Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 9 votes

Vettel off to Ferrari in 2014?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1198 replies to this topic

Poll: Vettel off to Ferrari in 2014? (518 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you think Vettel is heading to Ferrari in 2014?

  1. Yes, he's going (162 votes [31.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 31.33%

  2. No, he's staying (196 votes [37.91%])

    Percentage of vote: 37.91%

  3. Not enough information to form an opinion either way (159 votes [30.75%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.75%

If he did move to Ferrar would it be the right choice?

  1. Yes (175 votes [33.85%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.85%

  2. No (259 votes [50.10%])

    Percentage of vote: 50.10%

  3. I don't have enough information to form an opinion either way (83 votes [16.05%])

    Percentage of vote: 16.05%

Vote

#901 Kingshark

Kingshark
  • Member

  • 2,497 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 03 February 2013 - 21:24

You're trying to make the Red Bull faster than both the Ferrari and the McLaren, and I show the flaw in both.
I show you the flaw in using only qualifying as indicator for best car, and I show you the flaw in using only race pace as indicator for best car. The connection between the two is just in your head.
You're just miffed that your arguments why the Red Bull was 100x better than any car and how Vettel should be ashamed for only just winning the championship, falls flat every team you measure the arguments by the same standard.

Please point out exactly when you did all of this? :drunk:

Responded to where it belongs, btw.
http://forums.autosp...howtopic=165690

Advertisement

#902 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,353 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 February 2013 - 21:37

Every time I think "this one might be different", you all just fall back into the same routine.
Now we're back to removing all context. You probably also think that the team-bosses vote meant that they thought Alonso was in a league of his own (fact-check: no, all it said was Alonso > Vettel; not Alonso is slightly better than Vettel, Not Alonso >>>>>>>>>>> Vettel, just Alonso > Vettel).

FACT: The expert consensus is that Ferrari was not the overall best car of 2012.
FACT: The expert consensus is NOT that Ferrari was an uncompetitive car overall in 2012.
FACT: The expert consensus is NOT that Red Bull was a dominant car overall in 2012.

There isn't even a consensus on whether the Red Bull was the best car of 2012, because McLaren screwed up so much.
But sure, go make a mountain out of a molehill if that's what you need to rest in peace.

I rest in peace knowing I don't need to over exaggerate things to confirm what I think.
I rest in peace knowing that I don't need to resort to double standards to feel right.
I rest in peace knowing that I always have measurable facts and factual data on my side.


I'm sorry but I have to tell you that I don't disagree with the facts above, I'm not sure why you are arguing with me. The stuff you think I said (apparently, "RBR was dominant in 2012", and "Alonso >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vettel"), well I never said these things. You jumped on me because I said that based on car speed, McLaren should have taken #2 in the WCC ahead of Ferrari. Nothing more, and none of your facts contradicts this.


#903 rasul

rasul
  • Member

  • 955 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 03 February 2013 - 21:38

Posted Image

Alonso says yes to Vettel, but no to Hamilton, because he knows how good Lewis is.

That's also all you need to know about how much Alonso rates Vettel.


So using your logic, does that mean that now Alonso knows how good Vettel is? :rolleyes:

After all, the very same Andrew Benson who had "impeccable sources" now is saying that "sources close to Ferrari now say the Spaniard and the team renegotiated their agreement towards the end of last season and that one of Alonso's demands was that they not sign Vettel alongside him."

Now we established that Alonso is scared of both. Which I always strongly suspected. :smoking:

#904 PoleMan

PoleMan
  • Member

  • 1,445 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 03 February 2013 - 21:40

you know, there is this funny thing called chronology, I know, crazy :drunk:
but let's just imagine. there are posts about Alonso not vetoing Vettel back in september (couldn't care to go deeper as it is sufficient), in my book the end of the season was in november, so if Benson said "no veto" in september, they renegotiated in november, Benson says "veto" in february, then, as far as I know, he could be right in both cases, even though he says totally opposite things!
yeah, I know, just crazy. :lol:


Yeah...interesting. Benson says an "impeccable source" tells him there is a "pre-deal" between Vettel and Ferrari for next year, but now Benson wants us to believe that Alonso has QUASHED that deal that was agreed to between Vettel and Ferrari, all by his iddy, biddy self...and with no explanation of how Alonso could have nullified a Vettel pre-contract with the Scuderia. Only a fool or a hater would just accept that at face-value.;)


There is also the matter of another report that he has "no problem" teaming up with Vettel or Hamilton. Source: Fernando Alonso, in his own voice and on the record. Gee... I wonder which you'll believe... anonymous and 180 degree conflicting sources or the driver , himself? Cue the cognitive dissonance, BS answer in 3...2... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Edited by PoleMan, 03 February 2013 - 22:18.


