Jump to content


Photo

Fernando Alonso thread [merged]


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
14493 replies to this topic

#1901 artista

artista
  • RC Forum Host

  • 5,219 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 06 July 2010 - 21:54

Well, IMHO that's a gross generalization. The problem is that journalists in both the channel retransmitting F1 and the most popular sports publication are FA zealots, but there's quite a bit of decent journalism going on here.

British press also has their own zealots, but fortunately they are not so prominent.


El País, for example, is usually ok. They are of course a little bit pro Alonso, but not too much. And they usually don’t resort to attack/bash other drivers (as drivers or human beings). And if another driver does well he will usually get a lob. I like Serrás, for example.

Advertisement

#1902 Campeador

Campeador
  • Member

  • 296 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 06 July 2010 - 22:16

FOM blocked the clip on copyright grounds. What is it about?

Try this.

EDIT: I was lucky, I reckon they didn't block the vid in Spain. I think you can just right click on the link and select "save destination as", if it doesn't work you can store it and then find whatever video player, ipod, zune or whatever you need to play it.

Edited by Campeador, 06 July 2010 - 22:23.


#1903 F1EC

F1EC
  • Member

  • 864 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 06 July 2010 - 23:07

Try this.

EDIT: I was lucky, I reckon they didn't block the vid in Spain. I think you can just right click on the link and select "save destination as", if it doesn't work you can store it and then find whatever video player, ipod, zune or whatever you need to play it.


Is that supposed to be serious journalism?

#1904 Massacrator

Massacrator
  • Member

  • 1,361 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 06 July 2010 - 23:22

Is that supposed to be serious journalism?

That's what some people want, that's what some people get.

It's the supply and demand law, in Spain, and everywhere else.

#1905 Campeador

Campeador
  • Member

  • 296 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 06 July 2010 - 23:26

Is that supposed to be serious journalism?

The video is not serious, the idea they show on it is very serious.

One book of rules for all the drivers/teams involved in the Championship.

That's what they're asking for.

#1906 robefc

robefc
  • Member

  • 8,020 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 06 July 2010 - 23:27

The video is not serious, the idea they show on it is very serious.

One book of rules for all the drivers/teams involved in the Championship.

That's what they're asking for.


Lucky there is one then, check the FIA website :p

#1907 ashnathan

ashnathan
  • Member

  • 5,018 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 06 July 2010 - 23:31

I hope that video was meant to be tongue in cheek because if it wasn't then im a tad worried at the content the Spanish give to fans. Im not gonna get into the moves in the video cos ill be here all day arguing, but for them to think Lewis doesn't get penalties is ludacris. Anyway, I haven't seen Ferrari introduce a...well i can't say new front wing cos im sure there's been different versions but maybe a different philosophy front wing since the regs have changed, so i take the 'new front wing' talk as probably updates to the endplates more so than anything on the wing or wing elements themselves.

#1908 Campeador

Campeador
  • Member

  • 296 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 06 July 2010 - 23:31

Lucky there is one then, check the FIA website :p

We know about that one.

Alonso jumped the start and 3 laps later he got a drive through, Hamilton overtook the Safety Car and 30 minutes later he got a drive through.

We know that one is for Alonso and others, where's Hamilton's?

#1909 syph0nJZ05

syph0nJZ05
  • Member

  • 2,602 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 06 July 2010 - 23:43

Try this.

EDIT: I was lucky, I reckon they didn't block the vid in Spain. I think you can just right click on the link and select "save destination as", if it doesn't work you can store it and then find whatever video player, ipod, zune or whatever you need to play it.

That video is just laughable. They claim that McLaren is paying off Charlie Whiting. I mean seriously :confused: ?

#1910 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 06 July 2010 - 23:44

We know about that one.

Alonso jumped the start and 3 laps later he got a drive through, Hamilton overtook the Safety Car and 30 minutes later he got a drive through.

We know that one is for Alonso and others, where's Hamilton's?


Wrong and wrong again.
The length of time to issue the penalty on Hamilton was, in my view, excessive albeit I also accept there were factors involved that go some way to explaining it.
Your need to exagerate both of your examples however does not help your 'case'.

