Please prove where I've said Ferrari had the better car in 2006 ? It was you who claimed Renault had the 'best package by far', and when you're shown the facts
From this we can actually conclude that the Ferrari was marginally better
Which it wasn't. Still, as I said I'm fine with the opinion that the two cars were 'evenly' matched.
1. You're going into irrelevant details about how Fisichella was supposedly far inferior to Massa (impossible to prove anyway) because of some fairytale story about grooves and tyres.
How is it irrelevant when you attempted to use Massa's performances as 'proof' that Ferrari had the better car? I'm simply pointing out he did a better job. Grooves and tyre widths are not fairytale stories, appalling that someone that posts on an F1 forum would deny the central role driving style, tyre characteristics, etc play in determining form and performance.
2. About Renault's 'clear' advantage in Hungary and France while ignoring the superior pace advantage Ferrari enjoyed at many tracks of the year.
I've never denied Ferrari did not enjoy an advantage at certain tracks, that's the very point I was making: that car + tyre form was, like an other F1 season, dependent upon track characteristics as well. Which is why dividing the season into two halves is ridiculous, because as you have now admitted Renault did have an advantage at some races in the second part of the season as well. On balance, the R26 was the better car.
3. Completely ignoring the race ending mistakes both Schumacher and Massa made in comparison to the Renaults
As I said, always easier to be consistent when you have the better, quicker, and more balanced package. Cue Button in 2009. Easier to cruise and collect (hoard, rather) with a car that has an unfair advantage than to push to overcome a pace deficit.
I dont need to rewatch every practice, qualifying and race issues, neither do I need to hunt up statistics over the internet to prove you wrong. 'Renault had far and away the best package in 2006' is a myth propogated by Schumacher fans who cannot accept that their idol is human and capable of defeat. You can continue to live in your mythical universe where Schumacher can never be beaten by anyone and make up excuses for him which even the man himself will find funny.
So basically you refuse to rewatch the season or pay attention to the facts and developments as they unfolded, instead choosing to believe in a revisionist theory that you think is true. Probably because you're worried it'd prove you wrong and expose the season for what it really was: a lop sided season for the most part where one car had a big, unfair advantage and no issues, had momentum from the successful 2005 campaign in their favour while their closest challengers had to play catch up from the get-go, not to mention issues with the tyres, track characteristics, regs, ups and downs throughout the season, etc.
Alonso was the better driver in 2006. Wont make you a lesser man if you admitted it. And a wave to you too
There's no need to 'admit' something that isn't true, but Renault certainly had the better car in 2006. There's plenty of annoying revisionists on the internet, I'm afraid I'll have to class this one into the same category. I've no interest arguing with a revisionist nor am I going to reason with you as you've made your mind up already, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Good luck.