#905 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 5,254 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 February 2013 - 21:45

They only have reason do be "patient" with Alonso when he starts to squander good cars. Ferrari know very well that none of the cars Alonso had were of "must win WDC with this one" quality.


Well that is all fine and good on paper, but the reality is that in 2010, they had a 15 point lead going into the final race and in 2012, were behind by just 13 points - and couldn't win either. That is what some fans will focus on, not just the punk car, because intellectually, everyone knows it is the car+driver combination. The focus may not land on either the car or the driver alone, because what is most frustrating is that the opportunity presented itself and the combination was unable to capitalize on it.

On topic, it doesn't really matter though; if Vettel goes to Ferrari, when he arrives the car will likely be the same; capable of winning a WDC by knook or crook, and he will face the same expectations relative to winning. I wouldn't bet against him, he's a game changer.

Edited by bourbon, 03 February 2013 - 21:51.


#906 mnmracer

mnmracer
  • Member

  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 03 February 2013 - 21:53

I'm sorry but I have to tell you that I don't disagree with the facts above, I'm not sure why you are arguing with me. The stuff you think I said (apparently, "RBR was dominant in 2012", and "Alonso >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vettel"), well I never said these things. You jumped on me because I said that based on car speed, McLaren should have taken #2 in the WCC ahead of Ferrari. Nothing more, and none of your facts contradicts this.

Based on car speed, McLaren should have taken #1 in the WCC, as is the general consensus.
But there's things like reliability, which are the only reasons both Red Bull and Ferrari are elevated above McLaren.

You can't only apply the McLaren argument to Ferrari, to make it look so poor, and leave Red Bull looking like the ultra-fast machine it wasn't.

#907 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 4,737 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 03 February 2013 - 21:58

Yeah...interesting.

Then there is another report that he has "no problem" teaming up with Vettel or Hamilton. Source: Fernando Alonso, in his own voice and on the record. Gee... I wonder which you'll believe... anonymous and 180 degree conflicting sources or the driver , himself? Cue the cognitive dissonance, BS answer in 3...2... :lol: :lol: :lol:

it seems you didn't understand the chronology thingy. :| OK, I'll try an easier example:
2010. feb. 3., xy says Vettel is 0 times WDC.
Vettel wins 3 WDC titles.
2013. feb. 3., xy says Vettel is 3 times WDC.

in both cases 'xy' is right, even though those are 180 degree conflicting statements! HOW COOL IS THAT?! :smoking:


and of course Alonso says he's not afraid of them, as he knows he won't have to encounter them as his teammates. heck, I'm not afraid of Alonso, I'm easily better. there, I said it.

#908 Kingshark

Kingshark
  • Member

  • 2,497 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 03 February 2013 - 22:04

Red Bull had the speed McLaren did. If not, it was fairly close.

Pole Positions
Red Bull had 8.
McLaren had 8.
Ferrari had 2, both in the wet.

Wins
Red Bull had 7.
Mclaren had 7.
Ferrari had 3, of which Malaysia and Valencia were a complete fluke.

Red Bull had McLaren speed with better reliability. Overall, it was without a shadow of doubt the car to have throughout the season.

Edited by Kingshark, 03 February 2013 - 22:05.


#909 PoleMan

PoleMan
  • Member

  • 1,445 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 03 February 2013 - 22:07

it seems you didn't understand the chronology thingy. :| OK, I'll try an easier example:
2010. feb. 3., xy says Vettel is 0 times WDC.
Vettel wins 3 WDC titles.
2013. feb. 3., xy says Vettel is 3 times WDC.

in both cases 'xy' is right, even though those are 180 degree conflicting statements! HOW COOL IS THAT?! :smoking:


and of course Alonso says he's not afraid of them, as he knows he won't have to encounter them as his teammates. heck, I'm not afraid of Alonso, I'm easily better. there, I said it.


As to your chronology thingy...it kinda doesn't make alot of sense, which I edited in above, but you seem like the type that believes the moon is made out of cheese because Andrew Benson said it, so you probably don't bring a lot of critical analysis to what he says.

Benson says an "impeccable source" tells him there is a "pre-deal" between Vettel and Ferrari for next year, but now Benson wants us to believe that Alonso has QUASHED that deal that was agreed to between Vettel and Ferrari, all by his iddy, biddy self...and with no explanation of how Alonso could have nullified a Vettel pre-contract with the Scuderia. Only a fool or a hater would just accept that at face-value.


Edited by PoleMan, 03 February 2013 - 22:15.


#910 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,140 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 03 February 2013 - 22:26

Firstly there is no evidence that Alonso is objecting to anything, other than an article with made up rumours. Secondly James Allen did an analysis that showed the Ferrari was 4th fastest car on race pace last year, not that it was needed considering it was so obvious. That's just pure numbers that you need to accept and nothing to do with out cries, so maybe you need to look again.

