Jump to content


Photo

Fernando Alonso thread [merged]


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

#3301 gaston_foix

gaston_foix
  • Member

  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 25 July 2010 - 19:56

There is a difference, I have explained this difference to you.

The FIA's practice on enforcing the team order rule has been clear: if you can justify your team order, it is ok. The Monaco 07 investigation ruling makes it obvious this is the FIA's approach. The lack of any investigation for Canada 08 (where Heidfeld was ordered to allow Kubica to pass, because of their different strategies) also makes this clear. As does the lack of any issue with Hockenheim 08. Similar with

So the key questions as to whether the rule was broken are:

1. did the team instruct Felipe to pass

2. can it be justified (either by what happened in the race or the WDC position)

For 1, I think the answer is clear. For 2, I don't think it can be justified by what happened in the race. A 1/2 is the same as a 1/2. Can it be justified by the WDC position? I think so, but this is a more extreme justification than has been tried before.


It's enough as it's clear who is faster at Ferrari. There is no time for Ferrari and thay had to do it. I'm glad they did. You will have did the same...

Edited by gaston_foix, 25 July 2010 - 19:57.


Advertisement

#3302 YellowHelmet

YellowHelmet
  • Member

  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 July 2010 - 19:56

Exactly, I remember reading something (from Pat Symonds I think) about how when Fisichella beat Alonso one time when they were both at Renault he was livid - definitely has an odd superiority complex.

stop trolling with you psychological telediagnosis

#3303 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 25 July 2010 - 19:57

stop trolling with you psychological telediagnosis

Actually he's right

#3304 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,654 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 25 July 2010 - 19:57

Mate Team orders are team order no matter what. By the rule of the book must be punished.

No. McLaren in Germany 2008 was team strategy, that, as Gareth said, turned a 5/6 into a 1/5. The better result for the team, NOT favouring one driver over another.

Plus there is no doubt Hamilton would have whipped past Kovalainen in short order had they been racing, as he whipped past everyone else in short order. That's explicitly permitted.

#3305 YellowHelmet

YellowHelmet
  • Member

  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 July 2010 - 19:58

Actually he's right

you have to know :drunk:

#3306 lexmeister2

lexmeister2
  • Member

  • 206 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 25 July 2010 - 19:58

stop trolling with you psychological telediagnosis

That's not trolling, it is clear from the last few years, that Alonso HAS to be number one in a team, he just doesn't work well in an equal environment - you don't need to be a psychologist to figure that out.

#3307 NadsatII

NadsatII
  • Member

  • 236 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 25 July 2010 - 19:58

Read in the Spanish forum "Forocoches", a well respected forum in which some Spanish race drivers usually post and with the same prestige of this forum...

There's a interesting theory of the race here, and very well elaborated:

"Pues yo apuesto a que ha sucedido lo siguiente:

ha habido una reunión previa en la que se ha acordado que en caso de un 1-2 con el segundo pidiendo paso por ser pretendidamente más rapido, éste debería dejar crecer el gap hasta más allá de los 3 segundos, y seguidamente recuperarlos. En caso de lograrlo, se le haría saber al primero que el segundo había demostrado en pista ser efectivamente más rápido y se le cedería la prioridad.

Sea quien sea el que demuestre tener el ritmo superior.

Me baso para afirmarlo en que:

1) Después de una reunión previa, Fernando se mostró seguro de que Massa no sería un problema.

2) En las primeras vueltas, Massa tenía permiso para luchar.

3) En cuanto se ha Fernando ha dejado crecer la diferencia hasta los 3 segundos, ha habido un mensaje por radio del ingeniero de Massa a éste dicidendo "ahora Felipe, es el momento, hay que darlo todo, the gap is all now. We can win the race."

4) Después de este mensaje, y pese a Felipe lograr varias vueltas rápidas, Fernando recupera el terreno fácilmente.

5) En cuanto lo vuelve a tener a tiro, el mensaje a Massa es otro: "Massa, Fernando es más rápido. Confirma que has entendido el mensaje"

Conclusiones:

Massa podía mantener en pista la diferencia, y habría mantenido la victoria. Esta se la jugaron en el intervalo en que se turnaron en las vueltas rápidas.

Massa es considerablemente más lento, los 3 segundos de ventaja le duraron... cuántas vueltas?

Por último, si la hipótesis del acuerdo previo para actuar de esta forma es cierta, me parece muy inteligente por parte de Ferrari.

Igualmente, siempre me pareció que mi forma de proceder, si yo fuera el propietario de un equipo, sería muy parecida a esa. Nada de dejar que rajen entre ellos, ni jugarretas, ni nada. El que presuntamente se crea más rápido, que lo demuestre en la pista. Si lo hace, nada de que el más lento comprometa la victoria.

Finalmente, Massa mostró su enfado por lo que había pasado, y podía no respetar lo acordado (otros sistemáticamente incumplen pactos previos), pero sí se comportó de acuerdo con las reglas que habían acordado.

Acabo diciendo que si no fuera así cómo han sucedido las cosas, vegüenza para Ferrari, y retiraría lo dicho. Pero si el pacto daba la posibilidad de reclamar prioridad en la pista a ambos, me parece una solución justa".

