Jump to content


Photo

Ferrari & #1 status policy [split]


  • Please log in to reply
455 replies to this topic

#401 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 3,343 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 20 August 2012 - 13:13

Or, if I'd be equally unconcerned with basing my opinion on facts as you, I could simply phrase and frequently repeat a theory how I think Vettel fears he couldn't create the same kind of no.1 status he enjoys at Red Bull while Alonso performs like he does currently, and for that reason he would have to think twice before joining Ferrari.


Well, that would be a perfectly reasonable speculation on your part.

And you just did put that theory forward, there it is in black and white (although you are trying very hard to pretend that you would never speculate in that way).

Maybe time for one of your favourites, a smilie :lol:


Advertisement

#402 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,155 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 20 August 2012 - 14:16

Well, that would be a perfectly reasonable speculation on your part.


Precisely not. I pulled that out of my a**, in case you didn't notice.

And you just did put that theory forward, there it is in black and white (although you are trying very hard to pretend that you would never speculate in that way).


Only in the eyes of people with reading issues. And IF I'd seriously speculate that way, I wouldn't make poorly disguised attempt to enhance credibility with words like "fact" or "evidence", or claims like "everyone knows" and "people say".

Look, there it is --> :wave: :D

#403 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 1,729 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 20 August 2012 - 16:57

Only in the eyes of people with reading issues. And IF I'd seriously speculate that way, I wouldn't make poorly disguised attempt to enhance credibility with words like "fact" or "evidence", or claims like "everyone knows" and "people say".


I think what is missing from this discussion is probability. Just to make sure the fact alarm doesn't sound again, as65p, it is not a fact that FA has a No. 1 clause in his contract or that he can determine the hiring of a new teammate. However, given the interview with FA and the POVs and actions of Vettel, Webber and Button, we can attach a higher probability to FA having some sort of agreement of his No. 1 status and a pretty good chance of being heard, on the hiring of teammates, than to Vettel or Hamilton or MS havinf the same sort of influence.

Same with Massa's probability of going on to win the 2010 WDC being higher than that of KArthikeyan winning this year's.

Again, not FACTS, but likelihood based on what information is out there.

#404 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,251 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 20 August 2012 - 17:01

...it is not a fact that FA has a No. 1 clause in his contract or that he can determine the hiring of a new teammate.

He might do. It's not a thing that we know we know. It's a thing that we know we don't know. Or something. Ask Rumsfeld.


#405 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,155 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 20 August 2012 - 17:16

I think what is missing from this discussion is probability. Just to make sure the fact alarm doesn't sound again, as65p, it is not a fact that FA has a No. 1 clause in his contract or that he can determine the hiring of a new teammate. However, given the interview with FA and the POVs and actions of Vettel, Webber and Button, we can attach a higher probability to FA having some sort of agreement of his No. 1 status and a pretty good chance of being heard, on the hiring of teammates, than to Vettel or Hamilton or MS havinf the same sort of influence.


Largely fair enough, except for the part over a hypothetical agreement being in place. I do not find it probable that Ferrari have mad a binding agreement with Alonso over this, neither by handshake, let alone a written one. I rather suspect Alonso has won them over with his performances and commitment to the team and convinced them that supporting him over Massa, in those rare cases the situation arises, is best for the team. Or from another angle, should Alonso underperform for any length of time, I would suspect his no.1 treatment to vanish rather quickly.

Same with Massa's probability of going on to win the 2010 WDC being higher than that of KArthikeyan winning this year's.


You still misread what I wrote. It was always the probability of Massa becoming 2010 WDC vs. the probability of Karthikeyan winning a race this season (not the WDC). And I still don't see those two probabilities as that far apart.

PS: Good effort bringing probability in and close (missing) facts out. Now we can talk from a common level, which is nice. :)

Edited by as65p, 20 August 2012 - 17:21.


#406 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 1,729 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 20 August 2012 - 18:42

Largely fair enough, except for the part over a hypothetical agreement being in place. I do not find it probable that Ferrari have mad a binding agreement with Alonso over this, neither by handshake, let alone a written one. I rather suspect Alonso has won them over with his performances and commitment to the team and convinced them that supporting him over Massa, in those rare cases the situation arises, is best for the team. Or from another angle, should Alonso underperform for any length of time, I would suspect his no.1 treatment to vanish rather quickly.


Ok, so we can't prove there's a written agreement between FA and Ferrari as to his No. 1 status or that there isn't. Can we say though, that after the first half of 2010 he has this No. 1 status, that he is the preferred son at Ferrari?


