It's well-known that Massa ha a driving style similar to that of Schumacher and prefers a car that has more grip at the front and is more pointy. 'Proof' of this (for the sake of a cheap revisionist, that is) is to be found with his remarks when Bridgestone shifted to narrower front tyres for 2010, offering less grip at the front and favouring drivers that liked their cars a bit more understeery:
From 2009 -
On 2010 -
To link that with Massa's preferences:
Going solely by the 'facts' dug up on the internet (as opposed to actually having watched the damned season and followed every move) it's plainly obvious pre-2010 cars had more grip at the front, favoured Massa's driving style, and therefore Massa was comfortable with the nature of the tyres in 2006. Not to mention Schumacher's own driving style (which I hope is beyond this ridiculous 'debate') meant he preferred a pointy car as well. Massa was thus comfortable with the F248, unlike with later cars and regs.
Its strange that during his time with Kimi, Massa was the one who could handle understeer, and Kimi was the one complaining of understeer because the car could not heat the front tyres enough. Sort of contradictory, and I notice to failed to include 2011 when Massa has publically stated the tyres suit him, yet his performance relative to Alonso has not changed, which indicates he is just making excuses like all drivers do. Another funny thing, is that if the pre 2010 tyres suited Massa so much, why did Fisichella dominate him as team mates in 2004?
OTOH Fisichella and his teammate had different driving styles. All I can find now is this:
Fisichella was therefore less comfortable with the R26 than Massa was with the F248, that I think is a reasonable conclusion.
I'd have thought things like this should go without saying and would have been obvious to someone that has followed the sport closely for a while but there you go.
Score 1 to the revisionists - 0 to common sense and knowledge, I'll give you that. Congrats on dragging someone that absolutely detests revisionists with their agendas to their level.
"Man landed on the moon in 69"
"It was on the radio, TV, in the news, everywhere! Anybody that was alive back then would've known!"
"Proof? Link? Is it on Wikipedia or Youtube"
You have serious audacity to accuse others of being revisionists and having an agenda when you ignore Fisichella's own words, when he explicitly states he was very comfortable
with the R26, and try using a random person on a forum as your evidence. Its amazing you think that is a credible argument, but I guess that is normal for desperate revisionists. They ignore reality, make up their own and point the finger at others. And secondly, you are also under the false assumption that two drivers with different driving styles cannot be comfortable in the same car. No evidence presented at all, and if you take a lot at Mclaren it seems to be working well.
Statistics, that's my problem. Any fool could hunt up stats and come to conclusions without fully understanding the way the season panned out or the ups and downs both teams had to face over the season. I could use stats too for instance:
From the horse's mouth (Renault F1). Clearly the best car of 2006, then...
I wonder if you would be agreeing with Renault if they had stated Ferrari had the best car of the season? Somehow I doubt it. We don't need someones opinion as to what was the best car of 2006 because that is quite clear if you understand the sport and drivers, and now it is very clear who had the best car since we have had the pleasure of seeing Alonso and Massa in equal cars. There is no way possible that the Ferrari could not have been the best car of 2006, and interestingly, every shred of evidence points to it. Let me explain so you understand it, not that you seem interested in understanding anything that does not agree with your agenda.
1. Massa has been team mates to both Alonso and Fisichella, and their relative performances in 2006 strongly indicates, the Ferrari was the best car of 2006. Important to take note there is correlation between both of these measurements, and zero correlation with yours because you have not presented any.
2. Massa was new to the team, while Fisichella was established, with the car, team and engineers, which flys in the face of your totally groundless claims that Massa was the more comfortable driver of 2006.
3. The performance gap between Alonso and Massa is greater than it was between Michael and an inexperienced Massa in 2006.
Every measure we have points to Ferrari being the better car in 2006. Not some, but all, and in that circumstance its impossible for you to be right. Infact you have to be monumentally wrong for everything to be contradicting your argument.
Edited by hero, 20 October 2011 - 06:02.