Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 26 votes

Fernando Alonso - Part III


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

#401 Lone

Lone
  • Member

  • 474 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 21 December 2012 - 05:37

Am surprised Fernando is stressing the respect and admiration of various people, as though that was something he and other drivers were aspiring towards from the very beginning. If the goal was to impress others, including TPs, several other drivers might have driven differently (e.g. compromise qualy setup for race pace) and said different things along the way. So others' judgement of Fernando, in the context of the primary goal being to win the WDC, is not really representative of anything.

He has clearly taken great pains to cultivate an image, and to separate his skills from the car's alleged shortcomings, which only underlines his political acumen more than anything else. There don't seem to be many other drivers quite so interested in nurturing a legacy within and outside the paddock, except via the conventional route of winning WDCs.

He really pulled out all the stops for 2012, I'm interested to see what else in his arsenal of tricks. Personally, I think he is continuing to play mind games and is utilizing the media to mentally destabilize his opponents - he doesn't give two hoots about the general public or what the TPs think of him.


I think it simply has to do with the fact that he's no longer the most successful driver on the grid. For many years he's been the one with the most titles (not counting Schumacher in his comeback) and now Vettel is that guy.

I guess he still want people to consider him the best (which he is) but he hasn't the titles to back it up any more and that hurts a little bit. But he'll get over it once the season starts again and I don't believe he'll continue with these samurai things etc.

Edited by Lone, 21 December 2012 - 05:39.


Advertisement

#402 apoka

apoka
  • Member

  • 3,350 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 21 December 2012 - 06:41

I guess he still want people to consider him the best (which he is)

He may be the best driver, but let's not take things for granted.


#403 kosmos

kosmos
  • Member

  • 5,880 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 21 December 2012 - 09:12

I don't believe he'll continue with these samurai things etc.


The samurai things come from his love for the Japanese culture, you can expect more samurai quotes if he keep reading books about it. There it's nothing wrong with sharing something like that on twitter.

#404 gillesthegenius

gillesthegenius
  • Member

  • 2,534 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 21 December 2012 - 09:45

He may be the best driver, but let's not take things for granted.


Thats right. For as long as he and his rivals are racing, I think its a fluid thing. According to popular opinion (including mine), I think, he is the most complete - given that Seb and Lewis are much younger and have a lot more to learn - and therefore the best driver on the grid. According to stats its Vettel who is the best; and according to the TP ratings of the last 5 years its Seb again. But if one wants to only take this years TP ratings Alonso is the man.

So its not a definite thing and therefore best adviceable to be judged after the careers of all the members of this super generation is, god willing, done and dusted.

#405 Fontainebleau

Fontainebleau
  • Member

  • 1,895 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 21 December 2012 - 13:50

I'm more interested in the subtle cognitive leap that involved first convincing oneself of the F2012 being the 4th/5th FASTEST car, and then claiming it was the 4th/5th BEST car, which is a wholly different thing (the latter includes reliability and other matters).

You made the same leap. I'm sure you have convincing arguments about why the F2012 was (in relative terms) a SLOWER car, but you managed to use the word POOR, which it wasn't (in relative term) since it managed 2nd in the WCC.

The fact that a lot of people on here can hold the belief that the F2012 was the 4th/5th BEST car and yet know fully well that it achieved 2nd in the WCC is testament to the powers of the human brain and it's ability to manage fantastic levels of cognitive dissonance just to sustain certain biases.

Interestingly, I was thinking exactly that when I was reading this and some of your other posts in this thread.

It is fascinating how the same people who so much enjoyed the F2012 being nicknamed "Clifford" by early season have now turned that big red dog into a wonderful car, whose only caveat was that "it was the 4th/5th fastest" - a minor caveat in you eyes when it comes to an F1 racing car which was suppossed to fight for the titles, I assume?

Include reliability, then. Vettel's RBR had two reliability issues in race and zero in qualy; Alonso's F2012 had zero reliability issues in race an one in qualy. It does not sound that different, does it? You could claim that it is far more unlucky to have an issue during the race than during qualy - cool, but put that one down the same heading you put Alonso's two DNFs in Spa and Suzuka.

By the way, in case you had not realised, the new points system was introduced to favour wins over just finishing the race - or, in other words, speed over reliability. Which means that you can win WDC by finishing one out of every two races, provided that you win every race you finish and your competitor finishes fourth or worse in every race they finish. Tell me, what does that say in terms of how much "better" and "faster" are alike? Particularly if your competitor is driving the fourth/fifth fastest car?

Apart from reliability, which other matters do you want to take into account?

And finally, please re-read your recent posts, in which you do your best to diminish the praise Alonso is receiving left and right for his season, and think about which level of "cognitive dissonance" you are allowing yourself in order to sustain that particular bias.

Edited by Fontainebleau, 21 December 2012 - 13:54.


#406 fabr68

fabr68
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 21 December 2012 - 14:12

Tell me about it! So glad someone agrees with me.


Nah, I think he was just being sarcastic.

#407 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,337 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 21 December 2012 - 14:19

Apart from reliability, which other matters do you want to take into account?


Whatever explains the fact that, after the summer break, the points were gained like so:
RBR: 214
Ferrari: 211

Alonso: 114
Massa: 97

It's you (and others) who claim that the car was "poor", so the onus is on you to explain how a car that practically matched RBR in the 2nd half and managed second in the WCC is "poor". I think someone tried to say that both Alonso and Massa "outdrove" the Ferrari in that period, but I'm looking for saner arguments that wouldn't make Karl Popper turn in his grave.

I'm not sure how I can diminish Fernando's accomplishments in the Ferrari given that I'm still yet to understand what he has accomplished in one so far. If you want to lower your standards and talk about how he's on someone's "driver of the year list" then I'll happily grant that he's really amazing at getting to the top of those lists. And if you want to talk about how he's fought for the championship in one and how that's amazing, then I will remind you of the points distribution above and ask you to raise your standards a bit.

All I'm really saying is that the car wasn't "poor" and was better than 4th/5th best, and that I find it interesting that some posters like to claim that it was. Also, I think Fernando is still playing mind games, but I don't think that's good or bad - I'm not judging; I just think he's really good at it, like a lot of other things he does.

Edited by boldhakka, 21 December 2012 - 14:35.


#408 fabr68

fabr68
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 21 December 2012 - 14:46

Whatever explains the fact that, after the summer break, the points were gained like so:
RBR: 214
Ferrari: 211

Alonso: 114
Massa: 97


Of course. Totally ignore Alonso's performance on the first half of the season. :lol:

#409 gillesthegenius

gillesthegenius
  • Member

  • 2,534 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 21 December 2012 - 14:51

Interestingly, I was thinking exactly that when I was reading this and some of your other posts in this thread.