I have no good answer to rumours, you are right on that, but it's difficult to find a credible source these days, thus I take it in strides. This topic is just time killing tease before racing commences, and in a few weeks I won't probably remember what Alonso allegedly said, despite that LdM's polemics makes you wonder what went on in his office when he had TD sitting there touching upon this very subject. I have very little doubt that long and near term driver hiring strategies do exists, since driver's annual review is commonplace, we just have no clue what it is.

On second point - to be frank, anyone outside of team insiders that have access to vast amount of data, and also to pretty sophisticated computer program, is probably vasting time when attempting to "prove" car ranking in terms of speed. I simply do not believe it's possible to do this on your rinky dinky PC merely on FiA records only.

Lack of definitions (for example, how do you define relevant speed of a car?), subjectivity of evaluation criteria, variability in team's performance during different parts of a season, impact of tire management by a team and a driver, general driver's error's and performance issues, etc. These all will be in your way in evaluating data you have. To sign off on this, I do not believe that Allen could perform analysis of a great value, thus I shrug it off. My judgement was based on moments when Ferrari run on it's own, and I saw it as pretty competitive contender. If I may add, I also think McLaren was a car to have in 2012 with both, Ferrari and RBR very close behind, sometimes better, sometimes not as good, but all three teams had a fair shot at the title, no doubt about it.

Edited by Sakae, 03 February 2013 - 22:28.


#911 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,353 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 February 2013 - 22:48

Based on car speed, McLaren should have taken #1 in the WCC, as is the general consensus.
But there's things like reliability, which are the only reasons both Red Bull and Ferrari are elevated above McLaren.

You can't only apply the McLaren argument to Ferrari, to make it look so poor, and leave Red Bull looking like the ultra-fast machine it wasn't.


I think that the RBR and McLaren were overall too tightly matched, either one could have taken the WCC based on speed, IMO. I didn't make the Ferrari look poor, I explicitly said I don't think the Lotus was consistently faster, making Ferrari a top 3 car. That is not poor. At the same time I don't think there can be any doubt that given the choice with team to drive for, any driver would have elected to sit in the RBR. It could have been the McLaren on speed, but who would want to have to race with that team.

#912 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,353 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 February 2013 - 22:48

Well that is all fine and good on paper, but the reality is that in 2010, they had a 15 point lead going into the final race and in 2012, were behind by just 13 points - and couldn't win either. That is what some fans will focus on, not just the punk car, because intellectually, everyone knows it is the car+driver combination. The focus may not land on either the car or the driver alone, because what is most frustrating is that the opportunity presented itself and the combination was unable to capitalize on it.

On topic, it doesn't really matter though; if Vettel goes to Ferrari, when he arrives the car will likely be the same; capable of winning a WDC by knook or crook, and he will face the same expectations relative to winning. I wouldn't bet against him, he's a game changer.


Fair enough.

#913 mnmracer

mnmracer
  • Member

  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 03 February 2013 - 23:07

Wins
Red Bull had 7.
Mclaren had 7

So Red Bull needed poor reliability on McLaren's part to be equal on wins, and that gives them the same speed :drunk: :drunk: :drunk:

#914 fabr68

fabr68
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 04 February 2013 - 00:27

it seems you didn't understand the chronology thingy. :| OK, I'll try an easier example:
2010. feb. 3., xy says Vettel is 0 times WDC.
Vettel wins 3 WDC titles.
2013. feb. 3., xy says Vettel is 3 times WDC.

in both cases 'xy' is right, even though those are 180 degree conflicting statements! HOW COOL IS THAT?! :smoking:


and of course Alonso says he's not afraid of them, as he knows he won't have to encounter them as his teammates. heck, I'm not afraid of Alonso, I'm easily better. there, I said it.


And you said that because you do know you will encouter Alonso as a teammate.





#915 elemist

elemist
  • Member

  • 30 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 04 February 2013 - 05:14

The odd Sauber, Williams, FI and Lotus were also faster than Red Bull on several tracks, but you conveniently don't mention that.
You also don't mention that there was not much wrong with Red Bull on Sunday, except that their alternators kept blowing up, which cost Vettel even more points.
Funny you mention Spa btw, where Alonso started ahead of both Red Bulls.

The problem with this whole "Ferrari was 4th/7th/20th slowest car on the grid" movement, is that it is completely devoid of context, based on double standards and copy-pastes one situation onto the whole season.
- Ferrari was horrible in Australia > Ferrari was horrible this whole year!
- Sauber was faster than Ferrari in Spa > Ferrari was sometimes even slower than Sauber
- Sauber was faster than Red Bull in Spa > ... Vettel and Webber sucked in Spa


There are no double standards, or lack of context other than the one you deliberately try to create to obscure the inconvenient truth. A quick overview of each race is enough to show The Ferrari really was as bad as most acknowledge. I'm happy to continue the discussion in the relevant thread.