You still misread what I wrote. It was always the probability of Massa becoming 2010 WDC vs. the probability of Karthikeyan winning a race this season (not the WDC). And I still don't see those two probabilities as that far apart.


Ok, if you think those probabilities are close, there's absolutely no sense in continuing with the 2010 TO discussion with you. I guess that's the end of that.

PS: Good effort bringing probability in and close (missing) facts out. Now we can talk from a common level, which is nice. :)


If by that you mean we don't have FA's contract and therefore we can't argue about this topic (which seems to be your angle on this discussion), I disagree. As said by me and others, there's information we can use to point us to a more probable reality.


#407 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,155 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 20 August 2012 - 20:07

Ok, so we can't prove there's a written agreement between FA and Ferrari as to his No. 1 status or that there isn't. Can we say though, that after the first half of 2010 he has this No. 1 status, that he is the preferred son at Ferrari?


I don't really get why you refuse to acknowledge things I've already stated more than once and clearly, or sometimes even make up something up I never said. That makes discussions a bit tedious, wouldn't you think?

Of course I agree with the bolded. For, like... the 5th or 6th time in this thread alone. :rolleyes:

Ok, if you think those probabilities are close, there's absolutely no sense in continuing with the 2010 TO discussion with you. I guess that's the end of that.


Given what I wrote about tedious above, I can only quietly salute your decision.

If by that you mean we don't have FA's contract and therefore we can't argue about this topic (which seems to be your angle on this discussion), I disagree. As said by me and others, there's information we can use to point us to a more probable reality.


You appear consistent, I'll give you that. Your ability to totally misconstrue my words matches your judgement of probabilities regarding Ferrari tactics and driver contracts.

Of course you're free to fantazise on and on about what you think is probable. I'm not trying, let alone am I able to stop you (or anyone) doing that. Just as you (or anyone) will have to live with me (or anyone) poking holes in your theories.

As you phrased it so eloqently yourself:

What was the name of this thing? Forum?


:)

#408 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 3,343 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 20 August 2012 - 21:59

Precisely not. I pulled that out of my a**, in case you didn't notice.

Only in the eyes of people with reading issues. And IF I'd seriously speculate that way, I wouldn't make poorly disguised attempt to enhance credibility with words like "fact" or "evidence", or claims like "everyone knows" and "people say".

Look, there it is --> :wave: :D


I thought it was very clever of you to put forward this idea, and present it as an example of the kind of thing which you wouldn't ever say.

I'm congratulating you on your skilfull manipulation of language.

:lol:



#409 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 1,729 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 20 August 2012 - 23:32

EDIT

Edited by RealRacing, 20 August 2012 - 23:34.


#410 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 1,729 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 21 August 2012 - 00:53

Of course you're free to fantazise on and on about what you think is probable. I'm not trying, let alone am I able to stop you (or anyone) doing that. Just as you (or anyone) will have to live with me (or anyone) poking holes in your theories.



Fair enough. We'll let you be the only one presenting hard facts while the rest of us fantasize. Meanwhile, I'll leave you to your own fantasies about probabilities. Have a good one.


#411 RedOne

RedOne
  • Member

  • 1,561 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 21 August 2012 - 01:51

Fair enough. We'll let you be the only one presenting hard facts while the rest of us fantasize. Meanwhile, I'll leave you to your own fantasies about probabilities. Have a good one.


Umm so who's ment to be fantasising again?

Edited by RedOne, 21 August 2012 - 01:54.


#412 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 6,103 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 21 August 2012 - 04:48

No, you did not base your opinion on facts. Which is no problem in itself, it just becomes one when you pretend you did, like just.


Actually I did and I told you what they were. You've already admitted they were facts (i.e., Massa was told that Alonso was faster than him at Germany 2010; what JB and SV said, etc.). So I am not sure why you are saying that.

Nonetheless, my main point here is that Ferrari's #1 policy is distasteful to me, mainly because of the subjugation of the #2 driver. As you pointed out, you can't win WCCs that way unless you have a workhorse for a #2 driver, who is willing to forego his career for the dubious pleasure of being a part of earning the team a WCC. yay.