It is fascinating how the same people who so much enjoyed the F2012 being nicknamed "Clifford" by early season have now turned that big red dog into a wonderful car, whose only caveat was that "it was the 4th/5th fastest" - a minor caveat in you eyes when it comes to an F1 racing car which was suppossed to fight for the titles, I assume?

Include reliability, then. Vettel's RBR had two reliability issues in race and zero in qualy; Alonso's F2012 had zero reliability issues in race an one in qualy. It does not sound that different, does it? You could claim that it is far more unlucky to have an issue during the race than during qualy - cool, but put that one down the same heading you put Alonso's two DNFs in Spa and Suzuka.

By the way, in case you had not realised, the new points system was introduced to favour wins over just finishing the race - or, in other words, speed over reliability. Which means that you can win WDC by finishing one out of every two races, provided that you win every race you finish and your competitor finishes fourth or worse in every race they finish. Tell me, what does that say in terms of how much "better" and "faster" are alike? Particularly if your competitor is driving the fourth/fifth fastest car?

Apart from reliability, which other matters do you want to take into account?

And finally, please re-read your recent posts, in which you do your best to diminish the praise Alonso is receiving left and right for his season, and think about which level of "cognitive dissonance" you are allowing yourself in order to sustain that particular bias.


Three points I would like to raise about your post.

1) Ferrari were not 4/5th fastest car over the season, they were imo on average 3rd fastest behind Mclaren (fastest) RBR (second fastest)

2) If you want to bring in Alonso's reliability issues in the qualy at Monza, you surely cant neglect the fuel pump issue that shunted Vettel to the back of the field at the Yas Marina.

3) The current system - though it has been modified a bit - is a child of the system that was introduced in 2003 to prevent the winner having too much of an advantage. According to the old 10-6-4 system 2 wins equals 5 third places. But according to the current system 2 wins equals 3 third places and a 7th place. Quite a difference from the olden days that properly rewarded wins, ainit?

Edited by gillesthegenius, 21 December 2012 - 14:53.


#410 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,337 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 21 December 2012 - 15:03

Of course. Totally ignore Alonso's performance on the first half of the season. :lol:


Exactly like how some of you ignore the F2012's performance in Massa's hands in the second half. The difference being, nobody said Fernando's performance was "poor" or "4th/5th best". :lol: Do you have the intellectual chops to appreciate the symmetry? Luckily I'm sure a few readers do.

My only intention is to show that the F2012 was not "poor" on average over the whole season. This I can do by showing that it matched the RBR in the second half. So no first half discussion on my part.

Edited by boldhakka, 21 December 2012 - 15:24.


#411 fabr68

fabr68
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 21 December 2012 - 15:53

Exactly like how some of you ignore the F2012's performance in Massa's hands in the second half. The difference being, nobody said Fernando's performance was "poor" or "4th/5th best". :lol: Do you have the intellectual chops to appreciate the symmetry? Luckily I'm sure a few readers do.

My only intention is to show that the F2012 was not "poor" on average over the whole season. This I can do by showing that it matched the RBR in the second half. So no first half discussion on my part.


So using the first half of the season results

RBR: 246
Ferrari: 189

Alonso: 164
Massa: 25

Using your same logic, the F2012 had much lower performance that the Red Bull cars.

#412 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,337 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 21 December 2012 - 16:02

So using the first half of the season results

RBR: 246
Ferrari: 189

Alonso: 164
Massa: 25

Using your same logic, the F2012 had much lower performance that the Red Bull cars.


Yes. That was pretty clear.

But not so bad that the average over the whole season makes it "4th/5th best". Since it matched RBR in the second half, it would have to be something like 9th/10th best car in the first half to average "4th/5th best" over the whole season. And you know it wasn't 9th/10th best - I'll let someone else carry the torch if you really want to go down that path though.

EDIT: And Fernando did an amazing job in the first half. See, I can say it. Can you say that the F2012 was not so bad in the 2nd half relative to the competition? :lol:

Edited by boldhakka, 21 December 2012 - 16:21.


#413 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 21 December 2012 - 16:07

it matched RBR in the second half


Yes, that is clear to everyone who was watching the races
:lol:

#414 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,337 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 21 December 2012 - 16:09

Yes, that is clear to everyone who was watching the races
:lol:


I know, right? Wonder if some of these folks even get off the Internet sometimes!

#415 Fontainebleau

Fontainebleau
  • Member

  • 1,895 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 21 December 2012 - 16:57

Three points I would like to raise about your post.

1) Ferrari were not 4/5th fastest car over the season, they were imo on average 3rd fastest behind Mclaren (fastest) RBR (second fastest)

2) If you want to bring in Alonso's reliability issues in the qualy at Monza, you surely cant neglect the fuel pump issue that shunted Vettel to the back of the field at the Yas Marina.

3) The current system - though it has been modified a bit - is a child of the system that was introduced in 2003 to prevent the winner having too much of an advantage. According to the old 10-6-4 system 2 wins equals 5 third places. But according to the current system 2 wins equals 3 third places and a 7th place. Quite a difference from the olden days that properly rewarded wins, ainit?

1) That was Boldhakka's statement, so ask him about it. In any case, and given that Lotus and Force India were ahead of Ferrari quite often, I dispute your statement that it was the third fastest car. :)
2) The "fuel pump issue" was, for all we know, a team mistake that resulted in Vettel being underfuelled. Sorry, but if I am not mistaken there is no evidence that a mechanical issue was involved.
3) Your explanation only stresses my point: in F1, a faster car is a better car. Now we just have to make Boldhakka understand that point! :)

Edited by Fontainebleau, 21 December 2012 - 17:00.


#416 Fontainebleau

Fontainebleau
  • Member

  • 1,895 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 21 December 2012 - 17:13

Whatever explains the fact that, after the summer break, the points were gained like so:
RBR: 214
Ferrari: 211

Alonso: 114
Massa: 97

It's you (and others) who claim that the car was "poor", so the onus is on you to explain how a car that practically matched RBR in the 2nd half and managed second in the WCC is "poor". I think someone tried to say that both Alonso and Massa "outdrove" the Ferrari in that period, but I'm looking for saner arguments that wouldn't make Karl Popper turn in his grave.

I'm not sure how I can diminish Fernando's accomplishments in the Ferrari given that I'm still yet to understand what he has accomplished in one so far. If you want to lower your standards and talk about how he's on someone's "driver of the year list" then I'll happily grant that he's really amazing at getting to the top of those lists. And if you want to talk about how he's fought for the championship in one and how that's amazing, then I will remind you of the points distribution above and ask you to raise your standards a bit.