#916 elemist

elemist
  • Member

  • 30 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 04 February 2013 - 05:20

Well that is all fine and good on paper, but the reality is that in 2010, they had a 15 point lead going into the final race and in 2012, were behind by just 13 points - and couldn't win either. That is what some fans will focus on, not just the punk car, because intellectually, everyone knows it is the car+driver combination. The focus may not land on either the car or the driver alone, because what is most frustrating is that the opportunity presented itself and the combination was unable to capitalize on it.

On topic, it doesn't really matter though; if Vettel goes to Ferrari, when he arrives the car will likely be the same; capable of winning a WDC by knook or crook, and he will face the same expectations relative to winning. I wouldn't bet against him, he's a game changer.



Actually the reality is that for two seasons Fernando almost won the title in the last race with a car that had no business fighting for the title, and has greatly flattered the team since he arrived. How anyone can try to twist this into Ferrari get up with Alonso is mind boggling. It's the other way around.

#917 IMO

IMO
  • Member

  • 45 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 04 February 2013 - 05:28

lets move on to 2013......

#918 elemist

elemist
  • Member

  • 30 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 04 February 2013 - 05:29

On second point - to be frank, anyone outside of team insiders that have access to vast amount of data, and also to pretty sophisticated computer program, is probably vasting time when attempting to "prove" car ranking in terms of speed. I simply do not believe it's possible to do this on your rinky dinky PC merely on FiA records only.

Lack of definitions (for example, how do you define relevant speed of a car?), subjectivity of evaluation criteria, variability in team's performance during different parts of a season, impact of tire management by a team and a driver, general driver's error's and performance issues, etc. These all will be in your way in evaluating data you have. To sign off on this, I do not believe that Allen could perform analysis of a great value, thus I shrug it off. My judgement was based on moments when Ferrari run on it's own, and I saw it as pretty competitive contender. If I may add, I also think McLaren was a car to have in 2012 with both, Ferrari and RBR very close behind, sometimes better, sometimes not as good, but all three teams had a fair shot at the title, no doubt about it.


You are really trying to make something very simple extremely complicated and convoluted. You judge the car speed the same way the FIA and everyone does. Lap times. As long as you can assume the quickest drivers of each team are comparable, then you have your measurement. So simple, but sometimes the simple truth is inconvenient so things are done to try to smear it.

Saying all 3 teams having a fair shot at the title has nothing to do with the discussion of their relative speeds. It's like saying Johney Herberts, Stewart Ford was good enough to win the 99 Nurburgring Gp, so it must have been a great car. The Mclaren and Redbull were indeed comparable in pace overall, but the Ferrari was clearly not in the same class. You should go over the races for a refresh if you think otherwise.

#919 IMO

IMO
  • Member

  • 45 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 04 February 2013 - 05:40

Actually the reality is that for two seasons Fernando almost won the title in the last race with a car that had no business fighting for the title, and has greatly flattered the team since he arrived. How anyone can try to twist this into Ferrari get up with Alonso is mind boggling. It's the other way around.



I remember ferrari was one of the best car in 2010. In fact, it was fernando 's poor start in abu dhabi that cost him grid position couple with wrong strategy that blew away the 13 points lead.

In 2012, Massa alone in 2nd half of the season scored 9x points, more than mark webber and almost as much as jenson if he didnt gave up some grid position for fernando sake.

Im sure a bad car couldn't achieve such feet.

If Massa was on form for 1st half of the season, costructor title may be possible.



Advertisement

#920 elemist

elemist
  • Member

  • 30 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 04 February 2013 - 06:08

I remember ferrari was one of the best car in 2010. In fact, it was fernando 's poor start in abu dhabi that cost him grid position couple with wrong strategy that blew away the 13 points lead.

In 2012, Massa alone in 2nd half of the season scored 9x points, more than mark webber and almost as much as jenson if he didnt gave up some grid position for fernando sake.

Im sure a bad car couldn't achieve such feet.

If Massa was on form for 1st half of the season, costructor title may be possible.


'one of the best cars' is another vague statement. Was it one of the best? I guess, but was it also consistently 0.5 slower than the Redbull? Yes, which means it has no business fighting for the title.

#921 IMO

IMO
  • Member

  • 45 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 04 February 2013 - 06:13

'one of the best cars' is another vague statement. Was it one of the best? I guess, but was it also consistently 0.5 slower than the Redbull? Yes, which means it has no business fighting for the title.


Was it damn reliable??? Yes.

If rbr was as reliable as ferrari in 2010, they already walk away with title in hands.

Its easy to being narrow minded on that mere 5 tenth while forgetting there are many factors on race such as circumstances that play in hand for the final results.

Thats why Mclarne lose title in 2012 despite being the fastest car. If you are a driver, which car would you choose?? Mclaren or Ferrari in 2012?? Rbr or ferrari in 2010??