Ferrari's policy is old, outdated and the epitome of unsporting behavior. The #2 has drivers on the outside making statements like we read from JB and SV about him ("I don't understand" and "I feel sorry for Felipe"). His homeland made threats and published a zillion articles filled with vitrol and disgust - both at Ferrari for the policy and at Felipe for adhering to it. Any driver making it to a top team - especially one with Ferrari's elevated status - should not engender emotions like confusion, sorrow and overt anger over his position with the team. The policy has an ubiquitous influence within Ferrari resulting in advantages and disadvantages. But on the whole, it isn't good for the sport at all - it is a huge turn off as Ferrari should well know by now. Their lame excuses about Massa's poor performance, going on for 2 years now, are fooling no one but those who wish to be fooled, imo.

And it is unnecessary. They have 2 great drivers and a great car - and usually do have. Just unnecessary.

Edited by bourbon, 21 August 2012 - 04:51.


#413 starbeam

starbeam
  • New Member

  • 4 posts
  • Joined: August 12

Posted 21 August 2012 - 06:29

The implication is very clear, though. If you have a new part but only one, who is going to get it? Your great champion or your very good driver? If there is an optimum lap for both drivers to pit on, who will you call in, your great champion or your number one driver?


All of these questions have been answered. They are determined by world championship contention, and track position. It has been proven that Ferrari allow their drivers to race, unless one is out of championship contention, which Massa was in 2010 despite being mathematically in contention. In China 2011, Massa was faster than Alonso, and guess what, he was given the optimal pit strategy, and allowed to finish directly ahead and beat him, which totally, debunks the whole debate. Reading this thread, page after page, the same baseless allegation is repeated, without any evidence, in fact contrary to the evidence, as I just listed.

Domincelli was talking about the type of driver Ferrari employ, which is a great driver and another competitive driver, he spoke nothing of team policy status, and to suggest he did is just a distortion. The beauty is that we do not have to rely on anyones words, regardless of how you wish to interpret them because we can see it with our own eyes.

1. The only example of Alonso getting any preferential treatment was over two years ago in a single race, when he was fighting for the title and Massa was out of realistic contention. A policy which is univeral within all team historically, so even this one example was not evidence of de facto number 1 status which is the claim here.

And that's it. For the rest of the time, Massa has been allowed to race Alonso on track, keep his position, beat him, and both share the same updates.

So its quite clear Ferrari do have a number 1 status policy. Of course anyone who disagrees can list all the evidence that supports the opposite, but just repeating the same allegations over and over is not classed as a credible argument.

#414 starbeam

starbeam
  • New Member

  • 4 posts
  • Joined: August 12

Posted 21 August 2012 - 06:34

He might do. It's not a thing that we know we know. It's a thing that we know we don't know. Or something. Ask Rumsfeld.


If he did, Massa would have automatically let him past in Australia 2010, Malaysia, 2010, Germany 2010, and China 2010, plus Alonso would be getting a higher testing share than Massa(like schumacher did), which would be a critical advantage these days with testing being so limited. Yet none of the above happened which directly contradicts the notion Alonso has any de facto number 1 status either oral or written.

#415 starbeam

starbeam
  • New Member

  • 4 posts
  • Joined: August 12

Posted 21 August 2012 - 06:39

. Can we say though, that after the first half of 2010 he has this No. 1 status, that he is the preferred son at Ferrari?


We can only say it when there is evidence to support it, and there is none, no matter how desperate some people are to be comforted by this notion
What on earth does 'preferred son' mean? They like him more? Sure. Number 1 status? Well in the same way Usain Bolt has number 1 status in spring racing, by being the fastest by far, which is completely different to number 1 treatment of which there is no evidence, and as I said before everything points to Ferrari going out of their way to give both drivers equal treatment, so to keep suggesting otherwise is a terrible smear on Ferrari.



#416 starbeam

starbeam
  • New Member

  • 4 posts
  • Joined: August 12

Posted 21 August 2012 - 06:43

This is another myth that is constantly being circulated. Massa in '06 to '09 put the car ahead of the inferior cars. Now, he is not even able to match the car. He is often finishing behind Force India, Sauber, Torro Rosso, let alone Mercedes and Renault. That is clearly a case of a driver underperforming. The '06 Massa still did justice to the car's potential even if his pace was not as good as Schumacher. There has been a big difference.



Have you considered that Alonso could simply be out performing the force india, sauber, torro rosso, mercedes and renault drivers, by as much as he is his own team mate, and as he did Fisichella, and Piquet and Grosjean? If he can do it to those drivers when why can't he do to the less than stellar drivers in all those teams I listed? If this was true, you would not require all the ridiculous logical gymnastics, to prove Massa used to be good but now sucks.