All I'm really saying is that the car wasn't "poor" and was better than 4th/5th best, and that I find it interesting that some posters like to claim that it was. Also, I think Fernando is still playing mind games, but I don't think that's good or bad - I'm not judging; I just think he's really good at it, like a lot of other things he does.

I see that you have conveniently ignored the part of my post in which I gave you an explanation of how an unreliable but faster car is in a better position to win titles than a reliable but slower car. For some reason, that does not surprise me.

It is you who said that the car was not poor in relative terms, so it is up to you to prove it - because my first statement, which you totally dismisssed, was that Alonso and Massa had a great second part of the season which helped compensate the car issues. You were the one to state that I was wrong and that it was up to the car, so don't try to put the burden of proof solely on me. Although I understand why you'd like to be excused from providing solid facts to back your statements!

As for you having yet to understand what Alonso has accomplished in a Ferrari so far, don't be too hard on yourself: TPs are much more knowledgeable about F1 than any of us, so there is no shame in not being able to see what they find evident. I am convinced that eventually we will all be able to get closer to what they perceive, although obviously we will never have the same information they have. Just don't assume that it is their level of "cognitive dissonance" that makes them disagree with you, because that could make you look silly.

#417 gillesthegenius

gillesthegenius
  • Member

  • 2,534 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 21 December 2012 - 20:19

1) That was Boldhakka's statement, so ask him about it. In any case, and given that Lotus and Force India were ahead of Ferrari quite often, I dispute your statement that it was the third fastest car. :)
2) The "fuel pump issue" was, for all we know, a team mistake that resulted in Vettel being underfuelled. Sorry, but if I am not mistaken there is no evidence that a mechanical issue was involved.
3) Your explanation only stresses my point: in F1, a faster car is a better car. Now we just have to make Boldhakka understand that point! :)


1) Really? Quite often? How often?
2) What are you talking? The fuel pump issue meant that RBR couldnt extract all the fuel from Seb's car for the post qually inspection. Renault confirmed it. Great try at twisting the story.
3) Faster car is better if its reliable. But not very useful if it keeps breaking down. Just ask Senna and Mansell the perils of not finishing races. They will tell you how the slower Prost and Piquet managed to beat them with what is known as 'podium driving'.

#418 Fontainebleau

Fontainebleau
  • Member

  • 1,895 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 21 December 2012 - 23:13

1) Really? Quite often? How often?
2) What are you talking? The fuel pump issue meant that RBR couldnt extract all the fuel from Seb's car for the post qually inspection. Renault confirmed it. Great try at twisting the story.
3) Faster car is better if its reliable. But not very useful if it keeps breaking down. Just ask Senna and Mansell the perils of not finishing races. They will tell you how the slower Prost and Piquet managed to beat them with what is known as 'podium driving'.

.
1) Australia, Malaysia, China, Bahrain, Europe, Hungary, Japan, Abu Dhabi, US. But you are correct in one thing: it was't always Force India, sometimes it was Sauber, or Mercedes,or Williams, that were faster than the Ferrari in a given track placing it as 4th/5th fastest.

2) Renault reported an issue with a fuel cell and requested Vettel to stop the car. FIA accepted this explanation, but then could not extract the one litre of fuel that was required; Renault said that they were convinced the fuel was in the car, but unless I am very much mistaken nobody found it. http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/20193545

"Red Bull boss Christian Horner said that the margin on fuel in the tank was “too tight” on this occasion and accepted the penalty. He explained that it is Renault that decides how much fuel to put into the car."
"The stewards accepted the team’s explanation of why the car stopped on circuit, which related to a drop in fuel pressure which Renault believed could damage the engine. However when the fuel was pumped out for FIA checks, only 850ml came out, rather than the 1000ml which rules require."
http://www.jamesalle...rom-qualifying/

So I would not be too sure about who is twisting the story here.

3) I refer you to the example I gave above and that you further proved in your previous post: if 2 wins equal 3 third places, the guy with the (consistently) fastest car can afford not finishing a 33% of the races and will still end ahead in the WDC than his competitor with a car that can only give him the third step in the podium. And if said car cannot do better than fourth on average, the guy with the fastest car can afford missing 50% of the races. Obviously this does not work with cars that are similarly fast, but in the case we are discussing (2012 RBR vs Ferrari) the difference is enough to state that, all in all, the RBR was a better car than the Ferrari by a margin. Which was my original point, and the one that Boldhakka was disputing.

Edited by Fontainebleau, 21 December 2012 - 23:25.


#419 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,337 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 22 December 2012 - 02:40

I see that you have conveniently ignored the part of my post in which I gave you an explanation of how an unreliable but faster car is in a better position to win titles than a reliable but slower car. For some reason, that does not surprise me.

It is you who said that the car was not poor in relative terms, so it is up to you to prove it - because my first statement, which you totally dismisssed, was that Alonso and Massa had a great second part of the season which helped compensate the car issues. You were the one to state that I was wrong and that it was up to the car, so don't try to put the burden of proof solely on me. Although I understand why you'd like to be excused from providing solid facts to back your statements!

As for you having yet to understand what Alonso has accomplished in a Ferrari so far, don't be too hard on yourself: TPs are much more knowledgeable about F1 than any of us, so there is no shame in not being able to see what they find evident. I am convinced that eventually we will all be able to get closer to what they perceive, although obviously we will never have the same information they have. Just don't assume that it is their level of "cognitive dissonance" that makes them disagree with you, because that could make you look silly.


That's a long way from your original position and I see you are closer to achieving consonance now. Good job backpeddling!

I already granted that Fernando is great at getting to the top of those lists. It just bothers you that I'm not granting an inch more. :lol:

Edited by boldhakka, 22 December 2012 - 03:32.


Advertisement

#420 AyrtonSauna

AyrtonSauna
  • Member

  • 422 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 22 December 2012 - 23:52

Fine.
If some fans beleive that the Ferrari was just as good as the RBR over the whole season,and that they beleive it was the drivers rather than the car they were driving that produced the final WDC outcome,then those same fans will in future have to admit that if Fernando Alonso wins a title in 2013 and beyond in a completely dominant Ferrari,they would have to admit that it was the driver and not the car :lol:
It's like saying Mansell was a better driver than Senna in 1992 when Senna won races he had no right to in that 1992 McLaren :lol:

#421 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,112 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 23 December 2012 - 00:23

By the way, in case you had not realised, the new points system was introduced to favour wins over just finishing the race - or, in other words, speed over reliability. Which means that you can win WDC by finishing one out of every two races, provided that you win every race you finish and your competitor finishes fourth or worse in every race they finish. Tell me, what does that say in terms of how much "better" and "faster" are alike? Particularly if your competitor is driving the fourth/fifth fastest car?

