Instead of some random forum chat from somewhere on the internet, why not listen to what the man himself has to say ?
Missing something obvious:
Q: What is the R26 like to drive, compared to its predecessor?
Fisichella: It is very similar. Last year's car was very comfortable for the drivers, and so is the R26. In fact, I am even happier in this car. The rear is more stable under braking and in the middle of the corner. We have made a step forward on the traction too. That all means I can drive the car how I want to, and gives me even more confidence.
Q: This year’s car seems well suited to you. What is it that makes you feel more comfortable in the R26 than in last year’s car?
GF: More stability in the rear and therefore a car better suited to my driving style.
Of course Giancarlo was more comfortable with the R26 compared to the R25. Not compared to his teammate, to the Ferrari, to Massa or whatever. Not sure what this is supposed to prove.
On the other hand you've rejected theories about Fisichella's own driving style and the difference between his and his teammate's styles. I think I'll have to assume that, unlike the poster that seems to have analysed onboards of the two drivers in question and presented a pretty good case, you are clueless on the topic.
Intentionally putting in bits of useless rhetoric in between your posts add nothing of value to any debate, nor do they have any positive effect on your argument. I'd have thought you would've known that in 4 years of foruming.
Nothing useless about pointing out revisionism when I see it. The frustrating thing about 'arguing' with such people is they need proof and links for everything on the internet apparently, you could argue all day long that the sun rises in the east but these adamant sorts wouldn't be satisfied until a video of a sunrise was presented, and even that wouldn't be enough.
Cheap attempt at what ? Renault had a usable car advantage at about half a race in the last 9. Is that enough to have a "far and away" superior package now ?
Cheap attempt because Renault's DNF had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they had the better package that day.
Why not use real quotes from Renault's own engineers :
Very interesting that you've eschewed your own statistics in favour of subjective statements from interviews. Nothing to be embarrassed about, I know Renault's own gloat about their rock solid car was an inconvenient truth that doesn't fit in with your theory.
Naturally Pat Symonds of all people was going to admit they had the better car and yet nearly lost the title..but that's all right.
So here's some other, equally subjective, random, taken-out-of-context snippets from other interviews from that season:http://www.formula1....006/9/4879.html
Q: Starting in Monza?
BB: Monza is going to be a hard race, there's no doubt about it. We are in the heart of Ferrari territory. But you can look at it two ways: as a boost for them, or an added incentive for us to get the upper hand. Certainly, we are very motivated to return them the favour after they won on our home turf in Magny-Cours. I think Monza will suit the strengths of their package, but last week's test was very close and there is no reason to believe our package is weaker than theirs. We have the special Monza aero items on the car, and a good engine upgrade for Fernando (Alonso) who will use a D-spec engine. I believe we are in strong shape.
Q: It has been said that the championship will essentially come down to tyres. Do you agree?
BB: I certainly think that the advantage will swing back and forth according to who gets their tyre selection right, and who gets it wrong. Michelin are working flat out to develop new products and the results from testing were certainly promising. Our expectation is to see a very even situation between the two tyre manufacturers until the end of the year, and we hope that our partnership with Michelin can bring us a decisive advantage.
Q: Pat, the question on everybody's lips ahead of this race is whether Shanghai will be a ‘Renault track' or a ‘Ferrari track'. What is your opinion?
Pat Symonds: As always, performance has to be looked at in relative terms. Shanghai is a good circuit for Renault, and we had a fabulous race there in 2005 when we dominated the Grand Prix and won the constructors' championship. But what may be more significant is that Michael Schumacher had two poor races there in 2004 and 2005. That trend could continue this year.
Q: Renault are now second in the constructors' championship to Ferrari. Would you say the team is on the back foot?
PS: I don't think so. The team has had a tough month: we threw away a win in Hungary, and events transpired against us in Monza. But had Fernando (Alonso) started from his correct grid position in Italy, we know he would have been fighting for the race win. Some people seem to think Renault is a spent force in this championship. That is far from the case.
