Jump to content


Photo

Whitmarsh; "it was not doing those things that meant that Fernando left us." [split]


  • Please log in to reply
284 replies to this topic

#101 Mr.Wayne

Mr.Wayne
  • Member

  • 572 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 19 November 2012 - 17:03

This is the reason why i'm not a fan of Alonso nor do I buy into the hype surrounding him being the best driver of the season. Everything at Ferrari is slanted towards his benefit.

Massa outqualified him. Period. So Ferrari decide to feign injury, cheat or what have you to bump him up one place - to the clean side of the grid. They could have used team orders to swap the positions during the race but they figured Alonso would lose out by being on the dirty side

Alonso's approach to F1 is unethical. He has very little class and no shame. His win at all costs approach to F1 is no different to Lance Armstrong IMO

:down:

Agree! Although Armstrong never blackmailed his bosses by using evidence that he himself was actively involved in a highly elaborated cheating scandal...

Advertisement

#102 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 10,998 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 19 November 2012 - 17:04

Well, you were using it as a key factor to justify 2008 vs 2010

I'm not trying to justify one vs the other, as I think both were ok.

My point is strictly that Ferrari have taken this to a further extreme than other teams (for example: 2010 being at a more extreme end of the spectrum than 2008, given no additional points were achievable or achieved). It is an extreme that, IMO, is entirely justifiable and sensible. But they are a bit further out there than the other teams, IMO.

I was a big Schumacher v1.0 fan back in the day, and fully accept that part of his success came from the benefits of Ferrari's approach. I think he 100% earned that approach, and I don't see acknowledging him as benefiting from it as in any way denigrating his success. I think the same can also be said of Alonso.

#103 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 1,929 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 19 November 2012 - 17:05

That's not a lie, it's the truth... Radio transmission don't lie..

What exactly did the radio transmission say?..Is it archived? If so care to post a link??


#104 choyothe

choyothe
  • Member

  • 2,312 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 19 November 2012 - 17:05

I suppose that it is pointless to remind you that 1) Alonso never put his hands on that fateful dossier, and 2) he was cleared of any involvement in Crashgate by everybody who either investigated it or was involved in it.


And people actually believe that? :rotfl:

Also, I suppose that it is pointless to remind you that we have had other scandals/controversies that never got even close to Alonso: Liegate, Wing-gate, Double diffuser, Turkey-crash-gate, "Mark-hold-the-gap"-gate...


What was illegal about wing-gate?

Turkey-crash-gate = two drivers crashing. Nothing illegal about that.

'Mark-hold-the-gap"-gate, team orders were allowed in 2011, also it's standard procedure for every team to freeze the situation in the last 2 laps in such a situation. Unless you mean the gate-part was Mark disobeying the order?

Edited by choyothe, 19 November 2012 - 17:07.


#105 Baddoer

Baddoer
  • Member

  • 1,495 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 19 November 2012 - 17:07

McLaren 2000-2012 - 1 WDC, 0 WCC
Ferrari 2000-2012 - 6 WDC, 7 WCC

Who is right after all?

#106 choyothe

choyothe
  • Member

  • 2,312 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 19 November 2012 - 17:07

McLaren 2000-2012 - 1 WDC, 0 WCC
Ferrari 2000-2012 - 6 WDC, 7 WCC

Who is right after all?


Ferrari had Byrne, Mclaren Newey. That's the difference.  ;)

#107 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 10,998 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 19 November 2012 - 17:07

So Ferrari decide to feign injury, cheat

There was no feigning and no cheating.

The comparison to Armstrong is completely unfair, IMO.

#108 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,193 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 19 November 2012 - 17:08

This is the reason why i'm not a fan of Alonso nor do I buy into the hype surrounding him being the best driver of the season. Everything at Ferrari is slanted towards his benefit.

Thats due to Massa not keeping himself in the title hunt. You cant blame a team for putting their hopes in the one driver of theirs still in with a shot of the title.

Massa outqualified him. Period. So Ferrari decide to feign injury, cheat or what have you to bump him up one place - to the clean side of the grid. They could have used team orders to swap the positions during the race but they figured Alonso would lose out by being on the dirty side

What they did was within the rules, so its not cheating. They didn't do the switch cuz they were upset that Massa outqualified him or anything, they just saw an opportunity to get their title contender off the awful side of the grid, which was a smart move in the end. I was skeptical that it'd make that much difference, but the fears of the drivers/teams were proven legitimate looking at the start of the race.