I really don't know why folks going about the bolded part. It's simply not true. Old or new points system, there would be only a few positions different, and most important, Vettel would have won under the previous points system the WDC too. Even the system used back in 1930, where having the least points would make you the WDC. Alonso would have lost in 2010 as well.

http://www.kolumbus....llman/main2.htm

Like it or not, the number always make Vettel the WDC over the past 3 years. Who was the better driver over a season however is another story.

Edited by HP, 23 December 2012 - 00:24.


#422 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,337 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 23 December 2012 - 03:07

Lots of superficial, shallow thinking in this thread. Many don't even realize that by insisting that he drove equally well in the second half, they are diminishing his amazing performance in the first half. And that they are damning him with faint praise by hailing the list of TP opionions when the man has won on the race track against the likes of Schumacher and Ferrari.

I can predict what the 2013 car thread will look like.

#423 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,380 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 23 December 2012 - 17:06

Autosport F1 season poll (paid content) - Autosport Journalists vote:

1. Alonso - 83
2. Hamilton - 62
3. Vettel - 57
4. Räikkönnen - 29
5. Hulkenberg - 13
6. Button - 8
7. Webber - 2
8. Perez - 1

Journalists' reasoning, comparison with their pre-season predictions, and other content at the for-pay page.

#424 Fontainebleau

Fontainebleau
  • Member

  • 1,895 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 23 December 2012 - 17:45

That's a long way from your original position and I see you are closer to achieving consonance now. Good job backpeddling!

I already granted that Fernando is great at getting to the top of those lists. It just bothers you that I'm not granting an inch more. :lol:

My original position was that both Alonso and Massa had done a great job despite having a poor (in relative terms) car. I have not moved an inch from there; however, I am not surprised that you are trying to twist the facts in order to avoid acknowledging your mistakes.

Which is why, rest assured, I could not care less about what you say or do. In fact, I am stopping my discussion with you right now - I have had enough of your, as per your definition, "superficial, shallow thinking". Good luck with trying to put down a driver who has received the highest compliments from those involved in the F1 world for an amazing season.

#425 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,337 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 24 December 2012 - 10:29

My original position was that both Alonso and Massa had done a great job despite having a poor (in relative terms) car. I have not moved an inch from there; however, I am not surprised that you are trying to twist the facts in order to avoid acknowledging your mistakes.

Which is why, rest assured, I could not care less about what you say or do. In fact, I am stopping my discussion with you right now - I have had enough of your, as per your definition, "superficial, shallow thinking". Good luck with trying to put down a driver who has received the highest compliments from those involved in the F1 world for an amazing season.


In the real world, drivers can't drive over the limit of the car. You could argue that they both maximized the cars's potential, but that suggests the potential of the car was very high given the points they scored against the opposition. A claim that they both maximized the potential of the car would also be demonstrably false since they would need to end up right behind each other in every qualifying and race for that to be true, and there were several weekends where that didn't happen.

You've basically thrown a bunch of stuff against the wall, and none have stuck. I doubt you're even arguing in good faith anymore because you keep muddying the waters by bringing up a false dichotomy between Fernando's performance and the F2012's competitiveness. You do realize that Fernando could have the greatest season of his career and still driven a very competetive car? Not the best car, but a very competetive car. Fernando's amazing driving and the F2012's many strengths and competitiveness aren't mutually exclusive. You keep bringing up this false dichotomy in almost every post. So weird.

Have fun in your fantasy land. :D

#426 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 24 December 2012 - 10:46

it [the Ferrari] matched RBR in the second half [of the season]

Have fun in your fantasy land. :D


Ahh how incredibly rich :clap:

#427 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,337 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 24 December 2012 - 11:29

Ahh how incredibly rich :clap:


:smoking:

#428 TigersWood

TigersWood
  • Member

  • 132 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 24 December 2012 - 16:03

It is very simple.

Fernando Alonso was fighting for the championship with Vettel.

How many races was Fernando Alonso fighting for the victory in the last 8 races?

In none. Zero. 0. He didn't even lead a single lap since his victory in Hockenheim. You can count Abu Dhabi but the victory was Hamilton's by far.

So are you guys trying to say that the Ferrari was remotely similar to a car that allowed Vettel to win 4 races in a row?

Alonso managed to be in the podium, ok, but it was because McLaren has issues, because he drove very good and because he was lucky, but if you are third and Vettel makes the pole and wins, in three races he has caught you.

In fact, how many races has come Alonso to the race thinking that he can win? In virtually zero! Which makes his season so amazing!

But please Ferrari, stop making these cars, ok? Reliable 100%, but starting 6º is not good. Winning 4 races and retiring in 2 is better.

Edited by TigersWood, 24 December 2012 - 16:03.


#429 Winter98

Winter98
  • Member

  • 638 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 24 December 2012 - 18:14

Congratulations on a great season Fernanado.

No shame in being second best three consecutive seasons. Good luck in 2013!

#430 eric2610

eric2610
  • Member

  • 62 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 24 December 2012 - 18:32

Was just having some thoughts on the outcome of this season, and came to the following conclusion.

I do not think Alonso overdrove his Ferrari this year. How do I come to this conclusion? Easily, look who came third in the WDC. Sure Raikonnen had an awesome Comeback Season and the Lotus was not bad either. But how did he get third in the WDC, yep, just by driving the races until the finish line and keeping out of trouble. Thats almost what Alonso did. Ok ok he had some bad luck with Grosjean and Raikonnen. But he actually only managed to finish his races. AND then inherite points. He ended in front of Raikonnen, because his car was better than the Lotus.

This ear was a year in which the two fastet cars had big reliability issues. Just look at Hamilton, without his problems he would have won the WDC, Vettel hat his Alternator problems, had bad luck in Abu Dhabi and Interlagos.
What would have been if McLaren and Redbull would have not have their Issues. Well the WDC would have been desided between Hamilton and Vettel, place 3 and 4 would have been a thing between Webber and Button, and only then Alonso and Raikonnen would have come into play.

Alonso had a great season, yes his placing in the WDC is better than the speed of the car. But that second place is a result of undererformance and bad luck of his opponents. But on the other side, he did a great job to drive home the results when he had the chance. That in my eyes is the difference between a good driver and an excellent driver. But he definetly did not drive better than his car.

