Jump to content


Photo

Ferrari & #1 status policy [split]


  • Please log in to reply
455 replies to this topic

#201 Kvothe

Kvothe
  • Member

  • 6,810 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 15 August 2012 - 17:55

Poll was created a while ago for Mclaren... http://forums.autosp...w...=171105&hl=

Apparently 50% thought they should employ team orders around the German GP this year even though both drivers were close in points
and had a shot at the title. 11% were undecided.

I think your statement should read that 'F1 fans don't like Ferrari team orders'


I don't think that's quite true, as I remember there being multiple threads and posts in the Webber v Vettel thread after Horner asked Webber to maintain the gap all complaining about team orders.

I for one had and have no problem with Ferrari using team orders, however as the handsome op (licks hand and slicks hair back) that started the quoted thread I would advise you to look at the negatives I put down for employing team orders. I do think that employing them can have both a detrimental effect on the second driver and the team. I also believe that Ferrari now operate a no 1 drivers policy, alluded to by there statement (I'll find the link possibly from the horse whisperer) about wanting to employ one main driver and a younger driver to complement him, and that Hamilton specifically wouldn't fit into this model, and that this along with the pressure put on by Alonso's excellent performances and his politics have done much to negatively impact upon Massa's confidence, and consequently his driving.

Edited by Kvothe, 15 August 2012 - 17:56.


Advertisement

#202 Cacarella

Cacarella
  • Member

  • 432 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 15 August 2012 - 18:03

@ Kvothe

I Agree with what your saying and I appreciated the thread you created last month, I apologize for not specifically singling out the poster
that I was replying to, I thought that quoting him would be enough. I didn't mean it as a generalization at all.


#203 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 3,518 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 15 August 2012 - 18:05

What are you talking about mate? Is Button in the same position that Massa was back then? How far is he from Lewis?? Less than a race?


Read my post below. Button was (then) almost exactly as far behind the WDC leader as Massa was in 2010. The only difference is that Alonso was 10 points further back from the WDC leader han Lewis was, making the team orders even more necessary in 2010.

Yes, and the circumstances were quite similar.

In 2012 (before Hockenheim), the WDC leader Alonso had 129 points with Lewis on 92 and Button on 50 with 11 races including Hockenheim to go.

In 2010 (before Hockenheim), the WDC leader Hamilton had 145 points, with Alonso on 98 and Massa on 67 with 9 races including Hockenheim to go.

In 2012 (before Hockenheim), Lewis was 37 points off the WDC lead while Button was 79 points off.

In 2010 (before Hockenheim), Alonso was 47 points off the WDC lead while Massa was 78 points behind.

These are/were quite comparable scenarios.



#204 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 8,877 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 15 August 2012 - 18:07

What are you talking about mate? Is Button in the same position that Massa was back then? How far is he from Lewis?? Less than a race?

Prior to Germany it was 42. In the Alonso/Massa case it was 30.

The difference is the huge sum of 12 points when there was 275 points to play for. If you can't see the double standard then it is senseless continuing this debate.

#205 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 8,087 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 15 August 2012 - 18:08

I think you answered your own question.

I think Ferrari's team orders at Austria 02 were perfectly ok. I think their orders at Hockenheim 10 were perfectly sensible (albeit constrained by a (silly) rule and the lying afterwards was very unattractive). So overall I would describe myself as supportive of those two sets of team orders.

But they are definitely the 2 most extreme examples of team orders in the sport in the past decade by a decent margin. And people react because of that.

I don't particularly agree with that reaction (I think team strategy is, and always has been, part of F1 and I'm glad teams are now free in this regard). But this "people are only upset because it's Ferrari/Alonso" chip on shoulder nonsense is a bit much and fails to recognise the unique (if, IMO, totally justified and sensible) extreme that Ferrari have taken team orders to in the past.


Austria was taking the mickey out of the sport and reeked of arrogance. There was no justification for it. Ferrari had the best car by some margin, it was very early in the season, Schumacher already had a healthy championship lead and Ferrari gained no benefit from it (a 1-2 finish regardless). The only competition Schumacher was going to face was from his teammate, and Ferrari ensured that even on the brief occassions that RB could outrace Schumacher they would artificially reverse that. An understandable backlash followed.

Hockenheim is slightly more justifiable in that Alonso was a fair chunk of points behind in the championship and Ferrari at that stage was not the faster car. He also looked potentially faster than his teammate during the race, unlike the MS/ RB situation in Austria.

Edited by P123, 15 August 2012 - 18:10.


#206 Kvothe

Kvothe
  • Member

  • 6,810 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 15 August 2012 - 18:08

@ Kvothe

I Agree with what your saying and I appreciated the thread you created last month, I apologize for not specifically singling out the poster
that I was replying to, I thought that quoting him would be enough. I didn't mean it as a generalization at all.


No you don't have to apologise I knew you weren't responding to me, with all the talk of hypocrisy and in light of my earlier posts I was just using yours to clarify explicitly where I stood on the matter...I feel you have to do that on this board. :)

Edited by Kvothe, 15 August 2012 - 18:10.


#207 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,017 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 15 August 2012 - 18:42

But it certainly seems that the moral outrage is only aimed at Ferrari.

I am sure that fans applying double standards exist but that there as many doing it in the opposite direction (ie pro-Ferrari, anti-another team) as in the Ferrari direction. I got the impression that people felt Ferrari were unfairly singled out when I think it would be quite possible to fairly do that (ie if you were against any team order other than where a driver was on a different strategy or mathmatically out of it, you could fairly single out Ferrari).

If team orders are wrong in the Alonso/Massa situation then it was sure as hell wrong in the Hamilton/Button situation because it effectively meant that Button couldn't have an attempt at reducing his point deficit to Hamilton.

There is the difference of there being a rule against it in 2010 that isn't there in 2012. But other than that, I agree the situations would be pretty much identical (ie Hamilton's position in the WDC pretty much the same as Alonso's, Button's as per Massa's).

Austria was taking the mickey out of the sport and reeked of arrogance. There was no justification for it. Ferrari had the best car by some margin, it was very early in the season, Schumacher already had a healthy championship lead and Ferrari gained no benefit from it (a 1-2 finish regardless). The only competition Schumacher was going to face was from his teammate, and Ferrari ensured that even on the brief occassions that RB could outrace Schumacher they would artificially reverse that. An understandable backlash followed.

