenson Button - impressive in the later half of his debut year but maybe a slow start to his career in what may not necessarily be a race winning car. I hope he doesn't turn out to be a DC though ..

I'm sure he is getting extra help. His first task is to learn about the car and the controls, its going to be vastly different to anything he has driven thus far, but see no reason why they would do anything to artificially inflate his times.

Agree with you about this being a learning year. Fully expect FA to beat him, but at least he LH has the advantage of the Friday engine rule, so will have plenty of time to learn the tracks.

As for JB, I thought his races were impressive throughout the year, but a string of retirements make the final results look worse than they really were.

I don't want to manoeuvre myself into a corner here ;), I'm not claiming that McLaren does any of this, certainly I hope not.

Still the (hypothetical!) benefits are obvious: IF he would struggle a bit, making his times look better than they really ar could limit possible damage to his confidence and allow him more time to find his feet without being overly bothered from the outside. And I'm quite sure the engineers could do that without anyone noticing, not even LH himself. There are far more parameters to influence a lap time than fuel load and new tyres...

There is just no reason whatsoever for Mac to do it. If he were not upto the task then he would be doing a test role instead, any attempt to artificially lower his times helps no one.

I wouldnt be surprised if they did send him out on low fuel runs, but if that is the case its because they feel its the best setup for him to learn the car. The same would be true for any other parameters, coupled with the fact that at the Silverstone test PDLR would have been on a program related to the up-coming races, and would therefore be likely be quite different.

Here is a clip from testing at Barcelona where he lost a wheel...
Let's hope the team can exorcize that Kimi Karma sooner rather than later.



Jp

No, that would be horrible. I mean, winning in your first full year and getting four straight poles.....
Pssh!

( )

Armonico this is what RD says:

"And he has earned the position. A lot of what he is and who he is, is the result of his family. They are responsible for his superb character. The role of McLaren has been supportive. And that is not just me, but many of my colleagues.

"I think that the armchair enthusiasts and some certain others who have been talking recently will be eating their words next year."

Do you think that Ron have been reading my posts?

If so, another one who doesn't get them.

It is not about believing or not. I have a view of the whole thing, but I rest the case here.

I was one of the first, not to say the first, who commented long time ago, maybe in the summer, that Hamilton will be Alonso's team mate in 07.

BBC Interview with Lewis Hamilton

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/video_and_...ide/4304501.stm

Lewis Hamilton is the most exciting driver to enter F1 in a while. I can only hope he will bring forward his highly entertaining drives in GP2 to F1.