Alonso's approach to F1 is unethical. He has very little class and no shame. His win at all costs approach to F1 is no different to Lance Armstrong IMO

:down:

Everything you just described is of Ferrari's doing, so I'm not sure why you're taking it out on Alonso.

#109 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 19 November 2012 - 17:11

McLaren 2000-2012 - 1 WDC, 0 WCC
Ferrari 2000-2012 - 6 WDC, 7 WCC

Who is right after all?


And that´s only a result of a different team order-policy?

#110 britishtrident

britishtrident
  • Member

  • 1,954 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 19 November 2012 - 17:12

A team principal makes an honest statement and the fan boys sling mud back and forward in all directions, big surprise Alonso expected unquestioned number one treatment at McLaren he didn't get and threw the all toys out the pram. Nasty and immature behaviour but it doesn't alter the fact that on track Alonso is probably the best and most consistent F1 driver of his generation not only that unlike Senna and M Schumacher his on track behaviour is impeccable.

Ferrari breaking gearbox seals at the US GP was stretching a loop hole a bit too far but the other teams didn't object because it suits them more for Alonso in a Ferrari to win than Vettel in a Red Bull, it also suits Bernie for the WDC to go down to the last GP of the season. I am pretty sure the FIA will plug the loop hole before the first GP of 2013.

#111 Mr.Wayne

Mr.Wayne
  • Member

  • 572 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 19 November 2012 - 17:14

McLaren 2000-2012 - 1 WDC, 0 WCC
Ferrari 2000-2012 - 6 WDC, 7 WCC

Who is right after all?

Quite a large time window you chose there...

You might ask how many years passed before Ferrari won the first title in 2000-2012 and their final one before that period; and similarly with McLaren.

Or one could ask how many years have passed since either team won the drivers title.

One could even go further, and ask what drivers have chocked on the closing stages of the season after having the car and/or points advantage.


And one can actually start looking at a time window AFTER Alonso left McLaren:

McLaren: 2008-2012: 1 WDC, 0WCC
Ferrari: 2008-2012: 0 WDC, 1 WCC*

*Attained under an equal driver policy.


One could also include 2007 in the mix, so that Ferrari's approach would look even better, but then, if one were to include RedBull statistics on that, Ferrari's approach would look not only ineffective, but also will make their actions look even a tad more disturbing.

#112 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 9,759 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 19 November 2012 - 17:15

Mclaren Jerez 97... Lap 66 or 67.. First win ever of Hakkinen.. It was even worse; Mclaren and Williams fixed this race...


Very recent and relevant to Alonso, Massa, Ferrari, Whitmarsh and the American GP yesterday...

#113 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 3,406 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 17:15

In 2008, McLaren switched Hamilton and Kovalainen in exactly the same way Ferrari did in 2010.

It was not exactly the same way. Alonso and Massa were the two leading cars. Hamilton and Kova were not, and Hamilton was faster than cars ahead of him, but stuck behind Kova. That is not the exact same way.

#114 F1Newbie

F1Newbie
  • Member

  • 760 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 17:18

Like Domenicali said after the race, if one team in the choose of Ferrari this weekend said they will not do the same, they are liar. It's why Red Bull and Mclaren say nothing, it's just because they know they would have done the same. I even think these both teams would fake an gearbox failure, at least Ferrari were open with this.


:up:

#115 03011969

03011969
  • Member

  • 432 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 19 November 2012 - 17:20

The fact remains that it is somehow always Alonsos name that pops up in these instances. In the last 5 years of Formula 1, we have seen probably the 2 biggest scandals ever in Formula 1. (Spygate and Crashgate) And another instance who may not classify as a scandal but at least a major controversy (Germany 2010). And Alonso is right in the middle of all of them. That is not and cannot be called a coincidence. And what happened on Sunday strongly underlines this fact once again.

Er, so Alonso was involved in McLaren's spying on its competitors, and for causing his teammate to crash?

Dear oh dear...

#116 fabr68

fabr68
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 17:21

I think Whitmarsh is just diverting the issue at hand with his own team.