Hockenheim is slightly more justifiable in that Alonso was a fair chunk of points behind in the championship and Ferrari at that stage was not the faster car. He also looked potentially faster than his teammate during the race, unlike the MS/ RB situation in Austria.

Agree with all that. Two small differences (that don't detract from your overall point at all): 1. 02 was mitigated slightly vs 10 by the difference in the rules; and 2. I think the emotional impact of 10 was increased given it was the anniversary of Massa's accident.

Anyhow, I thought both were fine (I think that in 02, fans ought to have directed their ire at the other teams' failure to produce WDC challenging cars for the impending walkover of a season, rather than at Ferrari for doing their job too well - but that's just me and probably a topic for another thread).

#208 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,133 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 15 August 2012 - 18:51

Maybe Massa was "damaged" since this?



I can hear the echo inside his head "immediately, immediately, immediately..."


:lol: Brilliant find! :up:

#209 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 15 August 2012 - 19:21

:lol: Brilliant find! :up:


:p  ;)

#210 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 6,085 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 15 August 2012 - 21:13

They have, even Massa has said many times that the car it's better for him now and he feels more comfortable with it, the team is working hard (or worked) to help Massa and indeed they have helped him


How has Ferrari they helped him - and how does he feel helped? The cries for Ferrari to fire him are growing louder by the day and he has not added any significant points to either Ferrari's WCC or WDC race. How can he possibily feel helped, other than helped out of his seat?

but I guess those facts are not convinient for the people that want to prove that Alonso is driving the space rocket and Massa a piece of junk.


I think the 'inconvenient fact' is that Massa has had consistent, ongoing troubles for 2.5 years. No driver in a top car has that kind of ongoing trouble based on a loss of form and/or talent. A driver can have a poor spell or even a poor season, but not a poor consistent performance, race after race with absolutely no spark proving he at least 'used' to be quite stunning and quick.

I do not buy the fact that he is the same driver and Alonso is making him look bad. Alonso isn't the only measure here, the entire top of the grid is. It is insulting to the intelligence of race fans in my opinion, to infer that Massa of 2010-2012 is the same as Massa of 2007- early 2009. We've seen him struggle with an impossible to handle Ferrari (F60) - and he was in no way, shape or form performing as badly as he is now. We've seen him pull out great drives without multiple errors in 2008, that seems to be a thing of the past. All the spinning and offs, crashing and incidents - these things cannot be put down to Massa having a "difficult car". We know the relative difficulty, we've seen BOTH teammates struggle in the Ferrari - and then we've seen Felipe struggle alone.

I'm no genius, but it doesn't take one to recognize Ferrari's #1 driver policy at work, imo.

#211 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,133 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 15 August 2012 - 21:27

I'm no genius, but it doesn't take one to recognize Ferrari's #1 driver policy at work, imo.


Ignoring the rest for a second, in what way precisely do you reckon that no.1 policy does harm Massa so much? Do you favour the "lack of love / broken Felipe" theory, or is it really Ferrari sabotaging his car? And how does he recover again at random races?

#212 RedOne

RedOne
  • Member

  • 1,561 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 15 August 2012 - 21:40

Ignoring the rest for a second, in what way precisely do you reckon that no.1 policy does harm Massa so much? Do you favour the "lack of love / broken Felipe" theory, or is it really Ferrari sabotaging his car? And how does he recover again at random races?


That's my question too, when Alonso dominates his team-mates it's put down to some number 1 policy but if its another driver it's just because of there talent.

#213 Mauseri

Mauseri
  • Member

  • 7,490 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 15 August 2012 - 21:57

That's my question too, when Alonso dominates his team-mates it's put down to some number 1 policy but if its another driver it's just because of there talent.

There's a voice of martyrdom.. I don't think anyone here is questioning Alonso's talent and most would rate him nro 1 at the moment..

These ratings are always more or less a joke. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and none of them is the truth.

Edited by Mauseri, 15 August 2012 - 21:58.


#214 Kingshark

Kingshark
  • Member

  • 2,944 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 15 August 2012 - 21:59

I am already tired of all these nowhere to leading discussions... they want to have a No.1 and 2 driver line up, what is so wrong about it? Almost everybody does but talks all this sh* of all being treated the same. Vettel clear No. 1, Hamilton as well...

Which would explain to why he's been dominating Webber this season. :lol: :drunk: :stoned:

#215 fabr68

fabr68
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 August 2012 - 23:36

What I see are some people employing a different standard;

It is perfectly "ok" for teams to have orders as long as:
a) One driver is mathematically out of contention for the WDC
b) The team has an open policy concerning this

The problem with reading any word other than 'mathematically' is that we then start talking about degree and what you will see as a fan of the driver benefitting is not the same as what others may see. 'Mathematically' makes it definite instead of subjective and probably divorces it from the reality of day to day team management at a lot of teams.

In Hockenheim 2010 I would agree that realistically Massa was way out of contention and the order (on balance) was appropriate if not at that time legal. I would not expect a fan of Massa to agree with that. I would expect them to point to the possibility of Alonso not finishing the season through injury, or taking a dive in form etc etc as reason for why woolliness doesn't belong in a policy like that. Subjective degree.

The only ones who have double standards are those who might have seriously complained about a team not supporting one driver over the other outside of the mathematical definition, but are here complaining about Ferrari doing it. If you find one, no harm posting a link and pointing it out, rather than making a general complaint about persecution.


Well, the sense of double standards comes from the F1 media in general.

Prior to 2011 there were many cases of a Team asking the no. 2 driver to move over or not challenging the no. 1 driver weather the no. 2 was mathematically out of contention or not. The press never made a big deal about it and swept it under the carpet without making too much noise about it. If you compare these events to what happened in 2010 Germany, there is a clear indication of media overreaction which in turn railed up all the fans with negativity towards Alonso and Ferrari.