#922 elemist

elemist
  • Member

  • 30 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 04 February 2013 - 06:15

Was it damn reliable??? Yes.

If rbr was as reliable as ferrari in 2010, they already walk away with title in hands.

Its easy to being narrow minded on that mere 5 tenth while forgetting there are many factors on race such as circumstances that play in hand for the final results.

Thats why Mclarne lose title in 2012 despite being the fastest car. If you are a driver, which car would you choose?? Mclaren or Ferrari in 2012?? Rbr or ferrari in 2010??


Reliability is a factor but the RBR is not THAT unreliable. Vettel had 2 dnf's in 2010 from reliability didn't he? Korea and Australia? Over a 19 races season, the speed advantage far far outweighs that.

#923 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 5,254 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 February 2013 - 06:54

Actually the reality is that for two seasons Fernando almost won the title in the last race with a car that had no business fighting for the title, and has greatly flattered the team since he arrived.


Why hasn't the car gotten any better during those 3 years?

How anyone can try to twist this into Ferrari get up with Alonso is mind boggling. It's the other way around.


We were not discussing Ferrari, we were discussing the fans that all Ferrari drivers must face, be it Alonso now or Vettel in the future.

Reliability is a factor but the RBR is not THAT unreliable. Vettel had 2 dnf's in 2010 from reliability didn't he? Korea and Australia? Over a 19 races season, the speed advantage far far outweighs that.


It was THAT unreliable. In addition to the two DNFs, there was the spark plug in Bahrain, the power loss in Monza, the gear box in Canada, the clutch in Germany, the anti-roll bar in Turkey qualifying, the wheel in Barcelona... and more, all of which cost a mountain of points and indeed outweighed any pace the Red Bulls had over the others at other venues.

Edited by bourbon, 04 February 2013 - 07:21.


#924 elemist

elemist
  • Member

  • 30 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 04 February 2013 - 06:56

Why hasn't the car gotten any better during those 3 years?



The engineers are not good enough. Pretty obvious.

#925 sheepgobba

sheepgobba
  • Member

  • 858 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 04 February 2013 - 07:07

Vettel does have a Fiat 500 in his personal garage ;)

#926 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,140 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 04 February 2013 - 07:13

@elemist: setting aside speed related analyses for the moment, I am curious about assessments of two cars and drivers. First declaration assessing Alonso as a driver who elevated in ranking relatively inferior car, yet how do you know that Vettel hasn't performed in similar manner? This is actually a rhetorical question, since you or anyone else might only speculate about it, but as I suspect, no one really knows with any degree of accuracy the truth. Maybe individual teams having access to data that are required must know more about driver's consistency from a lap to lap, and how much more car was capable than a driver extracted. For obvious reasons Ferrari will not admit to any weakness on Alonso's part. A blogger speculates on basis of data available in public domain, as many others do, but for me, a guy on the outside, data are merely a record on actual achievement, lacking exposure of full potential on what car was capable off, thus I would not be able to say, that Alonso had a lesser car than others, and I doubt that J. Allen is in any better situation. I may upset some people, but I think Alonso is stagnating, and has reached his full potential as a driver. Nothing more to see there.

Edited by Sakae, 04 February 2013 - 07:14.


#927 mattferg

mattferg
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 04 February 2013 - 07:21

Reliability is a factor but the RBR is not THAT unreliable. Vettel had 2 dnf's in 2010 from reliability didn't he? Korea and Australia? Over a 19 races season, the speed advantage far far outweighs that.


If Vettel had had his win in Valencia and his P7 in Italy, he would've won before Austin, thus proving the difference DNFs can make.

#928 mnmracer

mnmracer
  • Member

  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 February 2013 - 07:39

You are really trying to make something very simple extremely complicated and convoluted. You judge the car speed the same way the FIA and everyone does. Lap times. As long as you can assume the quickest drivers of each team are comparable, then you have your measurement. So simple, but sometimes the simple truth is inconvenient so things are done to try to smear it.

Then why don't you judge the car speed by lap times?
Why do you try to overcomplicate it and act like Alonso did not have the best 180 lap times in 3 of the races, 304 2nd best lap times in 5 more races and 301 3rd best lap times in another 5?
Or are lap times only a good judgement of car speed when it's not Alonso?

#929 elemist

elemist
  • Member

  • 30 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 04 February 2013 - 07:50

Then why don't you judge the car speed by lap times?
Why do you try to overcomplicate it and act like Alonso did not have the best 180 lap times in 3 of the races, 304 2nd best lap times in 5 more races and 301 3rd best lap times in another 5?
Or are lap times only a good judgement of car speed when it's not Alonso?


I only judge lap times, and average pace. Those numbers you are talking about look like they were selectively chosen to support an agenda, and mean little without the context of the other cars. Can you list the races you are talking about? The average is important in race trim btw.