#431 Mc_Silver

Mc_Silver
  • Member

  • 2,113 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 24 December 2012 - 19:02

Was just having some thoughts on the outcome of this season, and came to the following conclusion.

I do not think Alonso overdrove his Ferrari this year. How do I come to this conclusion? Easily, look who came third in the WDC. Sure Raikonnen had an awesome Comeback Season and the Lotus was not bad either. But how did he get third in the WDC, yep, just by driving the races until the finish line and keeping out of trouble. Thats almost what Alonso did. Ok ok he had some bad luck with Grosjean and Raikonnen. But he actually only managed to finish his races. AND then inherite points. He ended in front of Raikonnen, because his car was better than the Lotus.

This ear was a year in which the two fastet cars had big reliability issues. Just look at Hamilton, without his problems he would have won the WDC, Vettel hat his Alternator problems, had bad luck in Abu Dhabi and Interlagos.
What would have been if McLaren and Redbull would have not have their Issues. Well the WDC would have been desided between Hamilton and Vettel, place 3 and 4 would have been a thing between Webber and Button, and only then Alonso and Raikonnen would have come into play.

Alonso had a great season, yes his placing in the WDC is better than the speed of the car. But that second place is a result of undererformance and bad luck of his opponents. But on the other side, he did a great job to drive home the results when he had the chance. That in my eyes is the difference between a good driver and an excellent driver. But he definetly did not drive better than his car.


:up: :up:


#432 PoleMan

PoleMan
  • Member

  • 1,445 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 25 December 2012 - 18:39

Was just having some thoughts on the outcome of this season, and came to the following conclusion.

I do not think Alonso overdrove his Ferrari this year. How do I come to this conclusion? Easily, look who came third in the WDC. Sure Raikonnen had an awesome Comeback Season and the Lotus was not bad either. But how did he get third in the WDC, yep, just by driving the races until the finish line and keeping out of trouble. Thats almost what Alonso did. Ok ok he had some bad luck with Grosjean and Raikonnen. But he actually only managed to finish his races. AND then inherite points. He ended in front of Raikonnen, because his car was better than the Lotus.

This ear was a year in which the two fastet cars had big reliability issues. Just look at Hamilton, without his problems he would have won the WDC, Vettel hat his Alternator problems, had bad luck in Abu Dhabi and Interlagos.
What would have been if McLaren and Redbull would have not have their Issues. Well the WDC would have been desided between Hamilton and Vettel, place 3 and 4 would have been a thing between Webber and Button, and only then Alonso and Raikonnen would have come into play.

Alonso had a great season, yes his placing in the WDC is better than the speed of the car. But that second place is a result of undererformance and bad luck of his opponents. But on the other side, he did a great job to drive home the results when he had the chance. That in my eyes is the difference between a good driver and an excellent driver. But he definetly did not drive better than his car.


As you say, no one can outdrive the capabilities of his car, but the consensus view is that Alonso outdrove all the other pilots in 2012, especially when taking into account the equipment at his disposal. Several had outstanding drives during different stretches of the season, but none were as CONSISTENTLY EXCELLENT over all 20 races as Alonso. I think this analysis from Andrew Benson at the BBC, sums it up pretty well: "...but the fact the Ferrari driver ultimately lost out by only three points - and actually outscored Vettel in the final three races by 10 points - underlines not only what an utterly fantastic season Alonso had but also how unlucky he was not to win it, even in what was at best the third fastest car." From my vantage point, and those who are paid to work in and cover F1, it seems he did a fair bit more than just finish races and inherit points. ;)

Edited by PoleMan, 25 December 2012 - 18:41.


#433 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 4,740 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 25 December 2012 - 19:06

I think this analysis from Andrew Benson at the BBC, sums it up pretty well: "...but the fact the Ferrari driver ultimately lost out by only three points - and actually outscored Vettel in the final three races by 10 points - underlines not only what an utterly fantastic season Alonso had but also how unlucky he was not to win it, even in what was at best the third fastest car."

I didn't want to post in this thread, but seriously? highlighting the last 3 races, saying Alonso was outscoring Vettel in those races, where he either started or fell back to last place 2 times, had messy pit stops and strategy blunders? wow. going by that, he could highlight races 14-17 as well, where Vettel was outscoring Alonso by 100-48, despite Alonso having the 2nd best car on balance to Seb's first, and that would be an unfair statement as well, chosing a period on purpose where one had a good run and the other one had (a) rough weekend(s).

don't misunderstand me, not aiming at you, but at Benson's credibility.

#434 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 5,296 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 25 December 2012 - 21:17

As you say, no one can outdrive the capabilities of his car, but the consensus view is that Alonso outdrove all the other pilots in 2012, especially when taking into account the equipment at his disposal. Several had outstanding drives during different stretches of the season, but none were as CONSISTENTLY EXCELLENT over all 20 races as Alonso. I think this analysis from Andrew Benson at the BBC, sums it up pretty well: "...but the fact the Ferrari driver ultimately lost out by only three points - and actually outscored Vettel in the final three races by 10 points - underlines not only what an utterly fantastic season Alonso had but also how unlucky he was not to win it, even in what was at best the third fastest car." From my vantage point, and those who are paid to work in and cover F1, it seems he did a fair bit more than just finish races and inherit points.;)


If Fernando looks back at his career and feels that he drove the best in 2012, then who are we to say otherwise? I can't argue with that.

I think the problem is when one starts in with comparisons to other drivers (i.e., Alonso outdrove all the other pilots). The problem is, this attempts to separate the car and the driver and you cannot do that in motorsports.

You can't credit Alonso himself as being more consisent and driving well without the combination of his car being reliable and his team working well in concert with his efforts. Reliability, team strategy, car performance in any given qually and race (simplfied as the "car" part of the equation) plays a large role for all drivers, including Fernando. However, these things are not taken into consideration in arguments like Benson's. He merely bases his statement on results (i.e., points finishes). If these factors are taken into consideration, then the comparison fails.

I think the trick is to evaluate without comparisons. That way, there is nothing to prove, because it was a very good season of driving for Alonso and he had the equipment to highlight that. It's always the car + the driver.

#435 PoleMan

PoleMan
  • Member

  • 1,445 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 26 December 2012 - 01:32

If Fernando looks back at his career and feels that he drove the best in 2012, then who are we to say otherwise? I can't argue with that.

I think the problem is when one starts in with comparisons to other drivers (i.e., Alonso outdrove all the other pilots). The problem is, this attempts to separate the car and the driver and you cannot do that in motorsports.