Never before, I heard the media telling a driver to his face that he should be kicked out of the race, that he is a dirty champion or that he could not win on his own skill. Specially when the guy who wanted him kicked out of the race once said that it was ok for teams to order their drivers not to challenge each other when the team orders were totally prohibited.

I have never heard of any driver treated this way



This is why I say there are double standards when it comes to team orders, no. 1 and no. 2 status when talking about Alonso or Ferrari.

#216 DrF

DrF
  • Member

  • 1,395 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 August 2012 - 00:12

It's not just about Massa being ordered aside in Germany, lots of teams do this when one of their cars is holding the other up and that's fine - it's about Massa's position in the team. It's clear that Ferrari is Alonso's team and that Massa's role is to serve. This is what was exemplified in Germany in 2010 and is what annoys people so much. With other top teams, you get the feeling that either driver could win a race, even the driver who's 40 or 50 points behind his team mate. There's a chance that he can fight his way back to a thrilling finish in the 2nd part of the season, but not at Ferrari, not any more and I think a lot of us feel cheated. Massa drove really well in 2007-2008 and he's not the only one who needs a good car to win, look at Alonso at Renault after leaving Macca. His current form is way, way short of what he's capable of and some of us feel that it has something to do with the role he now has in the team and we don't like it. Even if he does get his mojo back and starts winning races in the second part of the season, will he be allowed to?

Edited by DrF, 16 August 2012 - 00:13.


#217 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,133 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 16 August 2012 - 00:30

It's not just about Massa being ordered aside in Germany, lots of teams do this when one of their cars is holding the other up and that's fine - it's about Massa's position in the team. It's clear that Ferrari is Alonso's team and that Massa's role is to serve. This is what was exemplified in Germany in 2010 and is what annoys people so much. With other top teams, you get the feeling that either driver could win a race, even the driver who's 40 or 50 points behind his team mate. There's a chance that he can fight his way back to a thrilling finish in the 2nd part of the season, but not at Ferrari, not any more and I think a lot of us feel cheated. Massa drove really well in 2007-2008 and he's not the only one who needs a good car to win, look at Alonso at Renault after leaving Macca. His current form is way, way short of what he's capable of and some of us feel that it has something to do with the role he now has in the team and we don't like it. Even if he does get his mojo back and starts winning races in the second part of the season, will he be allowed to?


Well, the truth is in there, if mixed with other stuff. It's true that Massas form has been terrible. Even the most clear-cut team hierarchy is no excuse for being spanked that badly. That's what you should be angry at, i.e Massa himself.

It doesn't make much sense to worry about Massa being forced to move aside again (which happened for a whopping one race in the last three years, least we forget) as long as Massa can't lift himself into a position making such an order possible in the first place.

#218 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 1,720 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 16 August 2012 - 00:52

Okay, back to the basics. :rolleyes:

Nobody in here is talking at length and repeatedly about his opinion that Alonso can't possibly have some sort of no.1 status in his contract. I repeat, nobody (as far as I'm aware, feel free to prove me wrong) is raising such claim. Instead, it's you who insists on the opposite being the case, or at least very likely. Apparently based upon... well, I'm still not quite sure what you based it on. You haven't come up with a single strong indication, let alone something like evidence or proof. All you do is demand a right to talk about it, regardless of value, probablity, etc., even ignoring indications to the contrary like Alonso having to fight and losing points against Massa for the first half season of his contract.

At the very least, you should expect to be ridiculed spouting wild claims while refusing to back them up with something more substantial than your opinion base on nothing.


Ok, if you find it offensive, forget the contract even though it is as much a possibility as an impossibility. That was not my main point from the beginning. I am saying it's possible, even probable, that FA now has an agreement with Ferrari, implicit or otherwise we'll probably never know, that he is the No 1 driver. I am not saying that he necessarily had it from the beginning. And I give my opinion why this could be possible (key word here is possible): Ferrari getting a top driver that had a history of not handling pressure well, FA wanting to make sure 2007 did not happen again, very early WDC backing in 2010 when teammate was mathematically still in it, large financial support by sponsor brought by FA. If you don't agree, refute the points.



Well, given what I bolded in my first paragraph, which is the only indication of substance in this whole case, accidentically one that goes against your theory, it is indeed unreasonable to cling on to it for dear live.


They let them race during the first part of the season in FA's first season when TOs were forbidden. However, they still took the risk of giving a TO in a very stupid way, after the other driver complained by radio, very early in the championship, to a driver that was still in mathematical contention. They risked dsq. from the championship at the worst, points loss for that race, or a fine at best (which is what they got), and they made asses of themselves in front of the world. Seems to me this would support more than contradict a potential No. 1 status for FA.


Yeah, in the sense that it's possible for Karthikeyan to win a race this season. He's got all the mathematical chances in the world, after all. Strangely enough nobody bothers to discuss that possibility at length. :drunk:


I think you've been ridiculed for this by others already, so I'm letting it go for what it is. Take a look at this thread; I'd say there's a good debate going on about this point, except for people who think they are the owners of the truth.



For this particular discussion with you, that's indeed true.


Looking forward to hearing your facts, evidence, refutal.

Edited by RealRacing, 16 August 2012 - 00:56.


#219 ViMaMo

ViMaMo
  • Member

  • 5,020 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 16 August 2012 - 03:25

Yes, but only a motivated driver, so one who is fighting (or, at least, thinks he's fighting) for the WDC, will bring in good points consistently. My point was that, in the long run, clearly supporting only one driver is shooting yourself in the foot as I don't think any driver can (or should) be motivated by $$ only. No matter how much Ferrari are paying Massa, the moment they told him he's No. 2, they compromised their WCC chances IMO. A driver who feels treated fairly by the team will work harder for them than a multi-million No. 2...


Lets take Jensen's case. Clearly he came in when Hamilton was the star driver and put in some brilliant wins to shock Hamilton. FF to 2012, Jense 's performance has been like the Himalayas. Top of that it is alleged that the team's focus on Jensen's problems have hurt Hamilton. So clearly how did your policy help here?

Had Mclaren hired somebody of the likes of DC, who played the perfect No2 to Mika and Kimi, Hamilton would have better chances at the WDC. Whitmarsh thinks otherwise from Ron Dennis.