---Translation (if someone can correct me and help me in the translation, much more better):

"I bet it could have happen as follow:

There was a previous briefing in which was agreed that in the case of 1-2, with the second driving asking to overtake based on he was thinking he was faster, this second driver should give a gap or more than three seconds, and, inmediately to recover the speed. In that case, the leading driver should know that the second driver was faster in the track and, hence, to let the second driver to overtake him. (Second driver should have the priority to overtake).

Whoever he was, he had to show he had a better pace.

I'm based on this:

1) After the previous briefing, Fernando was sure that Massa wouldn't be a problem for him.

2) In the first laps, Mass had green light to fight for the race.

3) When Alonso was behind with more than 3 seconds of gap, there was a radio-message for Massa saying: "Now, Felipe, is the moment. You have to deliver it to the maximum, concentrate, the gap is all now. We can win the race."

[(Radio transcripts needed here)]

4) After this message, and despite Felipe is doing some fastest laps, Fernando is recovering time easily.

5) When Fernando is again just in the back of Massa, Massa is radioed again with a very different message: "Felipe, Fernando is faster than you. Confirm that you understood the message".

Conclusions:

Massa could have the gap on track and race for the win. But both drivers raced each other in the fastest laps episode.

Massa was evidently slower. His 3 seconds gap lasted... how many laps?

Last... if the theory of the previous agreement to behave like this is true, I think that it's a smart move by Ferrari

If I were the owner of a team, my behaviour would be really similar. Nothing about them fighting each other, no dirty tricks. The one who thinks he's fasters has to show that in the track. And if he shows it, the one slower can't compromise his win.

Finally, Massa showed his anger about all what had happened, but he, at least, could have respect (other ones, sistematically didn't do that) the agreement. Anyway, he behaved according to the previous briefing.

I want to finish saying that if things were not according to this theory, shame for Ferrari and I would regret for what I've said. But if the agreement gave both driver to claim for priority in the track, I think that it was a fair agreement"

--------

The most plausible theory for me at the moment according to the radio-comunications, according to certain moments in the race (there's a TV broadcast in Ferrari garage in which someone is explaining, in Spanish, to Emilio Botin, the owner of Santander, that Fernando -being second at that time- "debe dejar tres o cuatro segundos a Felipe antes de atacar" ---"Fernando has to allow about 3, 4 seconds to Felipe before attacking again).








#3308 YellowHelmet

YellowHelmet
  • Member

  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 July 2010 - 19:59

That's not trolling, it is clear from the last few years, that Alonso HAS to be number one in a team, he just doesn't work well in an equal environment - you don't need to be a psychologist to figure that out.

thats not true, in equal environment he feels good, he doesnt like unfair treatment


#3309 gaston_foix

gaston_foix
  • Member

  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 25 July 2010 - 19:59

No. McLaren in Germany 2008 was team strategy, that, as Gareth said, turned a 5/6 into a 1/5. The better result for the team, NOT favouring one driver over another.

Plus there is no doubt Hamilton would have whipped past Kovalainen in short order had they been racing, as he whipped past everyone else in short order. That's explicitly permitted.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

#3310 mkay

mkay
  • Member

  • 2,506 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 25 July 2010 - 19:59

No. McLaren in Germany 2008 was team strategy, that, as Gareth said, turned a 5/6 into a 1/5. The better result for the team, NOT favouring one driver over another.

Plus there is no doubt Hamilton would have whipped past Kovalainen in short order had they been racing, as he whipped past everyone else in short order. That's explicitly permitted.


Then why did Hamilton get the newer parts before, had better strategies and was allowed through? No orders from the team ever benefited KOV. They all went HAM's way. I agree that HAM was way faster, but it hardly makes it fair and balanced.

Face it, McLaren favored Hamilton in 2008 the way Alonso is favored in 2010; and that's all because of their respective pace/speed advantage over their teammates.

#3311 Anomnader

Anomnader
  • Member

  • 8,616 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:01

Then why did Hamilton get the newer parts before, had better strategies and was allowed through? No orders from the team ever benefited KOV. They all went HAM's way. I agree that HAM was way faster, but it hardly makes it fair and balanced.


He had one part earlier then Kovi, ONCE, and that was only because they only had one part available.


#3312 YellowHelmet

YellowHelmet
  • Member

  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:02

---Translation (if someone can correct me and help me in the translation, much more better):

"I bet it could have happen as follow:

There was a previous briefing in which was agreed that in the case of 1-2, with the second driving asking to overtake based on he was thinking he was faster, this second driver should give a gap or more than three seconds, and, inmediately to recover the speed. In that case, the leading driver should know that the second driver was faster in the track and, hence, to let the second driver to overtake him. (Second driver should have the priority to overtake).

Whoever he was, he had to show he had a better pace.

I'm based on this:

1) After the previous briefing, Fernando was sure that Massa wouldn't be a problem for him.

2) In the first laps, Mass had green light to fight for the race.

3) When Alonso was behind with more than 3 seconds of gap, there was a radio-message for Massa saying: "Now, Felipe, is the moment. You have to deliver it to the maximum, concentrate, the gap is all now. We can win the race."

[(Radio transcripts needed here)]

4) After this message, and despite Felipe is doing some fastest laps, Fernando is recovering time easily.

5) When Fernando is again just in the back of Massa, Massa is radioed again with a very different message: "Felipe, Fernando is faster than you. Confirm that you understood the message".

Conclusions:

Massa could have the gap on track and race for the win. But both drivers raced each other in the fastest laps episode.