You also fail to explain your lack of outrage that it took even longer to penalise Rosberg (Singapore 2008).

If, at the end of the season, it makes you feel better that Hamilton got LUCKY in this case and that this is what ruined Alonso's WDC bid, so be it. I am sure your local TV channel will be there to support you.

fwiw, I believe that both Hamilton and Vettel should have been penalised for what happened in the pitlane in China.


#1911 syph0nJZ05

syph0nJZ05
  • Member

  • 2,602 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 06 July 2010 - 23:45

We know about that one.

Alonso jumped the start and 3 laps later he got a drive through, Hamilton overtook the Safety Car and 30 minutes later he got a drive through.

We know that one is for Alonso and others, where's Hamilton's?

I can't quite work out whether you're being serious or sarcastic. If you're being serious then you are very much blind by your fanboyism or otherwise because it seems that you are seriously suggesting that the FIA/race control/the stewards are contriving to aid Hamilton in the championship.

#1912 Campeador

Campeador
  • Member

  • 296 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 July 2010 - 00:15

Your need to exagerate both of your examples however does not help your 'case'.

Honestly, 3 laps and 30 minutes is quite accurate in both cases.

You also fail to explain your lack of outrage that it took even longer to penalise Rosberg (Singapore 2008).

I thought it was ridiculous and I said it. I understand the FIA, marshals, etc. can make mistakes but when they always penalise harshly some drivers while others get away with it I claim for justice like the pale rider.

If, at the end of the season, it makes you feel better that Hamilton got LUCKY in this case and that this is what ruined Alonso's WDC bid, so be it. I am sure your local TV channel will be there to support you.

What about Vettel, Webber, Button... It's not a tennis match Hamilton vs. Alonso.

fwiw, I believe that both Hamilton and Vettel should have been penalised for what happened in the pitlane in China.

Both? I think it was Hamilton who started it. They deserved at least 5 seconds penalty at the end of the race.

#1913 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 07 July 2010 - 01:01

Honestly, 3 laps and 30 minutes is quite accurate in both cases.


It took 5 laps to issue the penalty on Alonso and 15 laps (25 minutes) in the case of Hamilton.
This direct comparison is, of course, not really a valid one due to the fact that Alonso's offence was captured immediately and electronically and came at a time when there was nothing else to occupy RC. In Hamilton's case, it came following a big crash, where arial video had to be obtained and where several other drivers had committed offences.

Ultimately this issue could be debated until the end of time but the simple facts remain that the delay in issuing Hamilton's penalty is not unique (and not all that uncommon) which somewhat discredits the 'merits' of the video you posted.

You are absolutely right that this should not be a Hamilton/Alonso tennis match but the fact is that Alonso and his team are the only ones who made a big issue out of it, not to mention that you posted your video in the Fernando Alonso thread.

Edited by Dunder, 07 July 2010 - 01:05.


#1914 cardin

cardin
  • Member

  • 2,065 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 07 July 2010 - 01:22

No it's not, it's just a statement of fact.

"At first Buemi, who was a lot slower, - True, he was.
get's in his way - yup, that happened too.
and Hamilton takes advantage of this - I think he certainly did. Hamilton was a little faster anyway, but the Buemi distraction helped.
to overtake him." - and...that's how it ended.

Yes they could have added caveats like 'Buemi was racing for position' and I certainly read nothing about chosen ones in there. It's a brief summary which doesn't really do the encounter justice, but typical of race summaries the world over.


Did you read the whole article ? Do you agree it's filled with criticism for his performance so far or do you think they just tried to sweep his shortcomings under the carpet ? The title is already a giveaway of the crap to come; "Alonso cruza los dedos", "Alonso crosses his fingers".

To leave out the small detail that they were racing for position might be a caveat to you, to me is just an omission in a, as you called it, "statement of fact". And no, that's no ordinary race summary. The spirit of it is to show Alonso as a victim of the circunstances.

Edited by cardin, 07 July 2010 - 02:11.