Edited by elemist, 04 February 2013 - 07:51.


#930 elemist

elemist
  • Member

  • 30 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 04 February 2013 - 07:55

@elemist: setting aside speed related analyses for the moment, I am curious about assessments of two cars and drivers. First declaration assessing Alonso as a driver who elevated in ranking relatively inferior car, yet how do you know that Vettel hasn't performed in similar manner? This is actually a rhetorical question, since you or anyone else might only speculate about it, but as I suspect, no one really knows with any degree of accuracy the truth. Maybe individual teams having access to data that are required must know more about driver's consistency from a lap to lap, and how much more car was capable than a driver extracted. For obvious reasons Ferrari will not admit to any weakness on Alonso's part. A blogger speculates on basis of data available in public domain, as many others do, but for me, a guy on the outside, data are merely a record on actual achievement, lacking exposure of full potential on what car was capable off, thus I would not be able to say, that Alonso had a lesser car than others, and I doubt that J. Allen is in any better situation. I may upset some people, but I think Alonso is stagnating, and has reached his full potential as a driver. Nothing more to see there.


In this case I am merely making the safe assumption that Vettel, Alonso and Hamilton are equally matched in speed. From that you can judge the cars. Its the best way to do it and really the only way. I doubt many would disagree other than the real extremists who believe Vettel alone was making the difference. So I am assuming that all 3 made the equal difference, and the difference in actual lap time is down to the cars.

Edited by elemist, 04 February 2013 - 07:58.


#931 apoka

apoka
  • Member

  • 3,334 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 04 February 2013 - 08:15

Reliability is a factor but the RBR is not THAT unreliable. Vettel had 2 dnf's in 2010 from reliability didn't he? Korea and Australia? Over a 19 races season, the speed advantage far far outweighs that.

It really was THAT unreliable - I can't find the detailed table with issues, but there was something failing basically every other weekend and the starts were very bad at times. I think estimates of points lost due to unreliability/misfortune for Vettel in 2010 started around 60 points for conservative estimates and some were quite a bit higher than that. Of course, it really depends on what you mean by "the speed advantage far far outweighs that" - compared to an HRT, that is true.  ;)

Edit: Found this older list, but it is probably incomplete:

Bahrain, defect spark plug, P1 to P4, lost 13 points
Australia, defect wheel, lost P1 and 25 points
China, bad start, tactical mistakes, P1 to P6, lost 17 points
Spain, brake problems, P2 to P3, lost 3 points
Canada, team waits too long to pit him, P1 to P4, lost 13 points (not sure I agree with this one)
GB, bad start + puncture, P1 to P7, lost 19 points
Germany, bad start, P1 to P3, lost 10 points
Korea, engine failure, lost 25 points


#932 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 4,737 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 04 February 2013 - 08:27

to expand apoka's point, one of my friends did a bad luck corrected championship result (bad luck: reliability, team screw up, getting punted off, etc, but when it was the drivers fault, like Vettel@spa, no points given back) don't remember Button's and Webber's score, but Vettel was first with 329, Hamilton 2nd with 256, Alonso 5th (?) with 227. I'll try to look for his work, see if I can find it.

edit: found it, remembered Alonso's position wrong:

Posted Image

valós pont - actual points, valós helyezés - actual position, korrekció - correction (only the bad luck points), korrigált eredmény - corrected result.
the correction column is a sum, so it doesn't mean that Vettel lost 73 points, it could be lost 80 but won 7, or whatever, I don't have the separate counts.

And you said that because you do know you will encouter Alonso as a teammate.


to the contrary, I said that to prove my point.

Edited by Zava, 04 February 2013 - 08:40.


#933 Watkins74

Watkins74
  • Member

  • 5,508 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 February 2013 - 08:34

It really was THAT unreliable - I can't find the detailed table with issues, but there was something failing basically every other weekend and the starts were very bad at times. I think estimates of points lost due to unreliability/misfortune for Vettel in 2010 started around 60 points for conservative estimates and some were quite a bit higher than that. Of course, it really depends on what you mean by "the speed advantage far far outweighs that" - compared to an HRT, that is true.;)

Edit: Found this older list, but it is probably incomplete:

Bahrain, defect spark plug, P1 to P4, lost 13 points
Australia, defect wheel, lost P1 and 25 points
China, bad start, tactical mistakes, P1 to P6, lost 17 points
Spain, brake problems, P2 to P3, lost 3 points
Canada, team waits too long to pit him, P1 to P4, lost 13 points (not sure I agree with this one)
GB, bad start + puncture, P1 to P7, lost 19 points
Germany, bad start, P1 to P3, lost 10 points
Korea, engine failure, lost 25 points

You totally changed the basis of the discussion. it was about unreliability and then when the data didn't support that argument you changed it to unreliability/misfortune. My wife would be proud of you. ;)

Edited by Watkins74, 04 February 2013 - 08:36.