#417 RedOne

RedOne
  • Member

  • 1,561 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 21 August 2012 - 07:56

We can only say it when there is evidence to support it, and there is none, no matter how desperate some people are to be comforted by this notion
What on earth does 'preferred son' mean? They like him more? Sure. Number 1 status? Well in the same way Usain Bolt has number 1 status in spring racing, by being the fastest by far, which is completely different to number 1 treatment of which there is no evidence, and as I said before everything points to Ferrari going out of their way to give both drivers equal treatment, so to keep suggesting otherwise is a terrible smear on Ferrari.


+10 :up:

#418 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 8,880 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 21 August 2012 - 15:06

Ferrari's policy is old, outdated and the epitome of unsporting behavior. The #2 has drivers on the outside making statements like we read from JB and SV about him ("I don't understand" and "I feel sorry for Felipe"). His homeland made threats and published a zillion articles filled with vitrol and disgust - both at Ferrari for the policy and at Felipe for adhering to it. Any driver making it to a top team - especially one with Ferrari's elevated status - should not engender emotions like confusion, sorrow and overt anger over his position with the team. The policy has an ubiquitous influence within Ferrari resulting in advantages and disadvantages. But on the whole, it isn't good for the sport at all - it is a huge turn off as Ferrari should well know by now. Their lame excuses about Massa's poor performance, going on for 2 years now, are fooling no one but those who wish to be fooled, imo.

And it is unnecessary. They have 2 great drivers and a great car - and usually do have. Just unnecessary.

Epitome of unsporting behaviour? You are watching the wrong sport then... What is so unsporting about doing what is ultimately better for the team? This type of thing is ingrained in formula 1 culture and various other sports where the team matters more than the individual. I think you should lobby for 1 man teams.

And a huge turnoff for who? The morally astute minority... The same people who were watching then are the same people watching now plus the new breed.

#419 revlec

revlec
  • Member

  • 2,721 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 21 August 2012 - 20:16

If he did, Massa would have automatically let him past in Australia 2010, Malaysia, 2010, Germany 2010, and China 2010, plus Alonso would be getting a higher testing share than Massa(like schumacher did), which would be a critical advantage these days with testing being so limited. Yet none of the above happened which directly contradicts the notion Alonso has any de facto number 1 status either oral or written.


Check Mugello testing days.. :)
_
The fact that your examples of races where MAS was ahead are part of the first part of the 2010 season only confirm what many here think.
In the first part of the 2010 season, MAS and ALO were actually racing each other(remember Bahrain first corners battle). And it doesn't matter if FA was faster, but MAS had the opportunity to race him. Just like it happens in RB and McLaren.



Advertisement

#420 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 1,729 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 21 August 2012 - 23:08

We can only say it when there is evidence to support it, and there is none, no matter how desperate some people are to be comforted by this notion
What on earth does 'preferred son' mean? They like him more? Sure. Number 1 status? Well in the same way Usain Bolt has number 1 status in spring racing, by being the fastest by far, which is completely different to number 1 treatment of which there is no evidence, and as I said before everything points to Ferrari going out of their way to give both drivers equal treatment, so to keep suggesting otherwise is a terrible smear on Ferrari.


The evidence is Ferrari saying in 2010 and 2012 that from a certain point onwards, Massa has to support Alonso.

#421 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,694 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 22 August 2012 - 01:32

The evidence is Ferrari saying in 2010 and 2012 that from a certain point onwards, Massa has to support Alonso.


That's a totally different thing than a fixed #1 status, and common sense.

(Edit: comma)

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 22 August 2012 - 13:56.


#422 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,694 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 22 August 2012 - 01:41

Check Mugello testing days.. :)


3 days, so unless you want to split a day (which creates a whole lot of issues by wasting time), *someone* has to have 2 days. And before Mugello we had Australia, Malaysia, China, and Bahrain. The Alonso results were 5, 1, 9, 7. Massa's were DNF (collision), 15, 12, 9. Alonso struggled with a bad car in those races (except when wet), but Massa was totally lost and the possible quality of his input on car development in this situation must have been very questionable. Seems to me that if you have to have uneven day allocation, it is a no-brainer to allocate 2 days to Alonso, even if there was no dedicated #1 and both drivers started the season on even footing. Ergo, your argument sucks as evidence for Alonso being considered #1 regardless of results.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 22 August 2012 - 01:43.


#423 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 1,729 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 22 August 2012 - 14:23

That's a totally different thing than a fixed #1 status, and common sense.

(Edit: comma)


Does FA have No. 1 status?