#1915 cardin

cardin
  • Member

  • 2,065 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 07 July 2010 - 01:35

if what was written on that article was not true, you may have a point.


How about this one, "Las previsiones meteorológicas de Ferrari fallan estrepitosamente y un diluvio deja hundidos a los dos Ferrari en la Q1". That's a lie and everybody knows it. And this one, "Falta de agarre, derrapada con la pintura blanca" Would that be how an honest journalist described what happened in Australia ? Does it really makes you happy reading this kind of crap about the driver you suport ? And for somebody to come here and present this as evidence of how the spanish "press" criticizes Alonso is hard to stomach.

Edited by cardin, 07 July 2010 - 01:44.


#1916 Campeador

Campeador
  • Member

  • 296 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 July 2010 - 02:05

It took 5 laps to issue the penalty on Alonso and 15 laps (25 minutes) in the case of Hamilton.

Wrong. It took no more than 3 laps to show the penalty on TV and Alonso served a drive through around lap 5.

http://www.fia.com/e.../lap_chart.aspx

Have a look at it or watch the race again.

In Hamilton's case it was around 28 minutes which I think I can round to half an hour as much as you can round it down to 25 minutes. Doesn't change my point, doesn't make yours any better either.

This direct comparison is, of course, not really a valid one due to the fact that Alonso's offence was captured immediately and electronically and came at a time when there was nothing else to occupy RC. In Hamilton's case, it came following a big crash, where arial video had to be obtained and where several other drivers had committed offences.

It's a valid one as we will never have two different drivers committing the same offence under the same circumstances in two difference races. What you use as a valid point to excuse the FIA is what I consider unacceptable for the sport. The aerial footage was not from a plane or an helicopter outside the race, it was part of the show, not a fan recording it for fun. The several other drivers that broke the delta rule were going to be investigated after the race so they had nothing to do with a delay in Hamilton's penalty.

Ultimately this issue could be debated until the end of time but the simple facts remain that the delay in issuing Hamilton's penalty is not unique (and not all that uncommon) which somewhat discredits the 'merits' of the video you posted.

The delay was unacceptable. You need to see the aerial footage once to realise Hamilton overtook the SC, a footage which is part of the FOM and Race Control can access it immediately. If they didn't or they couldn't is what discredits F1 the most.

http://willthef1jour...into-disrepute/

You are absolutely right that this should not be a Hamilton/Alonso tennis match but the fact is that Alonso and his team are the only ones who made a big issue out of it.

Ok, that's great. Because the two Ferraris were boxed between SC and medical car and the rest of the grid got a new time friendly penalty = 5 sec.
Title contenders: Hamilton-Button, Webber-Vettel, Alonso-Massa. Vettel won the race and Webber crashed, if the rest of the grid didn't say it out loud it doesn't mean it was fair or Ferrari is wrong. You only see a team/driver complaining when it affects them, as we've seen it in the past with all of them.

#1917 richard01

richard01
  • Member

  • 104 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 07 July 2010 - 02:53

How about this one, "Las previsiones meteorológicas de Ferrari fallan estrepitosamente y un diluvio deja hundidos a los dos Ferrari en la Q1". That's a lie and everybody knows it. And this one, "Falta de agarre, derrapada con la pintura blanca" Would that be how an honest journalist described what happened in Australia ? Does it really makes you happy reading this kind of crap about the driver you suport ? And for somebody to come here and present this as evidence of how the spanish "press" criticizes Alonso is hard to stomach.


I don't know what your are talking about really when they are just paraphrasing the official team quotes.

SD: "we made an error of judgement in trusting the weather forecast......"

the other quote is also not a lie, they are describing what happened to alonso at the start when his wheels touched the white line.

Edited by richard01, 07 July 2010 - 03:02.


#1918 cardin

cardin
  • Member

  • 2,065 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 07 July 2010 - 03:12

I don't know what your are talking about really when they are just paraphrasing the official team quotes.

SD: "we made an error of judgement in trusting the weather forecast......"

the other quote is also not a lie, they are describing what happened to alonso at the start when his wheels touched the white line.