Advertisement

#220 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 6,085 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 August 2012 - 06:09

Ignoring the rest for a second, in what way precisely do you reckon that no.1 policy does harm Massa so much?


I don't think it harms him at all.

Do you favour the "lack of love / broken Felipe" theory,


No

or is it really Ferrari sabotaging his car?


Absolutely not.

And how does he recover again at random races?


Felipe does better at some GPs than others like every other driver on the grid. The 'recovery' is when he is having a great race, that is normal.


I think this is the question: What IS Ferrari's #1 driver policy?

In my opinion, it is a plan that ensures the #1 driver stays on top in the standings between the teammates.

In a practical sense, that means that Felipe can have a great qually or race, as long as it is not greater than the #1's qually and race. There is no sabotage, tinkering or browbeating necessary to ensure Massa's subrogation. Like others before him, Massa is in complete agreement with the arrangement.

That doesn't mean Massa likes it, just that he has agreed to it - I would imagine in exchange for some benefit that he does like. I think on the whole, his conflicting emotions hamper his performance, both consciously and subconciously.

Edited by bourbon, 16 August 2012 - 07:09.


#221 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 16 August 2012 - 06:32

I wonder which driver would reject the seat?

Vettel seems to have an eye on it. Hamilton was probably not the driver Ferrari wants, Button had a contract. Even Kimi has not rejected the seat. Those and Webber all enjoy a seat in one of the better teams on the grid. Now I wonder which driver, who is available and driving for a midfield team, would reject the offer and in which way the others performed no better than Massa.

Was Kimi ever actually publicly acknowledged by anyone from mgt ranks as a possible candidate for a seat at Ferrari? (You cannot reject something that wasn’t offered, one would think).

#222 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,133 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 16 August 2012 - 07:16

Ok, if you find it offensive, forget the contract even though it is as much a possibility as an impossibility. That was not my main point from the beginning. I am saying it's possible, even probable, that FA now has an agreement with Ferrari, implicit or otherwise we'll probably never know, that he is the No 1 driver. I am not saying that he necessarily had it from the beginning. And I give my opinion why this could be possible (key word here is possible): Ferrari getting a top driver that had a history of not handling pressure well, FA wanting to make sure 2007 did not happen again, very early WDC backing in 2010 when teammate was mathematically still in it, large financial support by sponsor brought by FA. If you don't agree, refute the points.


There is nothing to refute any more form that paragraph, now you pedalled back on the contract thing, and clearly labeled your opinion as what it is: a possibility. Keyword indeed. A lot is possible, and you obviously have every right of opinion. As long as you don't present them as facts, why would I object? Even if I'm not sharing your opinion, it's no problem.

Thanks! :)

They let them race during the first part of the season in FA's first season when TOs were forbidden. However, they still took the risk of giving a TO in a very stupid way, after the other driver complained by radio, very early in the championship, to a driver that was still in mathematical contention. They risked dsq. from the championship at the worst, points loss for that race, or a fine at best (which is what they got), and they made asses of themselves in front of the world. Seems to me this would support more than contradict a potential No. 1 status for FA.


Obviously they made Alonso no.1 at Hockenheim, has anyone disputed that? They made a decision involving a small risk (of Massa turning suddenly out better than Alonso). It turned out it was the right decision, and the risk never materialized. The outrage of rival fans / anti Ferrari fans and certain parts of press they can live with easily, I reckon. Notably they got almost no stick from rival teams and drivers over it, and for good reason. Bit unfortunate with the fine, but then again they spend so much money trying to boost their WDC chances on the technical side, I guess the cash for the fine was well invested achieving the same.

I think you've been ridiculed for this by others already, so I'm letting it go for what it is. Take a look at this thread; I'd say there's a good debate going on about this point, except for people who think they are the owners of the truth.


It was you who brought in mathematical possibilities (for Massa to become WDC). In strictly mathematical terms, Narain winning a race is possible too. Do you dispute that?

It's my opinion that Massas chances of winning a WDC driving alongside Alonso are close to zero, and I reckon their performances race by race strongly support that opinion. You won't dispute my right to that opinion, or to present it here, wouldn't you? :D




#223 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 8,877 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 16 August 2012 - 07:26

I think this is the question: What IS Ferrari's #1 driver policy?

In my opinion, it is a plan that ensures the #1 driver stays on top in the standings between the teammates.

In a practical sense, that means that Felipe can have a great qually or race, as long as it is not greater than the #1's qually and race. There is no sabotage, tinkering or browbeating necessary to ensure Massa's subrogation. Like others before him, Massa is in complete agreement with the arrangement.

That doesn't mean Massa likes it, just that he has agreed to it - I would imagine in exchange for some benefit that he does like. I think on the whole, his conflicting emotions hamper his performance, both consciously and subconciously.

The bolded makes no sense. We have already seen Massa both out-qualify Alonso and out-race him. What your statement implies is that should Ferrari believe that Massa will out-qualify/out-race Alonso on a given day, they reign him in because his performance is not supposed to exceed Alonso's. I'm sorry Ferrari won't shoot themselves in the foot like that and it is a rather ridiculous notion to entertain.


I think this is an important point and should not be ignored. That was very true in the first part of 2010. Massa even led the championship for a bit. My honest opinion is that because Massa was fresh back from his accident and he had already expressed his unhappiness with his new teammate over the events of 2008, Ferrari did not want to constrain Massa from the start and end up with WW III in its garage; a ton of sympathy for Massa from the outside; and ire directed at its incoming driver. I believe that they didn't think it necessary in any case because to their minds, their incoming driver would surpass Massa from the start. But that didn't turn out to be the case, so Felipe pulled ahead. However, eventually, Alonso came storming back and Felipe had a hard run of it for a stint. When Felipe got his mojo back, Ferrari quickly put a lid on it and we haven't heard a proverbial peep out of Massa since. So I think it was at that stage that they called his attention to their right to dictate terms and his obligation to accept them. I think they made it an attractive obligation and so in the end, they reached an agreement - at least on the face.

I have already pointed out that Massa was nowhere near Alonso in terms of performance in early 2010 apart from the first 2 races. He found himself ahead due to Alonso's mistakes and was often caught and passed despite all this. Ferrari quickly putting a lid on Massa once his mojo came back is quite laughable.