The one driver who is winning the most races is leaving for a less accomplished team.

Maybe Mclaren should have listened to Alonso and Hamilton after all.

#117 jstrains

jstrains
  • Member

  • 1,439 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 19 November 2012 - 17:23

Whitmarsh's new hobby is appareantly talking bad about drivers who left/are leaving them :wave:

#118 August

August
  • Member

  • 2,028 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 17:25

I actually appreciate Ferrari&Alonso to be honest and upfront with the decision. I don't like the decision, just personally don't like it, but it's a very logical and understandable decision to be taken in such situation. Therefore I think the situation is not the same as speeding while driving a car.
Had it happened at the start of the season, of course that's an issue. But the way it happened, however it seems unsporting, it is really the way to go.


What happened isn't a problem for me, it was obvious thing to do, only Ferrari/Alonso's arrogance annoys me. They didn't broke rules, only abused them. But I don't think abusing rules is something one should be proud of. For sure teams like Macca also abuse rules, but they never say we're proud of that decision, they'd probably say we did it because it was what we had to do now.

I agree that McLaren would not have used Ferrari's tactic.

Similarly they would not have used the Red Bull tactic of starting from the pit lane in Abu Dhabi.

Unfortunately I think it's more to do with lack of imagination than playing nice. No reason to pat themselves on the back.


You can't compare this and RBR/Vettel's Abu Dhabi strategy. RBR followed the spirit of the rules, you are allowed to change the setup but you must start from the pit exit. Ferrari abused the rules too fix the grid. There's no reason for RBR to be ashamed of changing Seb's setup in Abu Dhabi.

#119 03011969

03011969
  • Member

  • 432 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 19 November 2012 - 17:25

Very recent and relevant to Alonso, Massa, Ferrari, Whitmarsh and the American GP yesterday...

So, you can confirm that the "McLaren driver parity" idea is only a recent concept then?

Advertisement

#120 toxicfusion

toxicfusion
  • Member

  • 519 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 17:32

Ferrari have raced since Domenicali has been in charge with near enough an equal policy only favouring one driver over the other when the other's hopes of winning the Championship are on life support and others is stronger (i.e. Fernando over Felipe at the German GP in 2010)

In the USGP Ferrari made the move to favour Fernando because of the grip differences, they were open and admitted as such straight away. A move which based on the start was the right one and it kept the championship going to Brazil regardless of who won between Vettel and Hamilton.

Edited by toxicfusion, 19 November 2012 - 17:32.


#121 Big Block 8

Big Block 8
  • Member

  • 2,423 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 19 November 2012 - 17:32

I don't know if you are sarcastic but it's the true. Williams and Mclaren have an agreement before the race, if Schumacher was DNF, and a Williams car was in front, the Williams car have to let a Mclaren driver pass to win the race.

At lap 65, Coulthard was behind Villeneuve and in front of Hakkinen, Ron Dennis said at Coulthard to let pass Hakkinen, and then at the last lap, Villeneuve let pass both Mclaren drivers.

This race was degusting. Because Schumacher tried to push Villeneuve off road, and then the Williams - Mclaren agreement.


You are still living in the smokescreen that Schumacher fans puffed after that Jerez fiasco. :)

Norberto Fontana admitted that Todt had asked him and Herbert (the Sauber drivers) to slow down Villeneuve if opportunity arised - Fontana complied but was pissed that he got no reward whatsoever from it afterwards. Only collusion was between - surprise surprise - Ferrari and Fontana.

Hakkinen was let past Coulthard because he had lost his position to Coulthard during pitstops as McLaren hadn't timed his pitstop properly - thus Hakkinen ran into traffic. He wouldn't have got the position back even then but did so after having lost wins that year due to McLaren's reliability problems.

And there was no collusion between Williams and McLaren. McLarens were loads quicker than Villeneuve's damaged Williams - that radio conversation was just an attempt to calm him down to not put up a stupid and meaningless fight and lose the WDC while at it. Knowing Villeneuve, that conversation sure was needed.

Oh the memories...