Massa was evidently slower. His 3 seconds gap lasted... how many laps?

Last... if the theory of the previous agreement to behave like this is true, I think that it's a smart move by Ferrari

If I were the owner of a team, my behaviour would be really similar. Nothing about them fighting each other, no dirty tricks. The one who thinks he's fasters has to show that in the track. And if he shows it, the one slower can't compromise his win.

Finally, Massa showed his anger about all what had happened, but he, at least, could have respect (other ones, sistematically didn't do that) the agreement. Anyway, he behaved according to the previous briefing.

I want to finish saying that if things were not according to this theory, shame for Ferrari and I would regret for what I've said. But if the agreement gave both driver to claim for priority in the track, I think that it was a fair agreement"

--------

The most plausible theory for me at the moment according to the radio-comunications, according to certain moments in the race (there's a TV broadcast in Ferrari garage in which someone is explaining, in Spanish, to Emilio Botin, the owner of Santander, that Fernando -being second at that time- "debe dejar tres o cuatro segundos a Felipe antes de atacar" ---"Fernando has to allow about 3, 4 seconds to Felipe before attacking again).

who knows?
but if that is true, all credits to ferrari :up:

#3313 lexmeister2

lexmeister2
  • Member

  • 206 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:02

thats not true, in equal environment he feels good, he doesnt like unfair treatment

Errrr, yes. Now who's trolling :lol:

#3314 skid solo

skid solo
  • Member

  • 2,213 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:02

It's enough as it's clear who is faster at Ferrari. There is no time for Ferrari and thay had to do it. I'm glad they did. You will have did the same...


Maybe something positive will come out of all this and the FIA will clarify the interpretation of the rule or get rid of it completely? I think the fans deserve it as much as the teams. Otherwise we may have false expectations. In the case of people who had bet on Massa to win today as was the case in the past with Rubens, those fans have a right to feel aggrieved.

Are we to presume it is not a safe bet on any perceived second drivers finishing first?


#3315 gaston_foix

gaston_foix
  • Member

  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:02

Read in the Spanish forum "Forocoches", a well respected forum in which some Spanish race drivers usually post and with the same prestige of this forum...

There's a interesting theory of the race here, and very well elaborated:

"Pues yo apuesto a que ha sucedido lo siguiente:

ha habido una reunión previa en la que se ha acordado que en caso de un 1-2 con el segundo pidiendo paso por ser pretendidamente más rapido, éste debería dejar crecer el gap hasta más allá de los 3 segundos, y seguidamente recuperarlos. En caso de lograrlo, se le haría saber al primero que el segundo había demostrado en pista ser efectivamente más rápido y se le cedería la prioridad.

Sea quien sea el que demuestre tener el ritmo superior.

Me baso para afirmarlo en que:

1) Después de una reunión previa, Fernando se mostró seguro de que Massa no sería un problema.

2) En las primeras vueltas, Massa tenía permiso para luchar.

3) En cuanto se ha Fernando ha dejado crecer la diferencia hasta los 3 segundos, ha habido un mensaje por radio del ingeniero de Massa a éste dicidendo "ahora Felipe, es el momento, hay que darlo todo, the gap is all now. We can win the race."

4) Después de este mensaje, y pese a Felipe lograr varias vueltas rápidas, Fernando recupera el terreno fácilmente.

5) En cuanto lo vuelve a tener a tiro, el mensaje a Massa es otro: "Massa, Fernando es más rápido. Confirma que has entendido el mensaje"

Conclusiones:

Massa podía mantener en pista la diferencia, y habría mantenido la victoria. Esta se la jugaron en el intervalo en que se turnaron en las vueltas rápidas.

Massa es considerablemente más lento, los 3 segundos de ventaja le duraron... cuántas vueltas?

Por último, si la hipótesis del acuerdo previo para actuar de esta forma es cierta, me parece muy inteligente por parte de Ferrari.

Igualmente, siempre me pareció que mi forma de proceder, si yo fuera el propietario de un equipo, sería muy parecida a esa. Nada de dejar que rajen entre ellos, ni jugarretas, ni nada. El que presuntamente se crea más rápido, que lo demuestre en la pista. Si lo hace, nada de que el más lento comprometa la victoria.

Finalmente, Massa mostró su enfado por lo que había pasado, y podía no respetar lo acordado (otros sistemáticamente incumplen pactos previos), pero sí se comportó de acuerdo con las reglas que habían acordado.

Acabo diciendo que si no fuera así cómo han sucedido las cosas, vegüenza para Ferrari, y retiraría lo dicho. Pero si el pacto daba la posibilidad de reclamar prioridad en la pista a ambos, me parece una solución justa".

---Translation (if someone can correct me and help me in the translation, much more better):

"I bet it could have happen as follow:

There was a previous briefing in which was agreed that in the case of 1-2, with the second driving asking to overtake based on he was thinking he was faster, this second driver should give a gap or more than three seconds, and, inmediately to recover the speed. In that case, the leading driver should know that the second driver was faster in the track and, hence, to let the second driver to overtake him. (Second driver should have the priority to overtake).

Whoever he was, he had to show he had a better pace.

I'm based on this:

1) After the previous briefing, Fernando was sure that Massa wouldn't be a problem for him.

2) In the first laps, Mass had green light to fight for the race.