Just an aside here. I was reading the comments on that article and somebody posted this; " Ya se escucha por la calle "pones mas excusas que Fernando Alonso", es curioso que siempre tengan la culpa otros y no uno mismo". I don't know if you are from Spain but if you are can you confirm, is this true ?

#1919 cardin

cardin
  • Member

  • 2,065 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 07 July 2010 - 03:24

I don't know what your are talking about really when they are just paraphrasing the official team quotes.

SD: "we made an error of judgement in trusting the weather forecast......"

the other quote is also not a lie, they are describing what happened to alonso at the start when his wheels touched the white line.


He admitted it was 90% his fault staying in the garage.

The way they described what happened in Australia is curious. "Lack of traction, slipped in the white line" not exactly a lie but at least an omission and when you couple all these omissions whith the article title the intentions are very clear.

Advertisement

#1920 richard01

richard01
  • Member

  • 104 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 07 July 2010 - 03:24

Just an aside here. I was reading the comments on that article and somebody posted this; " Ya se escucha por la calle "pones mas excusas que Fernando Alonso", es curioso que siempre tengan la culpa otros y no uno mismo". I don't know if you are from Spain but if you are can you confirm, is this true ?

sorry I can't help, I am not from Spain but I wouldn't be surprised if alonso has some detractors in his home country just like in the UK there are people who dislike lewis.

#1921 richard01

richard01
  • Member

  • 104 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 07 July 2010 - 03:30

He admitted it was 90% his fault staying in the garage.

The way they described what happened in Australia is curious. "Lack of traction, slipped in the white line" not exactly a lie but at least an omission and when you couple all these omissions whith the article title the intentions are very clear.

they are biased everyone knows that but that is different from lying.

Edited by richard01, 07 July 2010 - 03:49.


#1922 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 8,926 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 07 July 2010 - 04:15

Did you read the whole article ? Do you agree it's filled with criticism for his performance so far or do you think they just tried to sweep his shortcomings under the carpet ? The title is already a giveaway of the crap to come; "Alonso cruza los dedos", "Alonso crosses his fingers".

To leave out the small detail that they were racing for position might be a caveat to you, to me is just an omission in a, as you called it, "statement of fact". And no, that's no ordinary race summary. The spirit of it is to show Alonso as a victim of the circunstances.


My favourite this year is the Monaco crash when the car crashed itself and Lobato knows that it wasn't FA's fault but he can't say more, just that the team respects him even more after it.
:smoking:

#1923 richard01

richard01
  • Member

  • 104 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 07 July 2010 - 04:56

My favourite this year is the Monaco crash when the car crashed itself and Lobato knows that it wasn't FA's fault but he can't say more, just that the team respects him even more after it.
:smoking:

and did you ever read Keith Collentine piece on f1fanatic.co.uk about ITV lying about Lewis after monaco in 2007?



#1924 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 07 July 2010 - 07:19

My favourite this year is the Monaco crash when the car crashed itself and Lobato knows that it wasn't FA's fault but he can't say more, just that the team respects him even more after it.
:smoking:


No matter how much times you will repeat that lie, it won't become true :lol:


#1925 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 8,926 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 07 July 2010 - 07:20

No matter how much times you will repeat that lie, it won't become true :lol:


What lie?

#1926 segment

segment
  • Member

  • 58 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 07 July 2010 - 07:25

My favourite this year is the Monaco crash when the car crashed itself and Lobato knows that it wasn't FA's fault but he can't say more, just that the team respects him even more after it.
:smoking:


Almost as funny as the one about hamilton being held back from beating Alonso at monaco 07 by his own team.

#1927 abc

abc
  • Member

  • 1,960 posts
  • Joined: July 05

Posted 07 July 2010 - 07:44

Almost as funny as the one about hamilton being held back from beating Alonso at monaco 07 by his own team.

FAct is had they put them on the same strategy, Hamilton would have won the race


#1928 segment

segment
  • Member

  • 58 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 07 July 2010 - 07:58

FAct is had they put them on the same strategy, Hamilton would have won the race


Not a fact at all. Drivers often had different fuel strategies in those days, just ask Heikki!