#424 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 6,103 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 22 August 2012 - 15:03

Epitome of unsporting behaviour? You are watching the wrong sport then... What is so unsporting about doing what is ultimately better for the team? This type of thing is ingrained in formula 1 culture and various other sports where the team matters more than the individual. I think you should lobby for 1 man teams.


How is it better for the team? It appears to only be better for the predetermined #1 driver. If they went back to their 2007-2009 ideology, that would be great for the team because it was evident that both drivers truly had the opportunity to be #1, depending on how the season went. It gave both an incentive to race for the WCC too. In 07 and 08, the driver left in the #2 position got a contract extension at the point where they began driving in a supportive role - likey as further incentive.

huge turnoff for who? The morally astute minority... The same people who were watching then are the same people watching now plus the new breed.


It is a turn off for me and those who have expressed their dislike of the policy. I don't think we can place a singular label on all of those individuals. Some may be fans of Massa. Others may want fairness in general, etc.

#425 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,694 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 22 August 2012 - 15:15

Does FA have No. 1 status?


Is he treated as the number one based on his performance vs. Massa? Of course, same as he would in every other team.
Does he have #1 in his contract unrelated to performance? Very doubtful, and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Which will not prevent you reading the flight of swallows, I know that very well.

#426 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 1,729 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 22 August 2012 - 15:46

Is he treated as the number one based on his performance vs. Massa? Of course, same as he would in every other team.
Does he have #1 in his contract unrelated to performance? Very doubtful, and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Which will not prevent you reading the flight of swallows, I know that very well.


Not talking about contract. Does he have No. 1 status?

#427 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,694 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 22 August 2012 - 16:43

Not talking about contract. Does he have No. 1 status?


Can you read?

#428 MP422

MP422
  • Member

  • 1,720 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 22 August 2012 - 17:07

Not talking about contract. Does he have No. 1 status?


Yes.

#429 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 8,880 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 22 August 2012 - 17:08

How is it better for the team? It appears to only be better for the predetermined #1 driver. If they went back to their 2007-2009 ideology, that would be great for the team because it was evident that both drivers truly had the opportunity to be #1, depending on how the season went. It gave both an incentive to race for the WCC too. In 07 and 08, the driver left in the #2 position got a contract extension at the point where they began driving in a supportive role - likey as further incentive.

The 2007-2009 ideology will not work either with the results Massa has been getting... And please don't give me the shpeel about Germany 2010 being the reason for such lousy performances. There are better reasons for his results and resorting to the number 2 excuse is scraping the bottom of the barrel imo.

You still haven't explained how it is the epitome of unsporting behaviour... How can it be when regulations demand 2 car teams?


It is a turn off for me and those who have expressed their dislike of the policy. I don't think we can place a singular label on all of those individuals. Some may be fans of Massa. Others may want fairness in general, etc.

Then don't make absolute statements such as

But on the whole, it isn't good for the sport at all - it is a huge turn off as Ferrari should well know by now.


Do you consider the order of Webber not to attack Vettel at Silverstone last year as unsporting and a turnoff?

#430 RedOne

RedOne
  • Member

  • 1,561 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 22 August 2012 - 17:45

How is it better for the team? It appears to only be better for the predetermined #1 driver. If they went back to their 2007-2009 ideology, that would be great for the team because it was evident that both drivers truly had the opportunity to be #1, depending on how the season went. It gave both an incentive to race for the WCC too. In 07 and 08, the driver left in the #2 position got a contract extension at the point where they began driving in a supportive role - likey as further incentive.



It is a turn off for me and those who have expressed their dislike of the policy. I don't think we can place a singular label on all of those individuals. Some may be fans of Massa. Others may want fairness in general, etc.


Would you say Massa is not bad for a number 2 driver?

#431 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 6,103 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 22 August 2012 - 20:35

The 2007-2009 ideology will not work either with the results Massa has been getting... And please don't give me the shpeel about Germany 2010 being the reason for such lousy performances. There are better reasons for his results and resorting to the number 2 excuse is scraping the bottom of the barrel imo.

You still haven't explained how it is the epitome of unsporting behaviour... How can it be when regulations demand 2 car teams?


You have not explained how the team benefits from the current policy. I feel the #1 policy is unsporting because it only supports one driver for the WDC - on the whole and is dismissive of the other driver.

Then don't make absolute statements such as


If you need more detail to understand, just ask.

Do you consider the order of Webber not to attack Vettel at Silverstone last year as unsporting and a turnoff?