3) When Alonso was behind with more than 3 seconds of gap, there was a radio-message for Massa saying: "Now, Felipe, is the moment. You have to deliver it to the maximum, concentrate, the gap is all now. We can win the race."

[(Radio transcripts needed here)]

4) After this message, and despite Felipe is doing some fastest laps, Fernando is recovering time easily.

5) When Fernando is again just in the back of Massa, Massa is radioed again with a very different message: "Felipe, Fernando is faster than you. Confirm that you understood the message".

Conclusions:

Massa could have the gap on track and race for the win. But both drivers raced each other in the fastest laps episode.

Massa was evidently slower. His 3 seconds gap lasted... how many laps?

Last... if the theory of the previous agreement to behave like this is true, I think that it's a smart move by Ferrari

If I were the owner of a team, my behaviour would be really similar. Nothing about them fighting each other, no dirty tricks. The one who thinks he's fasters has to show that in the track. And if he shows it, the one slower can't compromise his win.

Finally, Massa showed his anger about all what had happened, but he, at least, could have respect (other ones, sistematically didn't do that) the agreement. Anyway, he behaved according to the previous briefing.

I want to finish saying that if things were not according to this theory, shame for Ferrari and I would regret for what I've said. But if the agreement gave both driver to claim for priority in the track, I think that it was a fair agreement"

--------

The most plausible theory for me at the moment according to the radio-comunications, according to certain moments in the race (there's a TV broadcast in Ferrari garage in which someone is explaining, in Spanish, to Emilio Botin, the owner of Santander, that Fernando -being second at that time- "debe dejar tres o cuatro segundos a Felipe antes de atacar" ---"Fernando has to allow about 3, 4 seconds to Felipe before attacking again).


Where did you get this source?? I mean give us a source


#3316 NadsatII

NadsatII
  • Member

  • 236 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:03

That's not trolling, it is clear from the last few years, that Alonso HAS to be number one in a team, he just doesn't work well in an equal environment - you don't need to be a psychologist to figure that out.



China 2007: Fernando Alonso being asked if he wanted to be treated in McLaren as a 2 WDC: "I don't want to be treated as a 2 WDC. I just want to be treated as a human being"

#3317 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,654 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:04

Face it, McLaren favored Hamilton in 2008 the way Alonso is favored in 2010; and that's all because of their respective pace/speed advantage over their teammates.

Yes, and that's fair enough; but what's wrong, because it is explicitly against the rules, is making the "slower" driver who happens to be in the lead give up the win.

#3318 YellowHelmet

YellowHelmet
  • Member

  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:05

Errrr, yes. Now who's trolling :lol:

i am just posting the truth!
in renault he raced very good drivers equally and fellt comfortable, in mclaren he raced a very good driver with unfair treatment and then back in renault he raced two not that good drivers.
in ferrari he is facing again a very good driver and feels comfortable

#3319 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,654 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:05

China 2007: Fernando Alonso being asked if he wanted to be treated in McLaren as a 2 WDC: "I don't want to be treated as a 2 WDC. I just want to be treated as a human being"

"Who threatened to grass up the team to the FIA after keeping secret information from my team-mate and boss." Some human.

Advertisement

#3320 AlanWake

AlanWake
  • Member

  • 1,610 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:06

Read in the Spanish forum "Forocoches", a well respected forum in which some Spanish race drivers usually post and with the same prestige of this forum...

There's a interesting theory of the race here, and very well elaborated:

"Pues yo apuesto a que ha sucedido lo siguiente:

ha habido una reunión previa en la que se ha acordado que en caso de un 1-2 con el segundo pidiendo paso por ser pretendidamente más rapido, éste debería dejar crecer el gap hasta más allá de los 3 segundos, y seguidamente recuperarlos. En caso de lograrlo, se le haría saber al primero que el segundo había demostrado en pista ser efectivamente más rápido y se le cedería la prioridad.

Sea quien sea el que demuestre tener el ritmo superior.

Me baso para afirmarlo en que:

1) Después de una reunión previa, Fernando se mostró seguro de que Massa no sería un problema.

2) En las primeras vueltas, Massa tenía permiso para luchar.

3) En cuanto se ha Fernando ha dejado crecer la diferencia hasta los 3 segundos, ha habido un mensaje por radio del ingeniero de Massa a éste dicidendo "ahora Felipe, es el momento, hay que darlo todo, the gap is all now. We can win the race."

4) Después de este mensaje, y pese a Felipe lograr varias vueltas rápidas, Fernando recupera el terreno fácilmente.

5) En cuanto lo vuelve a tener a tiro, el mensaje a Massa es otro: "Massa, Fernando es más rápido. Confirma que has entendido el mensaje"

Conclusiones:

Massa podía mantener en pista la diferencia, y habría mantenido la victoria. Esta se la jugaron en el intervalo en que se turnaron en las vueltas rápidas.

Massa es considerablemente más lento, los 3 segundos de ventaja le duraron... cuántas vueltas?

Por último, si la hipótesis del acuerdo previo para actuar de esta forma es cierta, me parece muy inteligente por parte de Ferrari.

Igualmente, siempre me pareció que mi forma de proceder, si yo fuera el propietario de un equipo, sería muy parecida a esa. Nada de dejar que rajen entre ellos, ni jugarretas, ni nada. El que presuntamente se crea más rápido, que lo demuestre en la pista. Si lo hace, nada de que el más lento comprometa la victoria.