This whole argument boils down to people's belief that Alonso cannot face a competitive teammate due to what happened in 2007. Well, I have news for you. He did go up against a competitive teammate and he certainly didn't embarrass himself in terms of performance. His antics in the garage didn't leave a lot to be desired but then again neither did Hamilton's. People really need to let that one go.

#224 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,133 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 16 August 2012 - 07:27

I don't think it harms him at all.

No

Absolutely not.

Felipe does better at some GPs than others like every other driver on the grid. The 'recovery' is when he is having a great race, that is normal.


I think this is the question: What IS Ferrari's #1 driver policy?

In my opinion, it is a plan that ensures the #1 driver stays on top in the standings between the teammates.

In a practical sense, that means that Felipe can have a great qually or race, as long as it is not greater than the #1's qually and race. There is no sabotage, tinkering or browbeating necessary to ensure Massa's subrogation. Like others before him, Massa is in complete agreement with the arrangement.

That doesn't mean Massa likes it, just that he has agreed to it - I would imagine in exchange for some benefit that he does like. I think on the whole, his conflicting emotions hamper his performance, both consciously and subconciously.


The bolded parts are an obvious contradiction.

I guess you're as aware as the next man that the probabilities of Massa consistently beating Alonso even with all the support in the world and every (hypothetic) double assurance that he wouldn't need to make way for Alonso, are practically non-existant.

What I'm seeing isn't so much people caring for Massa or over fairness, but people being pi**ed that Massa isn't able to distract and take points from Alonso the way Webber does to Vettel or Button to Hamilton. That's the real underlying issue IMO.

Well, it's Vettels and Hamiltons job to spank their teammates as bad and as consistently as Alonso does to Massa. Vettel did manage last year but not this year, but surprise, that's neither Alonsos nor Ferraris fault.


#225 RedOne

RedOne
  • Member

  • 1,561 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 16 August 2012 - 07:37

The bolded parts are an obvious contradiction.

I guess you're as aware as the next man that the probabilities of Massa consistently beating Alonso even with all the support in the world and every (hypothetic) double assurance that he wouldn't need to make way for Alonso, are practically non-existant.

What I'm seeing isn't so much people caring for Massa or over fairness, but people being pi**ed that Massa isn't able to distract and take points from Alonso the way Webber does to Vettel or Button to Hamilton. That's the real underlying issue IMO.

Well, it's Vettels and Hamiltons job to spank their teammates as bad and as consistently as Alonso does to Massa. Vettel did manage last year but not this year, but surprise, that's neither Alonsos nor Ferraris fault.


+10

Fantastic post :up:

#226 DrF

DrF
  • Member

  • 1,395 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 August 2012 - 07:53

The bolded makes no sense. We have already seen Massa both out-qualify Alonso and out-race him. What your statement implies is that should Ferrari believe that Massa will out-qualify/out-race Alonso on a given day, they reign him in because his performance is not supposed to exceed Alonso's. I'm sorry Ferrari won't shoot themselves in the foot like that and it is a rather ridiculous notion to entertain.

Not allowing Massa to race at his full potential is costing Ferrari points and not helping Alonso's WDC bid by taking points off his rivals.

I have already pointed out that Massa was nowhere near Alonso in terms of performance in early 2010 apart from the first 2 races. He found himself ahead due to Alonso's mistakes and was often caught and passed despite all this. Ferrari quickly putting a lid on Massa once his mojo came back is quite laughable.

Massa won't get his Mojo back if he's got no chance of fighting for the WDC, that is the point we are trying to make. We want the Massa of 2007-2009, not this whipped creature.

This whole argument boils down to people's belief that Alonso cannot face a competitive teammate due to what happened in 2007. Well, I have news for you. He did go up against a competitive teammate and he certainly didn't embarrass himself in terms of performance. His antics in the garage didn't leave a lot to be desired but then again neither did Hamilton's. People really need to let that one go.

No. Alonso's temperament is not what we are discussing (see thread topic). He's an excellent racer but his reputation is being tarnished by the perception that his team mate is not allowed to race him for the championship.

#227 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,133 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 16 August 2012 - 08:07

Not allowing Massa to race at his full potential is costing Ferrari points and not helping Alonso's WDC bid by taking points off his rivals.


The bolded is a guess, at best. From what's visible on race weekends, Massa has a long way to go before he should worry about Alonsos no.1 status hampering him. When he finishes 2 or 3 races on Alonsos gearbox, only then it might be time to consider how he's not allowed to reach his potential.

Massa won't get his Mojo back if he's got no chance of fighting for the WDC, that is the point we are trying to make. We want the Massa of 2007-2009, not this whipped creature.


IF Massas "mojo" disappeared in Hockenheim 2010 to never come back to this day, it wasn't worth much to start with.

No. Alonso's temperament is not what we are discussing (see thread topic). He's an excellent racer but his reputation is being tarnished by the perception that his team mate is not allowed to race him for the championship.


Tarnished maybe in a very selected circles. I trust it ain't a problem outside those circles. :D

#228 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 8,877 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 16 August 2012 - 08:19

Not allowing Massa to race at his full potential is costing Ferrari points and not helping Alonso's WDC bid by taking points off his rivals.

Where has this happened? Massa's performances are of his own doing not Ferrari ridiculously telling him he can't outperform his more illustrious teammate. Look at China 2011 if you want even more assurance that Massa is allowed to beat Alonso. He was leading and rightly got preferred strategy... If he was being held back for Alonso then the preferred strategy would have went Alonso's way. Am I correct in saying that?

Massa won't get his Mojo back if he's got no chance of fighting for the WDC, that is the point we are trying to make. We want the Massa of 2007-2009, not this whipped creature.

This is being repeated over and over but there is little evidence other than an isolated race way back in 2010.

No. Alonso's temperament is not what we are discussing (see thread topic). He's an excellent racer but his reputation is being tarnished by the perception that his team mate is not allowed to race him for the championship.

And it is a perception that is born out of bullshit to be quite frank. If Massa can demonstrate the necessary pace and keep himself in contention then the team won't have to make Alonso number 1 come mid-season. Not to long ago, Massa did an interview where he candidly stated that he is no longer in contention for the WDC and his aim is to now help the team. Now does a defacto number 2 make such statements?