You can't credit Alonso himself as being more consisent and driving well without the combination of his car being reliable and his team working well in concert with his efforts. Reliability, team strategy, car performance in any given qually and race (simplfied as the "car" part of the equation) plays a large role for all drivers, including Fernando. However, these things are not taken into consideration in arguments like Benson's. He merely bases his statement on results (i.e., points finishes). If these factors are taken into consideration, then the comparison fails.

I think the trick is to evaluate without comparisons. That way, there is nothing to prove, because it was a very good season of driving for Alonso and he had the equipment to highlight that. It's always the car + the driver.

Zava, no clarification necessary, as I get that you're taking exception with the point Benson was making. Bourbon appears to be doing the same, above. You are right that you can take a different snapshot of the season and highlight other GREAT PERIODS from both Vettel and Hamilton. While I don't always agree with Benson (Or anyone else!), I think his general point is similar to the one I made, which is that the consistent level of excellence displayed by Alonso was superior to the others. What Benson, and the TPs, and other motorsports journalists are doing this year is EXACTLY what they do at the end of EVERY year. They rate the driving as they see it. As I stated, there is a CONSENSUS VIEW that Alonso performed better than the other drivers, hence they rated him the BEST DRIVER. Certainly, there are differing opinions, including some on this very forum...they just don't happen to work in or report on the Sport of F1. I know we can quibble over WHO has more knowledge of the sport, but I think I'll take my chances and go with guys who run the teams or spend most of their waking hours intimately covering the sport they LOVE. ALL OPINIONS ARE NOT EQUAL! There are EXPERT OPINIONS, and then there are the rest of ours. Not sure why all the Kudos being given to Alonso this year seem to be rubbing so many the wrong way. :confused:

#436 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,337 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 26 December 2012 - 03:06

Zava, no clarification necessary, as I get that you're taking exception with the point Benson was making. Bourbon appears to be doing the same, above. You are right that you can take a different snapshot of the season and highlight other GREAT PERIODS from both Vettel and Hamilton. While I don't always agree with Benson (Or anyone else!), I think his general point is similar to the one I made, which is that the consistent level of excellence displayed by Alonso was superior to the others. What Benson, and the TPs, and other motorsports journalists are doing this year is EXACTLY what they do at the end of EVERY year. They rate the driving as they see it. As I stated, there is a CONSENSUS VIEW that Alonso performed better than the other drivers, hence they rated him the BEST DRIVER. Certainly, there are differing opinions, including some on this very forum...they just don't happen to work in or report on the Sport of F1. I know we can quibble over WHO has more knowledge of the sport, but I think I'll take my chances and go with guys who run the teams or spend most of their waking hours intimately covering the sport they LOVE. ALL OPINIONS ARE NOT EQUAL! There are EXPERT OPINIONS, and then there are the rest of ours. Not sure why all the Kudos being given to Alonso this year seem to be rubbing so many the wrong way. :confused:


What are they experts at, and how can they or anyone be experts of someone else's driving?

#437 Winter98

Winter98
  • Member

  • 638 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 26 December 2012 - 03:18

Not sure why all the Kudos being given to Alonso this year seem to be rubbing so many the wrong way. :confused:


I was really hoping Alonso would win the WDC this year. Well, that is until he started with the "I'm racing Newey" stuff.

Three years ago Alonso clearly saw himself as, and was regarded as (including by me), the best driver of his generation, and destined go down as one of the all time greats. Unfortunately for him, and his supporters, those dreams have been shattered by a younger and (statistically) superior driver.

By making the "I'm racing Newey" comments Alonso is trying to preserve his place in F1 history not by being the best, but by demeaning a (statistically) superior driver's accomplishments. If this was a one off, I would have completely ignored it as a mistake made in the heat of battle. Unfortunately this was a planned campaign, and as such I find it contemptible.

I would much rather give praise to the driver who just secured his place as an F1 legend by claiming his third WDC on the trot, a feat managed, AFAIK, only twice in the history of F1, by two of the greatest of all time.

Edited by Winter98, 26 December 2012 - 03:25.


#438 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 5,296 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 26 December 2012 - 06:10

Zava, no clarification necessary, as I get that you're taking exception with the point Benson was making. Bourbon appears to be doing the same, above. You are right that you can take a different snapshot of the season and highlight other GREAT PERIODS from both Vettel and Hamilton.


Well not exactly. It is true that I feel Benson's reasoning didn't support his point (assuming that is all he had to say on the topic), however, I wasn't talking about various snapshots highlighting other great drives. I was saying that you can't do a straight forward comparison among the drivers by relegating their cars to best, worst or somewhere in between at every race, because that changes from race to race. To be accurate, it can even change during the course of a race (i.e. Mark's RB8 from hero to zero at the Indian GP when he completely lost his KERS).

While I don't always agree with Benson (Or anyone else!), I think his general point is similar to the one I made, which is that the consistent level of excellence displayed by Alonso was superior to the others.


The point is fine. The reasoning Benson used to support it was not valid, imo. You cannot separate the car and driver, imo.

What Benson, and the TPs, and other motorsports journalists are doing this year is EXACTLY what they do at the end of EVERY year. They rate the driving as they see it. As I stated, there is a CONSENSUS VIEW that Alonso performed better than the other drivers, hence they rated him the BEST DRIVER. Certainly, there are differing opinions, including some on this very forum...they just don't happen to work in or report on the Sport of F1. I know we can quibble over WHO has more knowledge of the sport, but I think I'll take my chances and go with guys who run the teams or spend most of their waking hours intimately covering the sport they LOVE. ALL OPINIONS ARE NOT EQUAL! There are EXPERT OPINIONS, and then there are the rest of ours. Not sure why all the Kudos being given to Alonso this year seem to be rubbing so many the wrong way. :confused:


I don't think this was in response to my post...? I don't believe it is possible to comparatively rate drivers; you can only rate "car + driver" combinations. So I wouldn't be able to agree or disagree with your above argument.

Edited by bourbon, 26 December 2012 - 06:11.


#439 mey3059

mey3059
  • Member

  • 322 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 26 December 2012 - 08:41

it's the car and driver .
If as they say Alonso managed to perform more than what the car was capable, isn't it more likely that there is a flaw in Ferrari's simulation tools or something . I would think that a computer almost arrives at the perfect solution, which can't be bettered because we are human and many things affect our performance ( compared to, let's say a robot ).

Perhaps Ferrari never fully understood their car.

That said I do believe Fernando did some on-the-limit driving quite often . He took calculated risks and gave it everything . ( you could see the car slipping and sliding in some of the races). But that doesn't make him a better driver than some others ( unless you can say the car , the conditions , everything was Same for everybody), he did what he had to do !