Q: It has often been said that 2006 has been a ‘tyre championship'. Michelin seemed to have made big gains in Monza. Has this been reflected in testing since then?
PS: They have continued to move forward, yes. We are very happy with our preparations for the final three races, and we have made progress on both the compounds and constructions. We found some very interesting improvements in Jerez and at Silverstone last week, and Michelin are pushing hard.
Q: How did your approach change from 2005 to 2006?
PS: Our only rivals this year were Ferrari, and they have always enjoyed exceptional reliability. So managing our lead, or going conservative, were never an option. We had to go on the offensive. We knew that the level of performance of the Ferrari was similar to our R26 and that most of the time, the differences came from differing tyre characteristics. There was no way of knowing, before the race weekend, if we would have the upper hand. And the balance of power between Michelin and Bridgestone could change literally overnight. That meant we needed to be adaptable in our approach.
Q: In your opinion, were the cars the product of different design philosophies?
PS: I don't think so. The philosophy is always the same: maximise aerodynamic efficiency and tyre performance, make it lighter, make it stiffer... There may be different ways of achieving those objectives, but I don't think the Renault and Ferrari cars were that different. The contrasts may have been greater with the engines, as I got the impression that the maximum revs of the Ferrari were lower than ours.
Q: What was Ferrari's greatest strength?
PS: Without a shadow of a doubt, it was their qualifying pace. This didn't come from the car so much as the tyres. It sometimes led us to change our strategies for qualifying. There is no shame in saying that, at some races, Bridgestone had superior products.
Q: What were its strengths?
BB: It was always a very consistent car. It was easy to set up, and was competitive on every type of circuit. It gave the drivers a lot of confidence. It had excellent basic performance. And it's now the world champion!
Too bad. As I have been saying all along, it was a season of tyres, track characteristics and ups\downs, probably more than than a lot of other F1 seasons, Bell and Symonds pretty much echo the sentiments. So would anybody that actually followed the season. There was no neat division of the season into two halves w.r.t. performance or some such fairytale.
Still, and I'm having to repeat this for the umpteenth time, I'm fine with the opinion that the two cars were evenly matched. I don't agree and never will, nor are you going to budge. My opinion from what I recall and watching the season is that on balance Renault definitely had the better car, definitely had a massive advantage for 11 of the 18 races until the mass damper ban. Ferrari definitely started off on the backfoot, definitely had the advantage at a few races, but nowhere near enough to claim they were better. Your opinion is the opposite in effect and I'm fine with it.
I think its clear you suffer from some sort of illusion where Schumacher just cannot lose to anyone at all. Such embarrassing levels of idol worship are seen only rarely and in one other group of fans, who also tend to behave like completely irrational beings when confronted with anything other than perfect admiration of their idol. Didnt think of you to be one of them though. I'm disappointed.
Take a look around this thread and the past few replies, you'll see other Schumacher fans themselves acknowledging the fact that Alonso was the better driver in 2006 and it was not the imaginary massive car advantage that Renault enjoyed which was responsible. Apart from you I dont see even a handful of even Schumacher's fans who think that Alonso wasn't the better driver in 2006. Speaks volumes about what levels of idol worship you've stooped to.
Since you've been so kind as to offer your unsolicited opinions about me as a poster I'd like to return the favour: I get exactly the same impression from your posts. I generally skip posts from nutcases and fanboys but was yet to skip one from you until this discussion. You are so biased you have never even acknowledged the pivotal role tyre and track characteristics play in determining the outcome of a championship, very appalling as I said. The theory you believe in naturally allows no room for such realities, instead anything and everything that focusses on the some races in the second half of the championship that can be used for an oversimplification of what was an incredible up and down season for both parties involved is throw in randomly.
People are entitled to their opinions, I think it's pretty obvious I have enough basis to back up my opinion and I see no reason to think otherwise because a random revisionist theory was suddenly brought up out of nowhere. You probably think the same so this can only go round and round with no end in sight. Let's just agree to disagree and be done with it. I know I am.