#1929 abc

abc
  • Member

  • 1,960 posts
  • Joined: July 05

Posted 07 July 2010 - 08:01

Drivers often had different fuel strategies in those days, just ask Heikki!

And the point is...?

#1930 YellowHelmet

YellowHelmet
  • Member

  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 07 July 2010 - 08:02

FAct is had they put them on the same strategy, Hamilton would have won the race

how if he was the whole weekend slower than Alonso :confused:

#1931 abc

abc
  • Member

  • 1,960 posts
  • Joined: July 05

Posted 07 July 2010 - 08:06

how if he was the whole weekend slower than Alonso :confused:

you have this from Lobato?

#1932 segment

segment
  • Member

  • 58 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 07 July 2010 - 08:07

And the point is...?


Point is Im not interested in hearing excuses and there is a massive double standard when it comes to british media who apparently always say the gospel truth but when spanish media does the same thing they are accused of being biased, and crazy.

#1933 abc

abc
  • Member

  • 1,960 posts
  • Joined: July 05

Posted 07 July 2010 - 08:13

Point is Im not interested in hearing excuses and there is a massive double standard when it comes to british media


I see, point taken somewhere else.


#1934 bonjon1979

bonjon1979
  • Member

  • 1,117 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 07 July 2010 - 08:15

Wrong. It took no more than 3 laps to show the penalty on TV and Alonso served a drive through around lap 5.

http://www.fia.com/e.../lap_chart.aspx

Have a look at it or watch the race again.

In Hamilton's case it was around 28 minutes which I think I can round to half an hour as much as you can round it down to 25 minutes. Doesn't change my point, doesn't make yours any better either.


It's a valid one as we will never have two different drivers committing the same offence under the same circumstances in two difference races. What you use as a valid point to excuse the FIA is what I consider unacceptable for the sport. The aerial footage was not from a plane or an helicopter outside the race, it was part of the show, not a fan recording it for fun. The several other drivers that broke the delta rule were going to be investigated after the race so they had nothing to do with a delay in Hamilton's penalty.


The delay was unacceptable. You need to see the aerial footage once to realise Hamilton overtook the SC, a footage which is part of the FOM and Race Control can access it immediately. If they didn't or they couldn't is what discredits F1 the most.

http://willthef1jour...into-disrepute/


Ok, that's great. Because the two Ferraris were boxed between SC and medical car and the rest of the grid got a new time friendly penalty = 5 sec.
Title contenders: Hamilton-Button, Webber-Vettel, Alonso-Massa. Vettel won the race and Webber crashed, if the rest of the grid didn't say it out loud it doesn't mean it was fair or Ferrari is wrong. You only see a team/driver complaining when it affects them, as we've seen it in the past with all of them.


No. You're wrong. Taken from BBC as it happened: http://news.bbc.co.u...one/8626928.stm


Vitantonio Liuzzi on his first-lap crash: "I was just a passenger, I didn't see much. When I went into corner five the brake locked and I slid off."

Lap 8: De la Rosa's BMW Sauber has smoke coming out of it. Is that another Ferrari engine about to blow? Rosberg leads Button by 3.4 seconds. Hamilton is 12th. Vettel takes Webber to go into ninth.

Lap 7: Rosberg leads by 2.8 seconds from Button. Great battle between Hamilton and Rubens Barrichello. The Williams driver is not giving up his place easily though.

Lap 6: Right, who leads? It's Rosberg, Button, Kubica, De La Rosa, Sutil, Petrov, Webber and then Alonso. Those who did not come in the first time made the right call. Alonso serves his penalty. He has been into the pits three times now.

Lap 5: Alonso gets a drive-through penalty. Hamilton, in 12th, wants to go back to slicks as the intermediates have gone. Vettel in for slicks but as he exits the pits he goes side-by-side with Hamilton. That was very, very close.

Lap 4: Rosberg sets the fastest lap - a 1:51.312. Schumacher comes into the pits for his second stop.