Advertisement

#440 PoleMan

PoleMan
  • Member

  • 1,445 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 26 December 2012 - 14:20

What are they experts at, and how can they or anyone be experts of someone else's driving?


ex·pert (kspûrt)
n.
1. A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject.
2. a person who has extensive skill or knowledge in a particular field

If you don't think that the people who run multi-million dollar Formula 1 teams and hire all the drivers or the correspondents who spend most months of the year in the paddock, attending every pre-season and in-season practice, qualifying and race, and speaking to people inside the teams qualify as experts, then I have no words.

Do you have an expertise in anything?

#441 PoleMan

PoleMan
  • Member

  • 1,445 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 26 December 2012 - 14:44

I was really hoping Alonso would win the WDC this year. Well, that is until he started with the "I'm racing Newey" stuff.

Three years ago Alonso clearly saw himself as, and was regarded as (including by me), the best driver of his generation, and destined go down as one of the all time greats. Unfortunately for him, and his supporters, those dreams have been shattered by a younger and (statistically) superior driver.

By making the "I'm racing Newey" comments Alonso is trying to preserve his place in F1 history not by being the best, but by demeaning a (statistically) superior driver's accomplishments. If this was a one off, I would have completely ignored it as a mistake made in the heat of battle. Unfortunately this was a planned campaign, and as such I find it contemptible.

I would much rather give praise to the driver who just secured his place as an F1 legend by claiming his third WDC on the trot, a feat managed, AFAIK, only twice in the history of F1, by two of the greatest of all time.


I really don't see any evidence that Alonso is a shattered man or that his supporters are broken into pieces. :cool: In fact, quite the opposite. Speaking for myself, I am quite humbled that so many whose profession it is to understand the intricacies of F1 and who work in the sport, intimately, have determined that Alonso put in the best driving performance of 2012, despite not winning the title. It's especially satisfying, and a true sign of the high regard in which he is held, that Alonso has been honored in this way in two of Vettel's 3 championship-winning seasons -- despite not winning a WDC himself since 2006.

Don't get me wrong, I would rather the roles had been reversed, and Alonso won the WDC over Sebastian, in 2010 and this year. But since that was not to be, it's good to see that the respect for Fernando's talent is such that his performance in the cockpit in those years was deemed superior to the wunderkind who actually won the titles. :up:

Edited by PoleMan, 26 December 2012 - 15:03.


#442 PoleMan

PoleMan
  • Member

  • 1,445 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 26 December 2012 - 14:50

Well not exactly. It is true that I feel Benson's reasoning didn't support his point (assuming that is all he had to say on the topic), however, I wasn't talking about various snapshots highlighting other great drives. I was saying that you can't do a straight forward comparison among the drivers by relegating their cars to best, worst or somewhere in between at every race, because that changes from race to race. To be accurate, it can even change during the course of a race (i.e. Mark's RB8 from hero to zero at the Indian GP when he completely lost his KERS).



The point is fine. The reasoning Benson used to support it was not valid, imo. You cannot separate the car and driver, imo.



I don't think this was in response to my post...? I don't believe it is possible to comparatively rate drivers; you can only rate "car + driver" combinations. So I wouldn't be able to agree or disagree with your above argument.

No worries, Bourbon. Mine was more of a generalist response to both you and Zava, and I obviously failed in my attempt to stuff it all into one sandwich. :cry:



#443 PoleMan

PoleMan
  • Member

  • 1,445 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 26 December 2012 - 14:59

it's the car and driver .
If as they say Alonso managed to perform more than what the car was capable, isn't it more likely that there is a flaw in Ferrari's simulation tools or something . I would think that a computer almost arrives at the perfect solution, which can't be bettered because we are human and many things affect our performance ( compared to, let's say a robot ).

Perhaps Ferrari never fully understood their car.

That said I do believe Fernando did some on-the-limit driving quite often . He took calculated risks and gave it everything . ( you could see the car slipping and sliding in some of the races). But that doesn't make him a better driver than some others ( unless you can say the car , the conditions , everything was Same for everybody), he did what he had to do !


It does, when in the opinion of the vast majority of the sport's professionals, he is RATED THE BEST DRIVER! You may not like or want to believe this consensus opinion, but they have absolutely answered the question by VOTING ALONSO THE BEST. Unless you don't believe elections represent the will and belief of the voters. :confused:

#444 yr

yr
  • Member

  • 5,768 posts
  • Joined: December 98

Posted 26 December 2012 - 15:00

ex·pert (kspûrt)
n.
1. A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject.
2. a person who has extensive skill or knowledge in a particular field

If you don't think that the people who run multi-million dollar Formula 1 teams and hire all the drivers or the correspondents who spend most months of the year in the paddock, attending every pre-season and in-season practice, qualifying and race, and speaking to people inside the teams qualify as experts, then I have no words.

Do you have an expertise in anything?


Here in Finland we have Mika Salo as an "expert" in our tv broadcast. What I found very amusing is Salo being totally wrong in several times during the race about things going on, and I mean it litterally: Several times during every race. How can that be, if "experts" are so much sharper about F1 and understand it much better than us "regular" folks here in F1 forums? One of my favourite mistakes Mika does again and again is when someone has stuck behind slower car, Salo is every time very puzzled where the speed has gone? He asks why "Kimis lap times are 1 second slower than race leaders" then somebody in the studio tries to solve that problem for Salo and answers: "Well, Kimi has been all race 0.2 secs behind driver x whose lap times are 1 second slower than leader" then Salo will continue: "Yeah, but that is still very slow, I think there must be something wrong with Kimis car" :rolleyes:

Edited by yr, 26 December 2012 - 15:02.