Yes. As it was unsporting to ask Seb to hold station for Mark in 2009 - and for Button to hold station (and ultimately give back the position) to Hamilton in 2010. The only time this type of order is "sporting" is when the WDC championship is critically in the balance and the teammate is compeltely out of the running.

That is why Ferrari, doing it casually and consistently, is particularly distasteful (to me).

Edited by bourbon, 22 August 2012 - 20:36.


#432 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,694 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 22 August 2012 - 20:52

You have not explained how the team benefits from the current policy. I feel the #1 policy is unsporting because it only supports one driver for the WDC - on the whole and is dismissive of the other driver.


You (or anyone) have not shown that such a policy currently exists (i.e., a policy that defines one driver as number one from the start of the season, regardless of performance).

To define a driver as number one after a number of races based on performance, and when the other driver is practically out of contention (which is the case now and was in 2010), benefits the team by improving their WDC chances. Unless you would want to make the tortured argument that the team does not care about the WDC.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 22 August 2012 - 20:52.


#433 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 6,103 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 23 August 2012 - 06:27

You (or anyone) have not shown that such a policy currently exists (i.e., a policy that defines one driver as number one from the start of the season, regardless of performance).


Yeah, I am not really into trying to prove whether or not it exists. If some don't believe it does - or have other ideas about what it entails - that is okay. I respect the fact that we don't all share a common vision of Ferrari's driver policy. I discussed the support for my belief in past pages, but even with that, others may interpret it differently. It's all good. :up:

To define a driver as number one after a number of races based on performance, and when the other driver is practically out of contention (which is the case now and was in 2010), benefits the team by improving their WDC chances. Unless you would want to make the tortured argument that the team does not care about the WDC.


Well I disagree. I think that Ferrari pulled the plug on Massa early in 2010 (and many agreed at the time - recall the Embarassing Presser With Alonso and Massa.) I don't understand why people say that this was just one occassion and thus, doesn't count. How does anyone explain the one occassion? It isn't like it doesn't require an explanation merely because it was the only blatant one. It occurred when team orders were disallowed, but more importantly, it was a clear and unequivocal example of Ferrari's policy in action - and to me - it happened at a time when Massa was clearly not yet out of the running. There was a lot of bad press, something Ferrari wished to avoid at the time (with it being Alonso's first year and all the hype that had gone with that). That is why I feel that subsequent to the German race, the team has been careful in its orchestration of the policy.

This season, Massa has shown some promise in FP, but generally by qually and race time, he loses pace, scope, hope, the race... I suppose there are many ways to interpret this, but for whatever reason, it is obvious to me that Massa settled into his #2 position under Ferrari's strict #1 policy right from the start. Note, I said "obvious to me" - as I say, I realize some won't agree, so that's cool. But that is how I see it.

Edited by bourbon, 23 August 2012 - 07:39.


#434 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,694 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 23 August 2012 - 06:58

Yeah, I am not really into trying to prove whether or not it exists. If some don't believe it does - or have other ideas about what it entails - that is okay. I respect the fact that we don't all share a common vision of Ferrari's driver policy. I discussed the support for my belief in past pages, but even with that, others may interpret it differently. It's all good. :up:


I see, you don't care if it actually exists, but still you write as if it did: "You have not explained how the team benefits from the current policy. I feel the #1 policy is unsporting ..."
I don't think I have to understand that, or even want to.

#435 four1

four1
  • Member

  • 453 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 23 August 2012 - 18:10

I think that Ferrari pulled the plug on Massa early in 2010 (and many agreed at the time - recall the Embarassing Presser With Alonso and Massa.)


In my opinion, the only embarassment displayed in that press conference was by the interviewer. Perhaps that's the reason why he's not doing that job any longer.

#436 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,251 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 23 August 2012 - 22:48

It's more likely to do with the closure of the newspaper.

#437 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 1,729 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 27 August 2012 - 01:16

Can you read?


Does he?

#438 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,694 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 October 2012 - 20:22

James Allen today. I think he is overinterpreting, but here it goes for your entertainment:

Last Friday, somewhat lost among all the furore over the announcement of the Hamilton-Mercedes transfer, there was an important note made by Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo in a Q&A session at the Paris Motor Show. It was the session where he confirmed that Ferrari would need to shut down its wind tunnel in either December or January for calibration checks, which has had reasonably wide coverage.