Lap 3: The safety car is still out as the clearing up continues but it will be in at the end of the lap. Rosberg leads from Button, Kubica and Petrov.

Lap 2: Lots of drivers come in for intermediates. Alonso, Webber, Vettel, Schumacher are some of those in the pits. Hamilton looked as if he was staying but gets a late call to come in. Button still out.

Lap 2: Button tells his team that "Alonso must have jumped the start". Liuzzi seems to have been at fault for the shunt. He loses the car at Turn Six and takes out Kobayashi and Buemi. Alonso is under investigation by the stewards.

Lap 1: The safety car is out after a collision between Vitantonio Liuzzi, Kamui Kobayashi and Sebastien Buemi.

Lap 1: What a start from Alonso. Was it a jump start? He leaps ahead of both Red Bulls and leads the race. Webber gets in front of Vettel.


Alonso served it straight away because that was the best point to do so - ie just been a safety car, get it over with before the field spreads. It took 5 laps to issue the penalty. consider that the lap time around that track is around 1.40 at the start of the grand prix, plus the fact that the three of the first five laps were done behind a safety car and you realise that it took in excess of ten minutes to issue a penalty for something that Whiting saw with his own eyes.

#1935 YellowHelmet

YellowHelmet
  • Member

  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 07 July 2010 - 08:17

you have this from Lobato?

no from the official stats!

#1936 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 07 July 2010 - 08:46

What lie?


What is true from your post?

#1937 fed up

fed up
  • Member

  • 1,957 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 07 July 2010 - 08:55

Q: What was the problem between Hamilton and Alonso?
RD: It was very simple - Alonso didn’t expect Hamilton to be that competitive in his first year. He told me at the beginning that it was my decision to sign a rookie like Hamilton, but that it could cost me the constructors’ championship. Fernando was calculating everything, but not that Lewis would challenge him. That affected him massively.


http://www.formula1....10/7/10988.html

There you have it, Lewis really did blow Alonso away.... :cat:

#1938 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,023 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 07 July 2010 - 09:02

It took 5 laps to issue the penalty on Alonso and 15 laps (25 minutes) in the case of Hamilton.

I think it was closer to 27 minutes for Hamilton, but you are closer to the truth than Campeador with his 3laps and 30 minutes. Bit silly to exagerate things that can be verified so easily ...

This direct comparison is, of course, not really a valid one due to the fact that Alonso's offence was captured immediately and electronically and came at a time when there was nothing else to occupy RC. In Hamilton's case, it came following a big crash, where arial video had to be obtained and where several other drivers had committed offences.

Exactly. The 27 minutes is hardly a fair comparison as that is from the time the offence was committed, not from the time RC became aware of the possibility an offence had been committed. It also ignores the differences in verifying whether the offences had been committed.

#1939 YellowHelmet

YellowHelmet
  • Member

  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 07 July 2010 - 09:04

Only time it matters prior to the race is Q3.

we were talking about monaco 2007?
if yes on all three days fernando was the fastest!

Edited by YellowHelmet, 07 July 2010 - 09:05.


Advertisement

#1940 bonjon1979

bonjon1979
  • Member

  • 1,117 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 07 July 2010 - 09:10

we were talking about monaco 2007?
if yes on all three days fernando was the fastest!


Many apologies, I should read more, clearly I'm an idiot. Yes you're right - it's a bit of a myth that hamilton would have won that race. I think he could've challenged Alonso if he was able to run longer but the truth is you can't overtake at monaco and it's debatable whether or not he could've made up enough time to leapfrog alonso in the pitstops. However, Hamilton was faster in qualifying than Alonso (fuel corrected...) and I suspect if the fuel loads were the other way around the result would be reversed. That's not how it went down though.



#1941 YellowHelmet

YellowHelmet
  • Member

  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 07 July 2010 - 09:25

I think he could've challenged Alonso if he was able to run longer but the truth is you can't overtake at monaco and it's debatable whether or not he could've made up enough time to leapfrog alonso in the pitstops.

no chance of leapfrogging as alonso drove immediately after he came out of the pits as fast as hamilton!