Finalmente, Massa mostró su enfado por lo que había pasado, y podía no respetar lo acordado (otros sistemáticamente incumplen pactos previos), pero sí se comportó de acuerdo con las reglas que habían acordado.

Acabo diciendo que si no fuera así cómo han sucedido las cosas, vegüenza para Ferrari, y retiraría lo dicho. Pero si el pacto daba la posibilidad de reclamar prioridad en la pista a ambos, me parece una solución justa".

---Translation (if someone can correct me and help me in the translation, much more better):

"I bet it could have happen as follow:

There was a previous briefing in which was agreed that in the case of 1-2, with the second driving asking to overtake based on he was thinking he was faster, this second driver should give a gap or more than three seconds, and, inmediately to recover the speed. In that case, the leading driver should know that the second driver was faster in the track and, hence, to let the second driver to overtake him. (Second driver should have the priority to overtake).

Whoever he was, he had to show he had a better pace.

I'm based on this:

1) After the previous briefing, Fernando was sure that Massa wouldn't be a problem for him.

2) In the first laps, Mass had green light to fight for the race.

3) When Alonso was behind with more than 3 seconds of gap, there was a radio-message for Massa saying: "Now, Felipe, is the moment. You have to deliver it to the maximum, concentrate, the gap is all now. We can win the race."

[(Radio transcripts needed here)]

4) After this message, and despite Felipe is doing some fastest laps, Fernando is recovering time easily.

5) When Fernando is again just in the back of Massa, Massa is radioed again with a very different message: "Felipe, Fernando is faster than you. Confirm that you understood the message".

Conclusions:

Massa could have the gap on track and race for the win. But both drivers raced each other in the fastest laps episode.

Massa was evidently slower. His 3 seconds gap lasted... how many laps?

Last... if the theory of the previous agreement to behave like this is true, I think that it's a smart move by Ferrari

If I were the owner of a team, my behaviour would be really similar. Nothing about them fighting each other, no dirty tricks. The one who thinks he's fasters has to show that in the track. And if he shows it, the one slower can't compromise his win.

Finally, Massa showed his anger about all what had happened, but he, at least, could have respect (other ones, sistematically didn't do that) the agreement. Anyway, he behaved according to the previous briefing.

I want to finish saying that if things were not according to this theory, shame for Ferrari and I would regret for what I've said. But if the agreement gave both driver to claim for priority in the track, I think that it was a fair agreement"

--------

The most plausible theory for me at the moment according to the radio-comunications, according to certain moments in the race (there's a TV broadcast in Ferrari garage in which someone is explaining, in Spanish, to Emilio Botin, the owner of Santander, that Fernando -being second at that time- "debe dejar tres o cuatro segundos a Felipe antes de atacar" ---"Fernando has to allow about 3, 4 seconds to Felipe before attacking again).


Great theory :up: :up: :up:


#3321 NadsatII

NadsatII
  • Member

  • 236 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:06

Where did you get this source?? I mean give us a source



http://www.forocoche.......633&page=48

But you'll have to look for it. As this forum, there are now dozen and dozen of pages with this controversy...

It's in Spanish.

#3322 YellowHelmet

YellowHelmet
  • Member

  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:06

"Who threatened to grass up the team to the FIA after keeping secret information from my team-mate and boss." Some human.

not alonso
this theory was never proven!

#3323 Number62

Number62
  • Member

  • 494 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:07

thats not true, in equal environment he feels good, he doesnt like unfair treatment


He certainly liked it today.

#3324 Grundle

Grundle
  • Member

  • 720 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:07

China 2007: Fernando Alonso being asked if he wanted to be treated in McLaren as a 2 WDC: "I don't want to be treated as a 2 WDC. I just want to be treated as a human being"

How can you beleive that when he can't even be honest enough to admit Felipe slowed down for him.

#3325 YellowHelmet

YellowHelmet
  • Member

  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:08

He certainly liked it today.

didnt saw fernando being very happy today

#3326 gaston_foix

gaston_foix
  • Member

  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:08

Maybe something positive will come out of all this and the FIA will clarify the interpretation of the rule or get rid of it completely? I think the fans deserve it as much as the teams. Otherwise we may have false expectations. In the case of people who had bet on Massa to win today as was the case in the past with Rubens, those fans have a right to feel aggrieved.

Are we to presume it is not a safe bet on any perceived second drivers finishing first?


You right... The fans are robbed, there is no argue about it. But you Macca fans are to harsh to Alonso. The guy proved that he is the best of the 2 as Hammy proved in 2008. So you Macca fans should stop bashing Alonso for this. Ferrari handled this bad, but Domenicali was never good as doing this kind of things...

#3327 YellowHelmet

YellowHelmet
  • Member

  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:08

How can you beleive that when he can't even be honest enough to admit Felipe slowed down for him.

he cant be honest because this dumb rule, dont allow it --> simple as that

#3328 lexmeister2

lexmeister2
  • Member

  • 206 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:09

China 2007: Fernando Alonso being asked if he wanted to be treated in McLaren as a 2 WDC: "I don't want to be treated as a 2 WDC. I just want to be treated as a human being"



i am just posting the truth!
in renault he raced very good drivers equally and fellt comfortable, in mclaren he raced a very good driver with unfair treatment and then back in renault he raced two not that good drivers.
in ferrari he is facing again a very good driver and feels comfortable

So if Hamilton was beating Alonso at McLaren because of unfair treatment, why was Massa beating him today? Are Ferrari treating him unfairly too? Or is your and Alonso's definition of fair treatment when Alonso is being favoured?