In the same session, Montezemolo talked about Fernando Alonso and Felipe Massa and there were a couple of important lines to note, for better understanding the full picture when the time comes for the team to announce who will drive alongside Alonso in 2013.

The first point was that he described Alonso as “the strongest driver Ferrari has ever had,” which is quite some claim.

But then he responded to Alonso’s line from Singapore that, “If the team decides to change Felipe, anyone who arrives has to be better than Felipe. I’ve seen a lot of names written, and I don’t know if they have been written with the head or the heart. With all the names you hear, if you compare what Felipe has done in Formula 1 and what these little names have done in Formula 1…”

Montezemolo said, “He’s right that there aren’t any “phenomenons” in circulation. But first Fernando should win the world title and then we will certainly not put anyone alongside him who would bother him. It is the case that the decisions on drivers are taken by us, obviously sharing them with him. Massa has been very strong in the last two races. I’m taking a few days to reflect.”

This is interesting on a couple of levels; first by agreeing with Alonso that the possible candidates for the seat are “little names” it makes for some uncomfortable questions if and when then should hire a Di Resta or a Hulkenberg. Also the use of the word “share” is interesting. In Italian he says that of the decisions “ovviamente condividendole con lui”, which literally means “obviously sharing them with him.” I take that to mean that they will share their decisions with him, rather than that he would have a share in making the decision, but there is a slight ambiguity there which is intriguing.


Edited by KnucklesAgain, 03 October 2012 - 20:23.


#439 apoka

apoka
  • Member

  • 3,487 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 03 October 2012 - 20:57

Montezemolo said, “He’s right that there aren’t any “phenomenons” in circulation. But first Fernando should win the world title and then we will certainly not put anyone alongside him who would bother him. It is the case that the decisions on drivers are taken by us, obviously sharing them with him. Massa has been very strong in the last two races. I’m taking a few days to reflect.”


Did he actually say that? They wouldn't put anyone "alongside him who would bother him"? I guess it's badly translated, otherwise it wouldn't really go down well for any driver they want to hire (given that Alonso is likely to win the WDC).


Advertisement

#440 tass

tass
  • New Member

  • 26 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 03 October 2012 - 21:07

Also the use of the word “share” is interesting. In Italian he says that of the decisions “ovviamente condividendole con lui”, which literally means “obviously sharing them with him.” I take that to mean that they will share their decisions with him, rather than that he would have a share in making the decision, but there is a slight ambiguity there which is intriguing.


If that's exactly what Monte said, it isn't ambiguous at all.

When talking about decisions, "condividere" always means "to agree". A more literal translation of what he said would be: "obviously with his agreement".

Edited by tass, 03 October 2012 - 21:07.


#441 crespo

crespo
  • Member

  • 487 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 03 October 2012 - 21:18

Did he actually say that? They wouldn't put anyone "alongside him who would bother him"? I guess it's badly translated, otherwise it wouldn't really go down well for any driver they want to hire (given that Alonso is likely to win the WDC).

This. I'd like to see the original transcript before expressing my opinion about this quote, in Italian if possible. Sounds too much like a bad translation being stretched to make a good headline.

#442 FSA

FSA
  • Member

  • 510 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 03 October 2012 - 21:25

What amazes me is why don't Ferrari just come out and admit that they operate a Number 1 policy. They've done it for much of their recent history. It seems bizarre to be making these admissions because something that really isn't news then becomes news. Weird !!!

#443 showtime

showtime
  • Member

  • 2,585 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 03 October 2012 - 21:51

Did he actually say that? They wouldn't put anyone "alongside him who would bother him"? I guess it's badly translated, otherwise it wouldn't really go down well for any driver they want to hire (given that Alonso is likely to win the WDC).


IMO "worry him" would be more appropriate since he was answering a question about what Alonso worries. Alonso said he would prefer a big name as his teammate, someone at least more successful than Massa otherwise a change wouldn't make sense. In this context Montezemolo's words mean Ferreri will sign someone good and experienced enough to be at least as good as Massa so Alonso should not worry about that matter. But we know that quote is more "valuable" out of context and all the haters are going to say Montezemolo admitted Ferrari is looking for an obedient #2 driver.

Edited by showtime, 03 October 2012 - 22:34.


#444 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,694 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 October 2012 - 21:55

Did he actually say that? They wouldn't put anyone "alongside him who would bother him"? I guess it's badly translated, otherwise it wouldn't really go down well for any driver they want to hire (given that Alonso is likely to win the WDC).