#122 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 3,406 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 17:37

I suppose that it is pointless to remind you that 1) Alonso never put his hands on that fateful dossier, and 2) he was cleared of any involvement in Crashgate by everybody who either investigated it or was involved in it. Also, I suppose that it is pointless to remind you that we have had other scandals/controversies that never got even close to Alonso: Liegate, Wing-gate, Double diffuser, Turkey-crash-gate, "Mark-hold-the-gap"-gate...

There will always be speculation regarding Alonso's knowledge of 'Crashgate.' And just as people have no proof that he had knowledge, we also have no proof that he had no knowledge. Personally my gut feeling is that its' 75% likely that he didn't know, but if he did know, we shall not find out for another decade or so.


#123 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 1,929 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 19 November 2012 - 17:44

You are still living in the smokescreen that Schumacher fans puffed after that Jerez fiasco. :)

Norberto Fontana admitted that Todt had asked him and Herbert (the Sauber drivers) to slow down Villeneuve if opportunity arised - Fontana complied but was pissed that he got no reward whatsoever from it afterwards. Only collusion was between - surprise surprise - Ferrari and Fontana.

Hakkinen was let past Coulthard because he had lost his position to Coulthard during pitstops as McLaren hadn't timed his pitstop properly - thus Hakkinen ran into traffic. He wouldn't have got the position back even then but did so after having lost wins that year due to McLaren's reliability problems.

And there was no collusion between Williams and McLaren. McLarens were loads quicker than Villeneuve's damaged Williams - that radio conversation was just an attempt to calm him down to not put up a stupid and meaningless fight and lose the WDC while at it. Knowing Villeneuve, that conversation sure was needed.

Oh the memories...

Aw! Thanks Big Block 8 for clearing the chaff from the wheat! :up:


#124 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 17:46

He obviously means that Alonso wanted McLaren to back him to win the title and screw over Hamilton's chances.

#125 Fontainebleau

Fontainebleau
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,021 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 17:46

And people actually believe that? :rotfl:

Well, people may think that it is more intelligent and fairer not to dismiss what all witnesses had to say and the lack of evidence that there was any wrongdoing, than just to make up your mind based on no knowledge of the matter and feelings of dislike towards a certain person. You are very welcome to take the opposite attitude, of course, but I would think it is a bit rich to laugh at those who don't share your views.


#126 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 3,313 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 19 November 2012 - 18:08

You can't compare this and RBR/Vettel's Abu Dhabi strategy. RBR followed the spirit of the rules, you are allowed to change the setup but you must start from the pit exit. Ferrari abused the rules too fix the grid. There's no reason for RBR to be ashamed of changing Seb's setup in Abu Dhabi.


I wasn't suggesting that there was, and I wish that McLaren would use more bold and imaginative strategies.



#127 turssi

turssi
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 18:19

Ferrari take the number one driver policy far further than all other teams do. Only Red Bull seem to be as close to them in this respect.


Well, the other teams are so far down in the order that it's not came up for them ;-)

#128 turssi

turssi
  • Member

  • 1,093 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 18:25

I smell bullshit.

The Massa "gearbox change" can be justified because Massa is well out of WDC contention. I do not believe Alonso would ask for something similar from a teammate who spent the season on comparable points.

Sounds like Whitmarsh (who I have a lot of time for) is just having a little fun stirring things up a bit.


Also Ferrari has a top notch race weekend team, so they kept everything in control and didn't even take a too big a dent in the WCC with the gearbox change.

I didn't believe that they would do it (because of the WCC) but Ferrari showed that they are a top team and got two good results (WCC&WDC) from Austin!

#129 MP422

MP422
  • Member

  • 1,717 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 19 November 2012 - 18:34

Well, McLaren would never put their second driver on inferior strategies 9 out of 10 times for two years, or make him move over for their no.1 whenever the need arises. So clearly from this position of moral superiority Whitmarsh is perfectly entitled to that statement.

Right? :cat:



When that happen ? :drunk:

Mention Hockenheim 2008 with Kovalainen and clearly you must not have actually watched the race !

#130 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,044 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 18:34

I think Whitmarsh is probably right, it was one of the reasons Alonso left but only one. Alonso didn't seem comfortable at Mclaren. However, trying to black mailing your boss into giving you everything is asking for trouble and, frankly, smacks of desperation. With time it became clear that this is how Fernando likes to operate and there is nothing wrong with it, provided your teammate is uncompetitive and clinging onto his seat, otherwise it can easily blow up in your face.