Fair treatment would be beating Massa fair and square on track, not crying down the radio saying "this is ridiculous" as though Massa should just get out of his way. He came to Ferrari as a number 1 and Massa is number 2, that is clear from today. Easier that we all accept that and just move on.

#3329 lexmeister2

lexmeister2
  • Member

  • 206 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:10

he cant be honest because this dumb rule, dont allow it --> simple as that

He is allowed, all he had to say was that Massa slowed down for him. It's only not allowed for the team to give the order, if Massa does it as his own decision it's fine. He must be stupid though to assume that people would accept that he didn't know what was going on and took the "opportunity" to overtake Massa when it arose.

#3330 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,026 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:10

Does that warrant a harsher penalty than the other situation? That's the real question. And that's where we disagree. I don't think it's any worse (what Ferrari did) than what McLaren did in all of 2008.

In the end, it's all about maximizing the team's chance of getting both titles.

I don't think it is where we disagree - see below.

It's enough as it's clear who is faster at Ferrari. There is no time for Ferrari and thay had to do it. I'm glad they did. You will have did the same...

I completely agree. The only thing that may have stopped me from doing it would be the thought: "no one's tried a 'we needed this for the WDC' justification before where the other driver wasn't out of it yet ... this could get us in bother with the rules". With the rule not there, I'd absolutely do it.

To be clear:

1. I think what Ferrari did made sense - without the rule, I would do exactly the same in their shoes

2. even with the rule, I think they are ok: the WDC justification works for me - of I were on the WMSC, I would not be arguing to punish them

BUT

3. I think this justification is taking things to an extreme that hasn't been tested before - there should be no surprise that there is more fuss about this one than others in the recent (ie post rule change) past, or that the FIA will get involved. This is not bitterness or conspiracy, this is more marginal than anything else seen since the rule change.

4. I find the pretence that it wasn't a team instruction, or that it can't be proven to be one, pretty poor: it was 100% obvious. And I find Ferrari's attempt to continue this pretence, frankly, an insult to my intelligence.

I think on points 1 and 2 we agree. It's possibly points 3 and 4 where we differ.

#3331 Number62

Number62
  • Member

  • 494 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:11

didnt saw fernando being very happy today


Q: Fernando are you happy with the win, you don't look happy

FA: "I'm very happy"

#3332 YellowHelmet

YellowHelmet
  • Member

  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:12

So if Hamilton was beating Alonso at McLaren because of unfair treatment, why was Massa beating him today? Are Ferrari treating him unfairly too? Or is your and Alonso's definition of fair treatment when Alonso is being favoured?

you cant beat your teammate always (alonso beated ham in 2007 10:7 on track!)
fair treatment is not being psychologoically offended by your team boss (amongs other things)!



He came to Ferrari as a number 1 and Massa is number 2, that is clear from today.

no he earnde this position because of the better results



#3333 Number62

Number62
  • Member

  • 494 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:13

he cant be honest because this dumb rule, dont allow it --> simple as that


So fernando tells lies to gain an advantage?

#3334 YellowHelmet

YellowHelmet
  • Member

  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:13

He is allowed, all he had to say was that Massa slowed down for him.

no because otherwise he would whistleblow his team
alonso is a teamplayer, as massa is :up:

#3335 DrF

DrF
  • Member

  • 1,546 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:14

Q: Fernando are you happy with the win, you don't look happy

FA: "I'm very happy"

Posted Image

That's a pretty forced smile, if you ask me.


#3336 YellowHelmet

YellowHelmet
  • Member

  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:14

So fernando tells lies to gain an advantage?

to protect his team :up:


#3337 lexmeister2

lexmeister2
  • Member

  • 206 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:14

fair treatment is not being psychologoically offended by your team boss (amongs other things)!



no he earnde this position because of the better results

After your comments about me, I don't think it's fair for you to now make comments about things that are just speculation rather than fact. Except for Alonso, who else said he was being unfairly treated?

At the start of the season Massa was leading the WDC, at this point was he then the number 1? I think not........

#3338 Biggles Flies Undone

Biggles Flies Undone
  • Member

  • 362 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:14

who knows?
but if that is true, all credits to ferrari :up:


It's nonsense written by someone who doesn't understand the inflections of Smedley's English.

Talking of which, any fluent German speakers here who can translate this accurately ?

Niki Lauda said "Ich habe noch nie im Leben jemanden solchen Scheiß reden hören. Der hat ja keinen Charakter, dieser Alonso.“

Edited by Biggles Flies Undone, 25 July 2010 - 20:22.


#3339 AlainProstX

AlainProstX
  • Member

  • 307 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:15

Jut to be clear, you think it's because this result was bad for mclaren and hamilton fans that there's an outcry at the moment?

And you then use an example of when team orders denied a british guy the WDC as an example of when there wasn't an outcry? And another example which nearly denied the same guy?

Have you really thought this through?



Uhm, I only wanted to say that this wasn`t the first time teamorders were used.