#229 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,017 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 16 August 2012 - 08:21

Well, the sense of double standards comes from the F1 media in general.

Prior to 2011 there were many cases of a Team asking the no. 2 driver to move over or not challenging the no. 1 driver weather the no. 2 was mathematically out of contention or not. The press never made a big deal about it and swept it under the carpet without making too much noise about it. If you compare these events to what happened in 2010 Germany, there is a clear indication of media overreaction which in turn railed up all the fans with negativity towards Alonso and Ferrari.

Many cases? Ok, let's have these "many" examples of a team:

a) ordering one driver to let another through (so not a "hold station" order); and

b) where that driver was not mathematically out of the WDC; and

c) the two drivers were not on different strategies (so Canada 08 or Hockenheim 08, for example, don't count).

I can't think of any. Maybe that's because the Ferrari/Alonso hating media didn't report them and I missed them :rolleyes: - but I guess from your post you will be very quick to correct me given there are so many cases?

#230 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,133 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 16 August 2012 - 08:39

Many cases? Ok, let's have these "many" examples of a team:

a) ordering one driver to let another through (so not a "hold station" order); and

b) where that driver was not mathematically out of the WDC; and

c) the two drivers were not on different strategies (so Canada 08 or Hockenheim 08, for example, don't count).

I can't think of any. Maybe that's because the Ferrari/Alonso hating media didn't report them and I missed them :rolleyes: - but I guess from your post you will be very quick to correct me given there are so many cases?


Come on, self-created criteria a) to c) and then you ask to match that artificial criteria?

The whole of 2008/09 at McLaren was an example of no.1 strategy at work, almost every weekend Hamilton got preferred startegy (which mattered more back then with qualifying fuel loads), according to himself in 2009 Kova did get new parts later, if at all. And all that while he was for the most time closer in speed to Hamilton than Massa is now to Alonso.

It's not purely about being ordered to back down over the radio. There WERE double standards at work in the faked outrage from parts of the press in germany, them acting as if teamorders had never happened between Austria 2002 and Hockenheim 2010. Yeah, right... :drunk:

Edited by as65p, 16 August 2012 - 08:39.


#231 RedOne

RedOne
  • Member

  • 1,561 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 16 August 2012 - 08:43

Not allowing Massa to race at his full potential is costing Ferrari points and not helping Alonso's WDC bid by taking points off his rivals.

Massa won't get his Mojo back if he's got no chance of fighting for the WDC, that is the point we are trying to make. We want the Massa of 2007-2009, not this whipped creature.

No. Alonso's temperament is not what we are discussing (see thread topic). He's an excellent racer but his reputation is being tarnished by the perception that his team mate is not allowed to race him for the championship.


It's not Alonso or Ferrari's fault Massa can't keep up with him.

#232 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,017 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 16 August 2012 - 08:48

Come on, self-created criteria a) to c) and then you ask to match that artificial criteria?

They're not self created at all. They are the criteria that an order must match for it to be the same as Hockenheim 10. So they are a Ferrari created criteria.

The contention was that there have been loads of examples of the same thing happening as happened in Hockenheim 10 but the press swept those examples under the carpet.

Ok, so give me the examples. Of the same thing. Not something different.

#233 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,017 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 16 August 2012 - 08:55

as65p - just to explain my last post a bit more fully:

I thought your description here was absolutely spot on, including (importantly for this particular part of the discussion) the bit in bold:

Why should I counter what I agree with? :D As I said, you seem hellbound to built strawmen, for whatever reason.

I would make the tiny addition that with very few and mostly temporary exceptions, every team operates this way. :eek: Now go ahead and disprove that! :wave:

What I don't agree with are the 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation of assumptions people make based on the obvious fact that Massa is no. 2 at Ferrari. Assumptions like Ferrrai not wanting a better driver for fear of disturbing Alonso, like Massa being able to perform so much better if not for Hockenheim 2010, like Alonso being guaranteed no.1 in his contract, like no future driver ever getting a fighting chance alongside Alonso... you name it. All that is the kind of idle, unfounded specualtion I talked of earlier, and worth as much.


I think, as I have said in this thread, that what Ferrari did in 2010 was pretty much ok (if it weren't for the rule, which I am glad is now gone, and the lying resulting from the rule, it would be 100% ok). I would have done the same in a hypothetical situation where the rule is not in place and I am Ferrari team boss.

But I would suggest that Hock 10 was the most extreme example of a use of team orders in the time that they were purportedly banned, and that suggestions that it was just the same of loads of other examples of team orders are well wide of the mark. It had a number of unique characteristics - no "in race" (ie vs "in championship") strategy reason to make the switch, no driver mathematically out of contention etc. And it is this (plus the emotional element of Massa's accident anniversary) that lead to the reaction. Not some paranoid "everyone's out to get Ferrari and Alonso" theory.

#234 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,133 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 16 August 2012 - 09:14

They're not self created at all. They are the criteria that an order must match for it to be the same as Hockenheim 10. So they are a Ferrari created criteria.

The contention was that there have been loads of examples of the same thing happening as happened in Hockenheim 10 but the press swept those examples under the carpet.

Ok, so give me the examples. Of the same thing. Not something different.


No two things are ever truly the same. What should matter is the levels similarity in execution and above all, effective consequences.

No doubt Ferrari's was the most blatant and stupidly executed case of team order in recent years. That doesn't make it any worse though than other, less blatant cases going on underhand to various degrees. Some might even say the way McLaren almost and Red Bull definitely tripped over themselves trying to hide team orders in Turkey 2010 was more hilarious than Hockenheim 2010.

I dare say in a 1-2 situation every team in the pit lane starts to think immediately what to do now to maximize their championship chances. And I mean the real, drivers championship, not the constructers thing nobody cares about other than to mis-use it as an argument when it suits them. Often enough, logically, the better driver will be in front anyway, so that routinely leads to hold station orders (which IMO are considered more fair purely for cosmetic reasons, as their won't be those "horrible" TV pictures of one driver slowing to a crawl and letting the other pass). If the running order is somehow sub-optimal, a lot of brains will start to smoke behind the pit wall trying to rectify the situation, and they'll usuall find a way. Most of the time a less obvious way than Ferrari that day.