"Bothering" in the English version is very ambiguous IMHO. It seems to me that it can mean "we won't hire anyone Alonso does not get along with" as well as "we won't hire anyone who could challenge Alonso as driver". The former seems like a matter of course in any sensible team, the latter would indeed be problematic for anyone thinking about driving for Ferrari.

Edit: Plus what showtime said above :up:

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 03 October 2012 - 21:57.


#445 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,694 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 October 2012 - 21:56

What amazes me is why don't Ferrari just come out and admit that they operate a Number 1 policy. They've done it for much of their recent history. It seems bizarre to be making these admissions because something that really isn't news then becomes news. Weird !!!


Well if we take the quotes in the way Allen interprets them (which is not necessarily correct), the quote is saying the opposite of what you say, namely it says that in fact at this time there is no #1 policy.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 03 October 2012 - 21:57.


#446 FSA

FSA
  • Member

  • 510 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 03 October 2012 - 22:39

Well if we take the quotes in the way Allen interprets them (which is not necessarily correct), the quote is saying the opposite of what you say, namely it says that in fact at this time there is no #1 policy.


Bottom line is Ferrari were embarrassed by how clumsily they handled Schumacher's #1 status in the 2000s and how blatantly stupid it made them look. Ever since then they've been touchy about the subject so you get this "neither confirm nor deny" and "we are and we aren't but we might if we have to".

At then end of the day we all know Ferrari like to focus on one driver, and in large part it's because of the tremendous domestic pressure they endure on a yearly basis to win the WDC. I would just prefer it if they were open and honest about it and said "we don't give a sh*t what anyone else thinks, this is how we operate and we intend to continue that way". I would respect them more as a team if they did that every time the question is asked.

Edited by FSA, 03 October 2012 - 22:40.


#447 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,694 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 October 2012 - 22:46

Bottom line is Ferrari were embarrassed by how clumsily they handled Schumacher's #1 status in the 2000s and how blatantly stupid it made them look. Ever since then they've been touchy about the subject so you get this "neither confirm nor deny" and "we are and we aren't but we might if we have to".

At then end of the day we all know Ferrari like to focus on one driver, and in large part it's because of the tremendous domestic pressure they endure on a yearly basis to win the WDC. I would just prefer it if they were open and honest about it and said "we don't give a sh*t what anyone else thinks, this is how we operate and we intend to continue that way". I would respect them more as a team if they did that every time the question is asked.


Fully agreed - if it's the case. If it isn't, nothing they can say will change your mind

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 03 October 2012 - 22:47.


#448 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 6,103 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 October 2012 - 05:22

Fully agreed - if it's the case. If it isn't, nothing they can say will change your mind


Because you don't change mind with "say", you change mind with "do". If it isn't the case that Ferrari has a #1 policy, then they have had the most uncanny, coincidental, probability defying, impossible record of 1:1 driver supremacy/subjugation in the history of the sport. :well:

#449 Cesc

Cesc
  • Member

  • 759 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 04 October 2012 - 07:57

In recent years, there was only one year when the No.2 driver at Ferrari was able to constantly challenge and beat the No.1 driver and that was 2008. I do not think Massa could complain about a lack of support back then.
A driver joining Alonso at Ferrari should be aware of the fact that he will be joining Alonso´s team, so he should not expect to be the No.1 there. He must aim to match Alonso, be close to him and challenge him speedwise. Massa is not close to Alonso and he rarely is a challenge for Alonso either. And there is no excuse for that, even for a clear No.2 driver.

There is no evidence that the second Ferrari is worse than the N0.1 car or has been worse in the past. I doubt that the mechanics for the No.2 car are worse or care less about their job. The only thing that might not happen is that the team would make changes to the car that the No.2 driver needs to beat the No.1 driver, when those changes do not improve the car overall. But outisde from Mclaren today, no team would do this.


That´s quite my point, there is a lot of "abstract" discussion about how difficult is being driver n2 at Ferrari alongside Alonso, but I can´t see at practical level how this n2 status is reflected. Massa has the same car in qualis and he can barely be 1/2 second close to Alonso. Could he really complain then of having worse strategies? If I have a driver fighting for the podium/win and another one trying to get into the points positions, wouldn´t every team support the one in front? I can´t see what is doing Ferrari from day 1 of the season to support Alonso more than Massa beyond the pure speed of the drivers.

#450 seahawk

seahawk
  • Member

  • 3,132 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 04 October 2012 - 08:09

Imho you can put Ferrari´s statement in a very simple way: "We do not want to end up with a McLaren in 2007 type situation."