Advertisement

#3340 lexmeister2

lexmeister2
  • Member

  • 206 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:15

no because otherwise he would whistleblow his team
alonso is a teamplayer, as massa is :up:

It's not though, he just looked like an idiot as straight after he had finished talking all his rubbish, Massa said that he slowed down to let him past and it was his decision. If they both stuck to the same story it would have been a lot more credible.

#3341 YellowHelmet

YellowHelmet
  • Member

  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:16

I don't think it is where we disagree - see below.


I completely agree. The only thing that may have stopped me from doing it would be the thought: "no one's tried a 'we needed this for the WDC' justification before where the other driver wasn't out of it yet ... this could get us in bother with the rules". With the rule not there, I'd absolutely do it.

To be clear:

1. I think what Ferrari did made sense - without the rule, I would do exactly the same in their shoes

2. even with the rule, I think they are ok: the WDC justification works for me - of I were on the WMSC, I would not be arguing to punish them

BUT

3. I think this justification is taking things to an extreme that hasn't been tested before - there should be no surprise that there is more fuss about this one than others in the recent (ie post rule change) past, or that the FIA will get involved. This is not bitterness or conspiracy, this is more marginal than anything else seen since the rule change.

4. I find the pretence that it wasn't a team instruction, or that it can't be proven to be one, pretty poor: it was 100% obvious. And I find Ferrari's attempt to continue this pretence, frankly, an insult to my intelligence.

I think on points 1 and 2 we agree. It's possibly points 3 and 4 where we differ.

@ 3) red bull tried it even earlier in the season!

@ 4)it is very often obvious, and should always be. i hate hidden orders (especially if they are much more hidden than today)!

Edited by YellowHelmet, 25 July 2010 - 20:17.


#3342 YellowHelmet

YellowHelmet
  • Member

  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:17

It's not though, he just looked like an idiot as straight after he had finished talking all his rubbish, Massa said that he slowed down to let him past and it was his decision. If they both stuck to the same story it would have been a lot more credible.

he has to protect the team interests! he is an employee (especially if they are good to him!)

Edited by YellowHelmet, 25 July 2010 - 20:17.


#3343 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,436 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:17

thats not true, in equal environment he feels good, he doesnt like unfair treatment


He's an emotional wreck. In 2007 he got beat by a rookie and now he has descended into being a b-rate driver who NEEDS team orders to win.

he needed team orders to beat hamilton (which he didn't get). He needed team orders to win in Singapore. And he needed team orders now.

He's worse than Schumi.


Edited by rhukkas, 25 July 2010 - 20:18.


#3344 YellowHelmet

YellowHelmet
  • Member

  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:18

He's an emotional wreck.

you must know. :drunk:


#3345 rhukkas

rhukkas
  • Member

  • 2,436 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:19

you must know. :drunk:


wwaahhh mummyyy massa isn't letting me through wwaahhhh wahhh

ok Fernando mummy will fix it.

This guy is bad for F1. Can't win without the team either making drivers get out of his way... or asking driver to pant themselves in the wall.

Great driver... turned into average driver... turned into b-rate low rate driver

Edited by rhukkas, 25 July 2010 - 20:21.


#3346 NadsatII

NadsatII
  • Member

  • 236 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:20

How can you beleive that when he can't even be honest enough to admit Felipe slowed down for him.


By the same reason that Fernando can be anything you want except honest and speaking his mind all the time. Funny that when he's sincere, people attack him for being against the team, against the world, against anything that moves. The whining boy. When he tries to preserve the diplomacy of a team, he's now hipocryte. In Spain we say that one thing is black or white, but it can't be white today and be black tomorrow.

Alonso was smart and diplomatic today after the race and he said a interesting fact: Ferrari is back. Ferrari is a team. He knows that he work for a team which pays his salary and that, while others lost 43 points in a weekend fighting both drivers in the same team (Red Bull, Turkey), Ferrari has score 43 points this weeking.

And more to come.

He, diplomatically, didn't talk about the overtake on Massa. But it's funny that the "save fuel" orders in McLaren in Turkey weren't punished and the "Fernando is faster than you" transmission is punished and will be punished.

Three punishment against Fernando in a row (Valencia, Silverstone, now Germany) seem too much for a driver which, in my humble opinion, is only obsessed with being the faster guy in the grid.

#3347 wj_gibson

wj_gibson
  • Member

  • 2,319 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:21

"Who threatened to grass up the team to the FIA after keeping secret information from my team-mate and boss." Some human.


Who did grass up the team IIRC.

But the "secret information" claim is a highly-contentious one, given that Mosley has subsequently claimed that there was further evidence directly implcaiting Dennis in full knowledge of Coughlan's possession of the Ferrari dossier (which Alonso and de la Rosa do not appear to have known about).

But I digress.

#3348 YellowHelmet

YellowHelmet
  • Member

  • 3,800 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:22

wwaahhh mummyyy massa isn't letting me through wwaahhhh wahhh

ok Fernando mummy will fix it.

This guy is bad for F1. Can't win without the team either making drivers get out of his way... or asking driver to pant themselves in the wall.

Great driver... turned into average driver... turned into b-rate low rate driver

i think your opinion is important :drunk:

#3349 showtime

showtime
  • Member

  • 2,585 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:22

Read in the Spanish forum "Forocoches", a well respected forum in which some Spanish race drivers usually post and with the same prestige of this forum...