#934 elemist

elemist
  • Member

  • 30 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 04 February 2013 - 08:36

It really was THAT unreliable - I can't find the detailed table with issues, but there was something failing basically every other weekend and the starts were very bad at times. I think estimates of points lost due to unreliability/misfortune for Vettel in 2010 started around 60 points for conservative estimates and some were quite a bit higher than that. Of course, it really depends on what you mean by "the speed advantage far far outweighs that" - compared to an HRT, that is true. ;)

Edit: Found this older list, but it is probably incomplete:

Bahrain, defect spark plug, P1 to P4, lost 13 points
Australia, defect wheel, lost P1 and 25 points
China, bad start, tactical mistakes, P1 to P6, lost 17 points
Spain, brake problems, P2 to P3, lost 3 points
Canada, team waits too long to pit him, P1 to P4, lost 13 points (not sure I agree with this one)
GB, bad start + puncture, P1 to P7, lost 19 points
Germany, bad start, P1 to P3, lost 10 points
Korea, engine failure, lost 25 points



Funny list, counting totally irrelevant issues not related to reliability at all. So, counting the real stuff, it was 66 points, which is a fair amount but, only about half of the points advantage a faster car would have over an entire season if they both finished 1-2 in races they both finished cleanly.

#935 IMO

IMO
  • Member

  • 45 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 04 February 2013 - 08:51

Funny list, counting totally irrelevant issues not related to reliability at all. So, counting the real stuff, it was 66 points, which is a fair amount but, only about half of the points advantage a faster car would have over an entire season if they both finished 1-2 in races they both finished cleanly.


66points is alot.............

If alonso got his start beautifully done in abu dhabi, the title would be his to take.



#936 mnmracer

mnmracer
  • Member

  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 February 2013 - 08:57

I only judge lap times, and average pace. Those numbers you are talking about look like they were selectively chosen to support an agenda, and mean little without the context of the other cars. Can you list the races you are talking about? The average is important in race trim btw.

If you judge lap times, you would have judged that Fernando Alonso completed the 56 laps of the Malaysian Grand Prix faster than any one else, and thus his average lap time was faster than any one else's. That is, if you really do only judge lap times...

#937 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,353 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 February 2013 - 09:24

If you judge lap times, you would have judged that Fernando Alonso completed the 56 laps of the Malaysian Grand Prix faster than any one else, and thus his average lap time was faster than any one else's. That is, if you really do only judge lap times...


AMuS: Why was your car so good in the rain?

Fry: I don't think that the cause was our car. Rather, it was Alonso. Especially in Malaysia, when our car still was difficult to drive. He did an unbelievable job there. And when he was half a second faster than the rest in Hockenheim, that was the driver and not the car.



#938 IMO

IMO
  • Member

  • 45 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 04 February 2013 - 09:32

wow...Massa should deserve similar praise then as he was faster than Alonso on wet Brazil.

Did a good job in blocking Webber and let Alonso pass though!!

#939 mnmracer

mnmracer
  • Member

  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 February 2013 - 09:40

...

Hey, don't complain to me. I'm not the one saying Ì "judge the car speed the same way the FIA and everyone does. Lap times."

But your comment just brings us back to where we were before: by what standard do you want to measure car performance? Because with that example, there are also plenty of races in 2012 where "it was not the Red Bull, but all Vettel". Choose your standard already...

Advertisement

#940 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,353 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 February 2013 - 10:23

Hey, don't complain to me. I'm not the one saying Ì "judge the car speed the same way the FIA and everyone does. Lap times."

But your comment just brings us back to where we were before: by what standard do you want to measure car performance? Because with that example, there are also plenty of races in 2012 where "it was not the Red Bull, but all Vettel". Choose your standard already...


Stop acting as if it was my fault that we don't have hard data available as F1 fans. All of us have to weigh the limited data and perceptions we do receive, and base our judgments on that. Then based on that you can try to make more or less educated guesses. Nevertheless, some interpretations are more likely than others. Coming to the conclusion, based on 2012, that Vettel is an undeserving WDC seems like a very poor interpretation. So is coming to the conclusion that the Ferrari was just as much a desirable car to have as the RBR and McL.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 04 February 2013 - 10:30.


#941 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,353 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 February 2013 - 10:24

wow...Massa should deserve similar praise then as he was faster than Alonso on wet Brazil.

Did a good job in blocking Webber and let Alonso pass though!!


The context was that the Ferrari was very poor before Barcelona, while it was nearly competitive by the end of the year.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 04 February 2013 - 10:24.