The points situation at McLaren this season is looking really interesting in this regard. Forgive me for hoping we'll get new stuff regarding the value of team orders to discuss from the upcoming races. I sense a lot of potential...  ;)

#235 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,133 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 16 August 2012 - 09:18

as65p - just to explain my last post a bit more fully:

I thought your description here was absolutely spot on, including (importantly for this particular part of the discussion) the bit in bold:


I think, as I have said in this thread, that what Ferrari did in 2010 was pretty much ok (if it weren't for the rule, which I am glad is now gone, and the lying resulting from the rule, it would be 100% ok). I would have done the same in a hypothetical situation where the rule is not in place and I am Ferrari team boss.

But I would suggest that Hock 10 was the most extreme example of a use of team orders in the time that they were purportedly banned, and that suggestions that it was just the same of loads of other examples of team orders are well wide of the mark. It had a number of unique characteristics - no "in race" (ie vs "in championship") strategy reason to make the switch, no driver mathematically out of contention etc. And it is this (plus the emotional element of Massa's accident anniversary) that lead to the reaction. Not some paranoid "everyone's out to get Ferrari and Alonso" theory.


Fair enough overall, yet I think it was a mix of the bolded in the end. To put it another way, I don't envisage the same journos getting into the same outrage if (hypothetically) the exact same had happened with Button and Hamilton.

#236 FirstWatt

FirstWatt
  • Member

  • 357 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 16 August 2012 - 09:20

Well, about Massa having been that better earlier...

This analysis bases on Alonsos 79 Podium finishes and Massas 33, assuming that in these races Massa was "OK" mentally and physically.
But this isn't the relevant number in this analysis.

Alonso in 63% of these podium finishes gained at least one position relative to his start grid position, and gained 2.7 places average (I left Singapore 2008 out of this equation ;-) )
Massa in 33%, and gained 1.64 places

Alonso in 10% of these podium finishes lost at least one position relative to his start grid position, and lost 1.25 places average
Massa in 18%, and lost 1.17 places

Alonso held his starting position in 27% of his podium arrivals.
Massa in 48%.

These numbers show clearly that Massa in only half of the cases compared to Alonso was able to get on the podium while gaining a place or more.
In almost double of the cases compared to Alo, he lost at least one place.
He held his position in almost half of the podium finishes.

This shows me that Massa never really had the racecraft as Alonso has.
Ferrari know this as well, and therefore, in 2010 after around half the races already carried out, their decision was logical and had nothing to do with a "predefined" No. 1 Driver.
Alonso got this status already in early 2010 by simply performing better.
Massa needs a very good car and a start position in front to be able to race against "giants" like Alonso, Kimi, Hamilton. I feel that Vettel in this resembles more Massa, btw.

Edited by FirstWatt, 16 August 2012 - 09:34.


#237 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,017 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 16 August 2012 - 09:26

Fair enough overall, yet I think it was a mix of the bolded in the end. To put it another way, I don't envisage the same journos getting into the same outrage if (hypothetically) the exact same had happened with Button and Hamilton.

Not the same ones, no. But I am sure some other journos would have stepped up to the mark.

#238 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,133 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 16 August 2012 - 09:39

Not the same ones, no. But I am sure some other journos would have stepped up to the mark.


Maybe, but AFAIK Lobato isn't in the driver PCs ?!  ;)

#239 Kvothe

Kvothe
  • Member

  • 6,810 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 16 August 2012 - 09:39

These numbers show clearly that Massa in only half of the cases compared to Alonso was able to get on the podium while gaining a place or more.
In almost double of the cases compared to Alo, he lost at least one place.
He held his position in almost half of the cases.

This shows me that Massa never really had the racecraft as Alonso has.
Ferrari know this as well, and therefore, in 2010 after around half the races already carried out, their decision was logical and had nothing to do with a "predefined" No. 1 Driver.
Alonso got this status already in early 2010 by simply performing better.
Massa needs a very good car and a start position in front to be able to race against "giants" like Alonso, Kimi, Hamilton. I feel that Vettel in this resembles more Massa, btw.


Massa had three bad races Canada (front wing damage of Liuzzi and forced to repit) Valencia (safety car at the wrong time and double stacking behind Alonso sent him to the back) and and Silverstone (where a first lap coming together with Alonso resulted in him getting a puncture)

Before Canada these were the WDC points:

Vettel 78
Alonso 74
Massa 67.

The difference between Alonso and Massa was seven points or the difference between a first place and second.

Before his dismal run of three bad races he was fully in the championship hunt and was performing quite well, only 11 points behind the eventual WDC.



Advertisement

#240 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,133 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 16 August 2012 - 09:44

Massa had three bad races Canada (front wing damage of Liuzzi and forced to repit) Valencia (safety car at the wrong time and double stacking behind Alonso sent him to the back) and and Silverstone (where a first lap coming together with Alonso resulted in him getting a puncture)

Before Canada these were the WDC points:

Vettel 78
Alonso 74
Massa 67.

The difference between Alonso and Massa was seven points or the difference between a first place and second.

Before his dismal run of three bad races he was fully in the championship hunt and was performing quite well, only 11 points behind the eventual WDC.


And by what outlandish reasoning to you appear to suggest those 3 bad races shall be regarded differently than the others? AFAIK all results (or the lack of them) count the same towards the points situation before Hockenheim.

#241 RedOne

RedOne
  • Member

  • 1,561 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 16 August 2012 - 09:44

Massa had three bad races Canada (front wing damage of Liuzzi and forced to repit) Valencia (safety car at the wrong time and double stacking behind Alonso sent him to the back) and and Silverstone (where a first lap coming together with Alonso resulted in him getting a puncture)

Before Canada these were the WDC points:

Vettel 78
Alonso 74
Massa 67.

The difference between Alonso and Massa was seven points or the difference between a first place and second.

Before his dismal run of three bad races he was fully in the championship hunt and was performing quite well, only 11 points behind the eventual WDC.


But a WDC race doesn't finish before Canada does it.