However, Hamilton was faster in qualifying than Alonso (fuel corrected...)

alonso was fastest in qualifying with his time in q2, and fuel corrected times in monaco are not easy to count! (that is myth) just compare the times with lewis setting his fastest time in lap 28 (low fuel, old tyres) 1.15.372 and Alonso (heavy on fuel, new tyres) 1.15. 462 --> that case also shows that even if lewis were more than 3 laps longer on track he would not have leapfrogged Alonso coz he was not fast enough

look at race --> top 10

Edited by YellowHelmet, 07 July 2010 - 09:26.


#1942 bonjon1979

bonjon1979
  • Member

  • 1,117 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 07 July 2010 - 09:34

no chance of leapfrogging as alonso drove immediately after he came out of the pits as fast as hamilton!


alonso was fastest in qualifying with his time in q2, and fuel corrected times in monaco are not easy to count! (that is myth) just compare the times with lewis setting his fastest time in lap 28 (low fuel, old tyres) 1.15.372 and Alonso (heavy on fuel, new tyres) 1.15. 462 --> that case also shows that even if lewis were more than 3 laps longer on track he would not have leapfrogged Alonso coz he was not fast enough

look at race --> top 10


As I said, I don't think he would've leapfrogged Alonso and it's something of a myth that hamilton would've won at Monaco.

EDIT: Wow, that F1 matrix is a useful tool especially in head to head mode. Thanks for the link! - looking at he comparison between the two, hamilton would've had to pull out over a second a lap for each of the extra 4 laps (from the pre-race calculations) he had of fuel on board. Looking at the times they both posted that looks like a very tall order. Not impossible but never the less incredibly unlikely.

Edited by bonjon1979, 07 July 2010 - 09:48.


#1943 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 07 July 2010 - 09:35

Wrong. It took no more than 3 laps to show the penalty on TV and Alonso served a drive through around lap 5.


As has been mentioned above, Alonso chose to serve the penalty at the end of the lap that it was issued.

#1944 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,023 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 07 July 2010 - 09:44

alonso was fastest in qualifying with his time in q2, and fuel corrected times in monaco are not easy to count! (that is myth)

Fuel difference in qualifying was 5 laps: source

One lap of fuel in 2009 was worth 2.58kgs: source. So Hamilton qualified with 12.9kgs of fuel more.

In 2009 the time penalty was 0.023s per kilo: source. Which calculates to a time loss for Hamilton of 0.297s.

Actual time difference was 0.18s: source.

So there is a decent argument that, on the same strategy (ie fuel load), Hamilton would have qualified ahead of Alonso and, given the nature of Monaco, even if Alonso was faster come race day that Hamilton could have won.

None of the above is to suggest that Alonso did not deserve that win. The split strategy was very sensible for the team and, had there been a pre-first stop SC, could have handed the race to Hamilton. But the suggestion that Hamilton could have won had they been on the same strategy is hardly outlandish given the above.

#1945 F.M.

F.M.
  • Member

  • 5,577 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 07 July 2010 - 09:57

Ron Dennis: "Alonso didn’t expect Hamilton to be that competitive in his first year. He told me at the beginning that it was my decision to sign a rookie like Hamilton, but that it could cost me the constructors’ championship. Fernando was calculating everything, but not that Lewis would challenge him. That affected him massively."

http://www.formula1....10/7/10988.html

#1946 YellowHelmet

YellowHelmet
  • Member

  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 07 July 2010 - 10:07

Fuel difference in qualifying was 5 laps: source

One lap of fuel in 2009 was worth 2.58kgs: source. So Hamilton qualified with 12.9kgs of fuel more.

In 2009 the time penalty was 0.023s per kilo: source. Which calculates to a time loss for Hamilton of 0.297s.

Actual time difference was 0.18s: source.

So there is a decent argument that, on the same strategy (ie fuel load), Hamilton would have qualified ahead of Alonso and, given the nature of Monaco, even if Alonso was faster come race day that Hamilton could have won.