#131 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,044 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 18:37

When that happen ? :drunk:

Mention Hockenheim 2008 with Kovalainen and clearly you must not have actually watched the race !


This?

Yarp, Heikki wasn't told to move over, no chance, it was clearly a committed and opportunistic dive up the inside from Lewis...

#132 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 8,853 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 19 November 2012 - 18:38

The reason why this is the first time this has happened is because this has been the first time there was so much fear about starting on the dirty side. Looking at stats, Ferrari were correct to do it because everybody except Kova lost at least one place starting from the dirty side while Alonso gained 3.

#133 Rikhart

Rikhart
  • Member

  • 579 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 18:44

Well, surprise surprise indeed. Or not really. Seems Ferrari and Fernando are a perfect match. I know Fernandos followers will argue that they dont see any problem with it. But it only once again highlights the shady nature of Alonso. One thing is to win on merit. Another thing is to completely use and extrapolate your teammate to an inch of his dignity and then shrug your shoulders afterwards. And use the rules to gain what I think is an unfair advantage. What about those people that were on the clean side and suddenly found themselves on the dirty side.

To me, that is not sporting, nor deserving, nor honorful or commendable. But perhaps those things dont matter to some people anymore. They do to me. And that is why I could never support a person like Alonso. No matter how great a driver he is. He is great, yes. But he is seriously sticky.


Agree 1000%, and lets not forget him and pedro de la rosa constantly discussing the data from ferrari, in testing with mclaren... The guy will do whatever, no matter how sleazy it is.


#134 Enzoluis

Enzoluis
  • Member

  • 979 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 19 November 2012 - 18:48

The reason why this is the first time this has happened is because this has been the first time there was so much fear about starting on the dirty side. Looking at stats, Ferrari were correct to do it because everybody except Kova lost at least one place starting from the dirty side while Alonso gained 3.


It is impossible to know what would happened if Ferrari didn´t do it so saying that it was right , meaning significative for the result, is going too far. With the result of the race in hand probably nothing changed. It is hard to beleive Massa could be near SV and LH and Alonso should put himself fourth easily and then swap position. I think the big issue they avoided doing this was a probable first corner incident, and there was many ocasions close to be at the first and second corner.


#135 seahawk

seahawk
  • Member

  • 3,132 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 19 November 2012 - 18:50

You are still living in the smokescreen that Schumacher fans puffed after that Jerez fiasco. :)

Norberto Fontana admitted that Todt had asked him and Herbert (the Sauber drivers) to slow down Villeneuve if opportunity arised - Fontana complied but was pissed that he got no reward whatsoever from it afterwards. Only collusion was between - surprise surprise - Ferrari and Fontana.

Hakkinen was let past Coulthard because he had lost his position to Coulthard during pitstops as McLaren hadn't timed his pitstop properly - thus Hakkinen ran into traffic. He wouldn't have got the position back even then but did so after having lost wins that year due to McLaren's reliability problems.

And there was no collusion between Williams and McLaren. McLarens were loads quicker than Villeneuve's damaged Williams - that radio conversation was just an attempt to calm him down to not put up a stupid and meaningless fight and lose the WDC while at it. Knowing Villeneuve, that conversation sure was needed.

Oh the memories...


For me it is worse if a team influences the result to favour the team principles love child than a team influencing the result to support the only driver with a real chance to win a title for them.

#136 britishtrident

britishtrident
  • Member

  • 1,954 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 19 November 2012 - 19:10

Whitmarsh's new hobby is appareantly talking bad about drivers who left/are leaving them :wave:


What driver is he "talking bad about" ? if you mean Alonso he is simply stating something we all witnessed. Alonso expected a compliant rookie team mate instead he got a rookie full of raw talent who was instantly as fast as he was, so following the pattern set by Senna he stamped his feet and cried.

#137 Juan Kerr

Juan Kerr
  • Member

  • 2,552 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 19 November 2012 - 19:12

maybe Macca wanted Fernando to work for Hamilton in 2007? when he still had clear chance to win WDC

No you're missing the point, its Alonso that wanted McLaren to concentrate all their efforts on him and his needs as an insecure reaction to sensing Hamilton could beat him.