#242 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,689 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 August 2012 - 09:47

Ok, if you find it offensive, forget the contract even though it is as much a possibility as an impossibility. (...)


And it's as much a possibility as an impossibility that I'm the only sentient being in the universe and everything else is just my imagination. Still it's not worth a debate.


#243 discover23

discover23
  • Member

  • 3,535 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 16 August 2012 - 09:49

Well, the sense of double standards comes from the F1 media in general.

Prior to 2011 there were many cases of a Team asking the no. 2 driver to move over or not challenging the no. 1 driver weather the no. 2 was mathematically out of contention or not. The press never made a big deal about it and swept it under the carpet without making too much noise about it. If you compare these events to what happened in 2010 Germany, there is a clear indication of media overreaction which in turn railed up all the fans with negativity towards Alonso and Ferrari.

Never before, I heard the media telling a driver to his face that he should be kicked out of the race, that he is a dirty champion or that he could not win on his own skill. Specially when the guy who wanted him kicked out of the race once said that it was ok for teams to order their drivers not to challenge each other when the team orders were totally prohibited.

I have never heard of any driver treated this way



This is why I say there are double standards when it comes to team orders, no. 1 and no. 2 status when talking about Alonso or Ferrari.


Agree. This was a disgrace from British motor sports journalism. Overall they hate Alonso's guts, nowadays they have no other option than to praise the spaniard otherwise they would look like incompetent idiots in front of the world.

#244 Fontainebleau

Fontainebleau
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,023 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 16 August 2012 - 09:49

Many cases? Ok, let's have these "many" examples of a team:

a) ordering one driver to let another through (so not a "hold station" order); and

b) where that driver was not mathematically out of the WDC; and

c) the two drivers were not on different strategies (so Canada 08 or Hockenheim 08, for example, don't count).

I can't think of any. Maybe that's because the Ferrari/Alonso hating media didn't report them and I missed them :rolleyes: - but I guess from your post you will be very quick to correct me given there are so many cases?

Gareth, you are making a very common mistake here. In Hockenheim 2008, by the time Hamilton took over Kovalainen, they were both in the same strategy - i.e., fuelled till the end of the race and fighting for final position.

The "you are in a different strategy" argument only works when drivers still have to take pit stops.

#245 thechin

thechin
  • Member

  • 265 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 16 August 2012 - 09:50

Just want to say that I always thought there was an 'agreement' at Ferrari in 2010 - not that Alonso was number one, the evidence of the first half of the season disproves that - but that after the early races when Alonso was held up behind Massa, they came up with this plan of the second driver dropping back 3 seconds and then having a mini 'shoot out' on lap times to see who should be in front.

I believe they came up with this as a fair way of dealing with situations like Australia/Germany where the slower driver was in front but would fight too hard and risk a crash with his team mate. Alonso had the chance to pass Massa at Hockenheim and almost got it done, I think he was expecting Massa to realise the game was up and not fight too hard, but (as with most of 2010) Massa was far more concerned with beating Alonso than anything else. This is where the 'This is ridiculous' radio message stems from imo. Not that Massa had 'dared' to be in front of him and not jump out of his way, but that he was fighting too hard and was not respecting an agreement about letting the faster driver through.

Massa's problem in 2010 was that he only wanted to finish in front of Alonso. Alonso wanted to finish in front of everyone. That is the difference between these two.

Through a combination of luck and circumstance (Vettel trying to squeeze Alonso at the start, Massa using the run off of the first turn, and Massa having semi decent pace) Massa found himself in the position he did. It is precisely because he knew he had no chance of winning the title that he behaved as he did that day, he capitalised on this one chance to make it seem he was a poor number 2 driver, and in the process dropped his team in it with the authorities.

A lot the above may be guesswork and conjecture but so are most of the posts on this forum.

#246 Fontainebleau

Fontainebleau
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,023 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 16 August 2012 - 09:51

Not the same ones, no. But I am sure some other journos would have stepped up to the mark.

I think that it is a matter of checking what happened during the PC after Liegate, and see how Hamilton was treated then (I honestly don't know the answer).

#247 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,017 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 16 August 2012 - 09:58

Gareth, you are making a very common mistake here. In Hockenheim 2008, by the time Hamilton took over Kovalainen, they were both in the same strategy - i.e., fuelled till the end of the race and fighting for final position.

The "you are in a different strategy" argument only works when drivers still have to take pit stops.

I think I explained it better in my second post to as65p: "no "in race" (ie vs "in championship") strategy reason to make the switch".

In 08, the team stood to gain extra points by making the switch (and did make those extra points), as there were opponents ahead of Kova for Hamilton to attack and Hamilton was on a different strategy in that he had much fresher tyres. In 10 the team gained, and stood to gain, no extra points.

Again, I am not saying this distinction makes one ok and the other not - I think both were ok. But I think it makes differing reactions to the two understandable (because the two were different in a crucial respect) and therefore makes those reactions explainable by something other than just "they don't like my favourite driver/team".

#248 FirstWatt

FirstWatt
  • Member

  • 357 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 16 August 2012 - 10:01

Just want to say that [....]

Great post thechin! Fully agree.

#249 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,017 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 16 August 2012 - 10:06

they came up with this plan of the second driver dropping back 3 seconds and then having a mini 'shoot out' on lap times to see who should be in front.

I believe this theory cropped up on a forum. If I remember right, it was pretty much debunked when the FIA hearing information came out, which revealled that the gap fluctuations coincided with fuel saving measures rather than any mythical "3 second shootout" (or, if they did do the "3 second shootout" they completely rigged it by forcing Massa to drive in that period with lowered engine settings!).

#250 Kvothe

Kvothe
  • Member

  • 6,810 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 16 August 2012 - 10:07

And by what outlandish reasoning to you appear to suggest those 3 bad races shall be regarded differently than the others? AFAIK all results (or the lack of them) count the same towards the points situation before Hockenheim.


I thought it was quite clear that the point I was responding too, was that Alonso got his status by performing better when in reality the team mates were actually close points wise until Massa's run of bad luck in three consecutive races ruined his championship hopes.

Edited by Kvothe, 16 August 2012 - 10:07.