None of the above is to suggest that Alonso did not deserve that win. The split strategy was very sensible for the team and, had there been a pre-first stop SC, could have handed the race to Hamilton. But the suggestion that Hamilton could have won had they been on the same strategy is hardly outlandish given the above.

thank you for your post but as i said, monaco and those kind of stats are nothing worth!
those are just selective stats which do not take into account, that hamilton drove after alonso, and that at that time the track was also faster, those stats doesnt take into account, that on all other occasions alonso drove faster, those stats doesnt take into account that alonso probably didnt drove at full pace and still was in front, those stats doesnt take into account that such comparisons are only valid if both drivers would once drive with a lighter and once with a heavier car! etc. --> so they are not worth any mention.
the thing that matters, alonso was fastest on all 3 days, he was held up by trulli which costed him 6 seconds and still he managed to stay in front of hamilton after pit stops (mostly because he drove as fast as hamilton before pitstops when alonso already had his pitstops!)

Edited by YellowHelmet, 07 July 2010 - 10:09.


#1947 YellowHelmet

YellowHelmet
  • Member

  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 07 July 2010 - 10:08

Ron Dennis: "Alonso didn’t expect Hamilton to be that competitive in his first year. He told me at the beginning that it was my decision to sign a rookie like Hamilton, but that it could cost me the constructors’ championship. Fernando was calculating everything, but not that Lewis would challenge him. That affected him massively."

http://www.formula1....10/7/10988.html

and that out of the mouth from dennis, what a surprise! :rolleyes:

#1948 robefc

robefc
  • Member

  • 8,020 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 07 July 2010 - 10:11

http://www.formula1....10/7/10988.html

There you have it, Lewis really did blow Alonso away.... :cat:


That comment to Ron really highlights how much of a surprise lewis's pace must have been to alonso.

I like this quote the most though...

Q: Ron, some of the biggest names in Formula One history have driven for you, including Ayrton Senna, Alain Prost, Niki Lauda, Mika Hakkinen, Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Alonso. How did you handle them, especially as many were team mates at some point?
RD: That depended on the circumstances. They all had very different characters and that is one factor that makes it very difficult to make any judgements. When I started as a team owner I was younger than my driver, Graham Hill, so he showed me the ropes. With Lauda, Senna and Prost I had a sort of comradely relationship - it was again age related. With Hamilton and Alonso it was more of a fatherly tie.


Do you think alonso would agree?! :eek: :p

#1949 YellowHelmet

YellowHelmet
  • Member

  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 07 July 2010 - 10:16

That comment to Ron really highlights how much of a surprise lewis's pace must have been to alonso.

I like this quote the most though...

Q: Ron, some of the biggest names in Formula One history have driven for you, including Ayrton Senna, Alain Prost, Niki Lauda, Mika Hakkinen, Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Alonso. How did you handle them, especially as many were team mates at some point?
RD: That depended on the circumstances. They all had very different characters and that is one factor that makes it very difficult to make any judgements. When I started as a team owner I was younger than my driver, Graham Hill, so he showed me the ropes. With Lauda, Senna and Prost I had a sort of comradely relationship - it was again age related. With Hamilton and Alonso it was more of a fatherly tie.


Do you think alonso would agree?! :eek: :p

if ron says it, it must be true
but maybe it is just a proval of his distortion of perception (which taking his other statements into account, regarding "problem with alonso" would clarify his point of view!)

Edited by YellowHelmet, 07 July 2010 - 10:18.


#1950 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,690 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 07 July 2010 - 11:19

thank you for your post but as i said, monaco and those kind of stats are nothing worth!
those are just selective stats

What other stats do you want? You give no credit because you do not like the conclusion, but the figures are good. They are accurate and, unless you can provide alternatives which are at least as well researched you should at least give them some respect.

You don't agree with the conclusion - fine and you should argue that point if you wish - but when you just display a complete lack of respect for the effort gone into it just looks like you are, well, trolling.

Can you agree that the stats are good but that you might have a subjectively different view of the outcome? Can you come up with different stats which support your view? Or are we wasting our time even engaging with you on this?