#942 apoka

apoka
  • Member

  • 3,334 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 04 February 2013 - 12:17

You totally changed the basis of the discussion. it was about unreliability and then when the data didn't support that argument you changed it to unreliability/misfortune. My wife would be proud of you.;)

:p I think it still supports the argument, since 66 points lost (possibly even more) is quite a lot.

Edited by apoka, 04 February 2013 - 12:24.


#943 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 04 February 2013 - 12:59

Funny list, counting totally irrelevant issues not related to reliability at all. So, counting the real stuff, it was 66 points, which is a fair amount but, only about half of the points advantage a faster car would have over an entire season if they both finished 1-2 in races they both finished cleanly.



66 points is a lot, as you have also to consider, that Alonso simultaneously gained 24 points in these situations. Which means the real difference, these misfortunes made between ALO and Vettel, was 90 points.
For comparison: In 2011 - a season which could´ve barely been better for SV - his gap to Button was 122 points.

Edited by LiJu914, 04 February 2013 - 13:01.


#944 mnmracer

mnmracer
  • Member

  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 February 2013 - 13:07

Stop acting as if it was my fault that we don't have hard data available as F1 fans. All of us have to weigh the limited data and perceptions we do receive, and base our judgments on that. Then based on that you can try to make more or less educated guesses. Nevertheless, some interpretations are more likely than others. Coming to the conclusion, based on 2012, that Vettel is an undeserving WDC seems like a very poor interpretation. So is coming to the conclusion that the Ferrari was just as much a desirable car to have as the RBR and McL.

Again, the standard of judging cars elemist posts is lap times.
There are no buts or what-ifs there; they are hard data, and if lap times is the data elemist wants to judge a car by, then there is only one conclusion.
I don't agree with it, and apparently neither do you, but for some reason you're argueing with me.

Go argue with the guy whose standard puts the Ferrari at all but the same speed as the Red Bull.

#945 PoleMan

PoleMan
  • Member

  • 1,445 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 04 February 2013 - 13:10

66 points is a lot, as you have also to consider, that Alonso simultaneously gained 24 points in these situations. Which means the real difference, these misfortunes made between ALO and Vettel, was 90 points.
For comparison: In 2011 - a season which could´ve barely been better for SV - his gap to Button was 122 points.


F1 is a TEAM GAME, and car unreliability, poor/great pit work, driver mistakes/heroic performances are all part of that.

Newey could build a slower, more reliable car -- like Ferrari -- but I'm guessing he prefers to take his chances pushing the envelope and reaping the rewards...just like Sebastian. Can't say I blame them. :cool:

Edited by PoleMan, 04 February 2013 - 13:15.


#946 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 04 February 2013 - 13:26

F1 is a TEAM GAME, and car unreliability, poor/great pit work, driver mistakes/heroic performances are all part of that.


Yeah, but that wasn´t really the point.


#947 mnmracer

mnmracer
  • Member

  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 February 2013 - 13:29

Have you also noticed this?
F1 is always a team game when it comes to car unreliability or pit stops, but never when it comes to speed...

#948 mnmracer

mnmracer
  • Member

  • 1,972 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 04 February 2013 - 14:40

You can't say the kid doesn't have style:

I wondered about whether this question [about my future] would come up and I thought it is like a woman, you cannot ask her about her age. -link



#949 Benavo

Benavo
  • New Member

  • 3 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 04 February 2013 - 15:53

Hahahahaha good one from Sebastian.

I think that its only matter of time tha Vettel will join Ferrari, but maybe until 2016 when Alonso's contract expires he will join the Maranello's squad. I prefer him more than Fernando, he is now better than Alonso. Fernando is a very good driver, that's true, but ALWAYS fails in the most important moments of the championship and that defines a real champion, and I think that in that fact Vettel files better in Ferrari style.

#950 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 5,254 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 February 2013 - 16:36

Stop acting as if it was my fault that we don't have hard data available as F1 fans. All of us have to weigh the limited data and perceptions we do receive, and base our judgments on that. Then based on that you can try to make more or less educated guesses. Nevertheless, some interpretations are more likely than others. Coming to the conclusion, based on 2012, that Vettel is an undeserving WDC seems like a very poor interpretation. So is coming to the conclusion that the Ferrari was just as much a desirable car to have as the RBR and McL.


It doesn't work that way. Hamilton's Macca was the car to have, not Button's in terms of speed - if you were Hamilton. But Hamilton's was hit by more reliability issues. Sebastian's RB8 was the car to have in the second half, if you were Sebastian, but Mark's in the first half if you were Mark. Alonso's car was the one to have in the first part of the season if you were Alonso, but in the end, Massa's was faster, if you were Massa. What was more desirable changed from moment to moment. I would want the RB8 at the beginning of Valencia, then the Lotus, and finally the Ferrari. So it is very complex.

I think Vettel will have to ask why the Ferrari has not gotten any better in the last 3 years before he considers heading over there. I think that is a bigger issues than driver performance at the moment.