#138 britishtrident

britishtrident
  • Member

  • 1,954 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 19 November 2012 - 19:13

I suppose that it is pointless to remind you that 1) Alonso never put his hands on that fateful dossier, and 2) he was cleared of any involvement in Crashgate by everybody who either investigated it or was involved in it. Also, I suppose that it is pointless to remind you that we have had other scandals/controversies that never got even close to Alonso: Liegate, Wing-gate, Double diffuser, Turkey-crash-gate, "Mark-hold-the-gap"-gate...



Please explain Alonso's Tyre Gas txts then ?

#139 MP422

MP422
  • Member

  • 1,717 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 19 November 2012 - 19:56

This?

Yarp, Heikki wasn't told to move over, no chance, it was clearly a committed and opportunistic dive up the inside from Lewis...



That's not my point, Guess you didn't watch that race either. LOL.

Advertisement

#140 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,044 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 19:57

That's not my point, Guess you didn't watch that race either. LOL.


I did.

So whats your point?

#141 MP422

MP422
  • Member

  • 1,717 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 19 November 2012 - 20:03

I did.

So whats your point?



Then why was Lewis behind Heikki ?

#142 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,044 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 20:07

Then why was Lewis behind Heikki ?


Because Mclaren got caught out by the SC and failed to pit him. Still doesn't mean Mclaren didn't tell Heikki to move over, which they clearly did.

#143 MP422

MP422
  • Member

  • 1,717 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 19 November 2012 - 20:12

Because Mclaren got caught out by the SC and failed to pit him. Still doesn't mean Mclaren didn't tell Heikki to move over, which they clearly did.



No, they pitted Heikki under the safety car to help him move forward relying on Hamilton to make it work. So when Hamilton pitted he came out behind Heikki and Heikki paid it back. That's spouted out at by alot of posters without the context. Lewis was incredibly fast that race compared to everyone else and went on to pass massa and piquet jr to retake the lead.

#144 Dalton007

Dalton007
  • Member

  • 2,889 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 19 November 2012 - 20:18

And I dare say that it is McLaren's unparalleled focus on equality that has played a part in Hamilton leaving McLaren too.


Really? Because Brawn has come out and said that there will be driver equality at Mercedes. :wave: Lewis is the one who is saying he wants a team built around him.

#145 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,044 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 20:22

No, they pitted Heikki under the safety car to help him move forward relying on Hamilton to make it work. So when Hamilton pitted he came out behind Heikki and Heikki paid it back. That's spouted out at by alot of posters without the context. Lewis was incredibly fast that race compared to everyone else and went on to pass massa and piquet jr to retake the lead.


I have to disagree strongly with that statement, because its wrong.

Heikki moved over, which i've no problem with, but it was a case of team orders none the less, which is ironic given Mclaren claim equal number 1 status for both drivers, which is what this thread relates to.

#146 Fontainebleau

Fontainebleau
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,021 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 19 November 2012 - 20:25

Please explain Alonso's Tyre Gas txts then ?

Please check the dates: the emails, and not texts, were exchanged way before Coughlan had received the dossier from Stepney.

Spying on other teams is common practice in F1. Certainly McLaren had always kept as close as possible an eye on Ferrari (and viceversa) - if in doubt, please check the letter that Raikkonen provided during the hearing to make the point that McLaren had been spying on Ferrari while he was driving for them. Also, I recommend a blog entry by Ed Gorman for The Times, titled "I spy", and dated in early 2007 (well before anything about Spygate had been mentioned - in fact even before the season started, if I am not mistaken), talking about how teams have no shame in getting as much as they can about their rivals.

So that's your explanation for the Alonso mails: McLaren had been receiving tidbits of info from Stepney for a long time (please read the emails to see how De la Rosa updates Alonso on who their informants at the red team are), and that info was discussed within the team - and in doing so, McLaren was not far from what other teams have done. But the full 700-pages dossier was a step too far, and if you don't believe me please do read Coughlan's description of Whitmarsh and other team leaders' reaction when they found out about it.

#147 pRy

pRy
  • Member

  • 10,833 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 19 November 2012 - 20:45

No you're missing the point, its Alonso that wanted McLaren to concentrate all their efforts on him and his needs as an insecure reaction to sensing Hamilton could beat him.