There's a interesting theory of the race here, and very well elaborated:

"Pues yo apuesto a que ha sucedido lo siguiente:

ha habido una reunión previa en la que se ha acordado que en caso de un 1-2 con el segundo pidiendo paso por ser pretendidamente más rapido, éste debería dejar crecer el gap hasta más allá de los 3 segundos, y seguidamente recuperarlos. En caso de lograrlo, se le haría saber al primero que el segundo había demostrado en pista ser efectivamente más rápido y se le cedería la prioridad.

Sea quien sea el que demuestre tener el ritmo superior.

Me baso para afirmarlo en que:

1) Después de una reunión previa, Fernando se mostró seguro de que Massa no sería un problema.

2) En las primeras vueltas, Massa tenía permiso para luchar.

3) En cuanto se ha Fernando ha dejado crecer la diferencia hasta los 3 segundos, ha habido un mensaje por radio del ingeniero de Massa a éste dicidendo "ahora Felipe, es el momento, hay que darlo todo, the gap is all now. We can win the race."

4) Después de este mensaje, y pese a Felipe lograr varias vueltas rápidas, Fernando recupera el terreno fácilmente.

5) En cuanto lo vuelve a tener a tiro, el mensaje a Massa es otro: "Massa, Fernando es más rápido. Confirma que has entendido el mensaje"

Conclusiones:

Massa podía mantener en pista la diferencia, y habría mantenido la victoria. Esta se la jugaron en el intervalo en que se turnaron en las vueltas rápidas.

Massa es considerablemente más lento, los 3 segundos de ventaja le duraron... cuántas vueltas?

Por último, si la hipótesis del acuerdo previo para actuar de esta forma es cierta, me parece muy inteligente por parte de Ferrari.

Igualmente, siempre me pareció que mi forma de proceder, si yo fuera el propietario de un equipo, sería muy parecida a esa. Nada de dejar que rajen entre ellos, ni jugarretas, ni nada. El que presuntamente se crea más rápido, que lo demuestre en la pista. Si lo hace, nada de que el más lento comprometa la victoria.

Finalmente, Massa mostró su enfado por lo que había pasado, y podía no respetar lo acordado (otros sistemáticamente incumplen pactos previos), pero sí se comportó de acuerdo con las reglas que habían acordado.

Acabo diciendo que si no fuera así cómo han sucedido las cosas, vegüenza para Ferrari, y retiraría lo dicho. Pero si el pacto daba la posibilidad de reclamar prioridad en la pista a ambos, me parece una solución justa".

---Translation (if someone can correct me and help me in the translation, much more better):

"I bet it could have happen as follow:

There was a previous briefing in which was agreed that in the case of 1-2, with the second driving asking to overtake based on he was thinking he was faster, this second driver should give a gap or more than three seconds, and, inmediately to recover the speed. In that case, the leading driver should know that the second driver was faster in the track and, hence, to let the second driver to overtake him. (Second driver should have the priority to overtake).

Whoever he was, he had to show he had a better pace.

I'm based on this:

1) After the previous briefing, Fernando was sure that Massa wouldn't be a problem for him.

2) In the first laps, Mass had green light to fight for the race.

3) When Alonso was behind with more than 3 seconds of gap, there was a radio-message for Massa saying: "Now, Felipe, is the moment. You have to deliver it to the maximum, concentrate, the gap is all now. We can win the race."

[(Radio transcripts needed here)] --> "ok gap is 3 seconds, we need everything Felipe, come on, concentrate, keep this going, gap is 3 seconds, keep this going, you can win."

4) After this message, and despite Felipe is doing some fastest laps, Fernando is recovering time easily.

5) When Fernando is again just in the back of Massa, Massa is radioed again with a very different message: "Felipe, Fernando is faster than you. Confirm that you understood the message".

Conclusions:

Massa could have the gap on track and race for the win. But both drivers raced each other in the fastest laps episode.

Massa was evidently slower. His 3 seconds gap lasted... how many laps?

Last... if the theory of the previous agreement to behave like this is true, I think that it's a smart move by Ferrari

If I were the owner of a team, my behaviour would be really similar. Nothing about them fighting each other, no dirty tricks. The one who thinks he's fasters has to show that in the track. And if he shows it, the one slower can't compromise his win.

Finally, Massa showed his anger about all what had happened, but he, at least, could have respect (other ones, sistematically didn't do that) the agreement. Anyway, he behaved according to the previous briefing.

I want to finish saying that if things were not according to this theory, shame for Ferrari and I would regret for what I've said. But if the agreement gave both driver to claim for priority in the track, I think that it was a fair agreement"

--------

The most plausible theory for me at the moment according to the radio-comunications, according to certain moments in the race (there's a TV broadcast in Ferrari garage in which someone is explaining, in Spanish, to Emilio Botin, the owner of Santander, that Fernando -being second at that time- "debe dejar tres o cuatro segundos a Felipe antes de atacar" ---"Fernando has to allow about 3, 4 seconds to Felipe before attacking again).



#3350 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,654 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 25 July 2010 - 20:23

Talking of which, any fluent Germany speakers here who can translate this accurately ?

Niki Lauda said "Ich habe noch nie im Leben jemanden solchen Scheiß reden hören. Der hat ja keinen Charakter, dieser Alonso.“

If that's what Lauda said, then he basically repeated what I said above, only adding that Fernando was speaking a load of what might be described as ordure.