The Alonso/McLaren relationship began to fracture as early as Round 1 before the race even begun imho.

Think about things from Fernando's perspective for a moment. The guy is a double world champion at the peak of his game at that point in his career. He decides to pick McLaren to move to and wants to emulate what Schumacher achieved at Ferrari by moving to McLaren and winning multiple world championships. He even smartened up his act, got a new hair cut and tried to fit into the McLaren culture. He wanted to lead the team to glory.

He arrives at Melbourne, the first race at his new team. Number 1 on the car. The big move has happened and he's about to get started on his dream. What happens on the grid? Ron Dennis is sat with Lewis giving him 1 to 1 time while Alonso is somewhere in the back of the pits on his mobile phone. Now you can say so what, was Ron expected to ignore Lewis? But the fact is, Lewis was the golden boy and Alonso was in the shadows. And it was Round 1.

And we all know what happened next. Lewis went on to challenge Alonso on the track and quite rapidly the wheels began to fall off the relationship between Alonso and the team he had committed to. He expected a certain status, as a double world champion. Status he was already used to at Renault. Instead, he got equal footing with a rookie.

It can be reasonably argued that had McLaren enforced a number 1 & 2 status with Fernando and Lewis.. basically telling Lewis to learn from Alonso in year 1.. it's more than possible McLaren would have won the drivers championship that year and Alonso would be a three time WC by now. Then perhaps the next year Lewis gets his shot. It's also arguable that Lewis, in being forced to spend a year or two in a lower position, may well have benefited in the long run too.

Was it unreasonable for Alonso to expect a certain status? I don't think so. His stock was far higher than Hamiltons at that point in time. Hamilton was a rookie who went straight into a top team, a winning car. Alonso had moved up the ranks with Minardi and Renault and had two titles. You can perhaps understand why Alonso felt frustrated that this kid comes into the team with equal status. You may not agree with it. But I can understand it. It was certainly not unreasonable or unusual in the sport.

It's something I believe strongly in and I think ultimately it led to the destruction of the relationship between Fernando and the team. The media painted it as him having a problem with Lewis but ultimately I think his problem was with McLaren and perhaps a feeling of betrayal that they expected him to operate with equal status with a rookie driver. Perhaps they even misled him on status. We may never know.

I started a thread on it the day of the Aussie GP that year. The writing was on the wall. http://forums.autosp...amp;hl=Fernando

#148 Big Block 8

Big Block 8
  • Member

  • 2,423 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 19 November 2012 - 20:57

You're welcome fatgadget!

For me it is worse if a team influences the result to favour the team principles love child than a team influencing the result to support the only driver with a real chance to win a title for them.


So a team influencing back something the team has influenced is worse than blatant cheating and collusion when trying win? Damn it's still great to see the different povs people can have.

#149 MP422

MP422
  • Member

  • 1,717 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 19 November 2012 - 20:57

I have to disagree strongly with that statement, because its wrong.

Heikki moved over, which i've no problem with, but it was a case of team orders none the less, which is ironic given Mclaren claim equal number 1 status for both drivers, which is what this thread relates to.



Is it though ? If they would have stacked Kovalainen behind Hamilton under the safety car like Ferrari did with Massa/Raikkonen where would have Heikki been ? Buried in the field.... Hamilton rejoined after his stop and was half a second lap quicker then Heikki as well.

#150 rijole1

rijole1
  • Member

  • 631 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 19 November 2012 - 20:57

Of course.


I don't agree. He was more than happy to barefaced lie after Hockenheim 2010. I found the whole "we are open and tell the truth, that's the way we operate" aspect to it laughable, to be honest. It was a PR move (coming clean, making a big play about being transparent), plain and simple, IMO.

There were rumours that this would happen in the build up, well before it actually did. They never would have gotten away with a pretend problem.

It's a canny game, to try and make them look less bad because they are supposedly open and to try and provide a smokescreen of "hey, maybe other teams do it and they just don't tell you about it" (I highly doubt it).

I applaud their ruthlesness in this most ruthless of sports. I find their PR amusing.

:up: :p Amusing it is.
Spot on analysis of ridiculous Ferrari-transparency-PR.
As you say, the rumour was there several hours before they actually announced the 'gearboxgate'.