#445 Zava

Zava
  • Member

  • 4,740 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 26 December 2012 - 15:10

Zava, no clarification necessary, as I get that you're taking exception with the point Benson was making. Bourbon appears to be doing the same, above. You are right that you can take a different snapshot of the season and highlight other GREAT PERIODS from both Vettel and Hamilton. While I don't always agree with Benson (Or anyone else!), I think his general point is similar to the one I made, which is that the consistent level of excellence displayed by Alonso was superior to the others. What Benson, and the TPs, and other motorsports journalists are doing this year is EXACTLY what they do at the end of EVERY year. They rate the driving as they see it. As I stated, there is a CONSENSUS VIEW that Alonso performed better than the other drivers, hence they rated him the BEST DRIVER. Certainly, there are differing opinions, including some on this very forum...they just don't happen to work in or report on the Sport of F1. I know we can quibble over WHO has more knowledge of the sport, but I think I'll take my chances and go with guys who run the teams or spend most of their waking hours intimately covering the sport they LOVE. ALL OPINIONS ARE NOT EQUAL! There are EXPERT OPINIONS, and then there are the rest of ours. Not sure why all the Kudos being given to Alonso this year seem to be rubbing so many the wrong way. :confused:

I wasn't even arguing with Benson's point that Alonso was consistent etc (I know how annoying it is when anti fans come in Sebs topic and do their 'work', I don't want to be that guy) I just had a problem with his example, because that was just a dumb thing to say. like saying that Vettel outscored Alonso by 18 points in spa, despite having a worse car for that track than ferrari. :p
but I'm outta here, have a nice time :wave:

#446 Winter98

Winter98
  • Member

  • 638 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 26 December 2012 - 15:14

I really don't see a shattered Alonso


I never said Alonso was shattered.

Just his dream of being considered the top driver of his generation, at least at this point in time. And considering the age and achievements of his primary nemesis, he surely realizes that in all likely hood he will be relegated to "second best" status.


Edited by Winter98, 26 December 2012 - 15:22.


#447 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,337 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 26 December 2012 - 15:15

You're all thinking too abstractly about the team principal top 10 list. Let's make it more concrete.

Take one TP, say Eric Boullier, and one driver, say Timo Glock, and ask the following questions:
1. Does Boullier have access to enough information about Glock's 2012 season?
2. Does he have the right background and/or experience to judge the information correctly?
3. Does he have the time and inclination to do #1 and #2 above for Timo Glock?

So:

1. Does Boullier have access to enough information about Timo's 2012 season?
Boullier can acces the world feed, onboard cameras, talk to engineers at Marussia, look at strategies that Timo employed relative to his teammate, etc. He probably also can get a rough idea of the strengths and weaknesses of Glock's car. I think the answer to this is "yes". He does have access to enough information about Timo's season.

2. Does he have the right background and/or experience to judge the information correctly?
Boullier has an engineering background and is an engineering graduate. He was a technical director of a racing team. If he does look at the numbers he is definitely in a position to judge the engineering aspects, at least. I don't think he will be particularly good at judging Glock's skill by looking at his onboard feeds (you need racing experience for this), but let's say he does. So the answer to this question is "yes" as well.

3. Does he have the time and inclination to do #1 and #2 above for Timo Glock?
Alas, here we can easily see that the answer is "No". Boullier had his hands full dealing with getting new sponsors, managing Kimi and Grosjean, and running the entire Lotus operation. Even if he's on the lookout for new drivers, Lotus already have their list of young drivers. So he has no reason to dwell deeply into Glock's performance in 2012. I'm sure you'll agree he hasn't looked at Glock's onboards, Glock's telemetry, talked to both Glock's and Pic's engineers to compare them, paid attention to tyre strategies used, etc. This is not what Eric does.

Do the TPs have the time and inclination to do all of this for 20+ drivers on the grid? Nope! Do you think they keep notes about all the drivers over the course of each season? Nope. Do they have all this data in their head that they can pull it up when they like? Nope. Do you think they spent an hour or more to compile their list, which is the minimum it would take to seriously run through all the drivers and compare them? Nope.

They are not experts at how well each of the drivers drove relative to each other in 2012. Far from it.

It's a nice list, and it's good that Fernando is on top, but let's keep things in perspective. You folks are taking the list way more seriously than the TPs would have when answering the question. This is not what they do. They are "experts" yes, but not at how well the drivers drove relative to each other in 2012.

Edited by boldhakka, 26 December 2012 - 15:24.


#448 PoleMan

PoleMan
  • Member

  • 1,445 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 26 December 2012 - 15:20

Here in Finland we have Mika Salo as an "expert" in our tv broadcast. What I found very amusing is Salo being totally wrong in several times during the race about things going on, and I mean it litterally: Several times during every race. How can that be, if "experts" are so much sharper about F1 and understand it much better than us "regular" folks here in F1 forums? One of my favourite mistakes Mika does again and again is when someone has stuck behind slower car, Salo is every time very puzzled where the speed has gone? He asks why "Kimis lap times are 1 second slower than race leaders" then somebody in the studio tries to solve that problem for Salo and answers: "Well, Kimi has been all race 0.2 secs behind driver x whose lap times are 1 second slower than leader" then Salo will continue: "Yeah, but that is still very slow, I think there must be something wrong with Kimis car" :rolleyes:

Not sure that's a very strong example. Being an expert certainly doesn't make one infallible, and mis-speaking during a live broadcast is a pretty common thing in TV. Do you believe otherwise?

I'll add that just because someone was adept at, say, driving, won't necessarily make them adept at television commentating. There are probably loads of examples of that that you and others could come up with. If Mika is as bad as you say, he won't have his contract renewed, because his continued poor performance would impact on the credibility of his network, and they would be forced to hire someone better or viewers would vote with their clickers. Full disclosure: I work in TV, and might even be considered an expert at what I do, but mistakes are still pretty common --including by yours truly--and especially when it is during a Live Broadcast! :cool:

#449 selespeed

selespeed
  • Member

  • 1,027 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 26 December 2012 - 15:21

i found info in one magazine that alonso set a new record for podiums without starting from the top 3 position...10 times it happened....previous best alain prost 9 times in 1986. (in fewer races ofcourse)

#450 yr

yr
  • Member

  • 5,768 posts
  • Joined: December 98

Posted 26 December 2012 - 15:48

Not sure that's a very strong example. Being an expert certainly doesn't make one infallible, and mis-speaking during a live broadcast is a pretty common thing in TV. Do you believe otherwise?

I'll add that just because someone was adept at, say, driving, won't necessarily make them adept at television commentating. There are probably loads of examples of that that you and others could come up with. If Mika is as bad as you say, he won't have his contract renewed, because his continued poor performance would impact on the credibility of his network, and they would be forced to hire someone better or viewers would vote with their clickers. Full disclosure: I work in TV, and might even be considered an expert at what I do, but mistakes are still pretty common --including by yours truly--and especially when it is during a Live Broadcast! :cool:



I think it is very strong example, because its not like it has happened only once or twice, it happens every time somebody is stuck behind slower car. Every fricking time.

I understandt the pressure of being on tv and it being a live broadcast, but since he always gets confused by this same thing (driver who has stuck behind slower car cant lap faster than the car right infront of him) and also understands whole lotta other stuff complitely wrong during every session in every GP weekend, I would say its not just about being under the pressure of live tv, its just him being not able to understand what is going on in races, certainly not more than you or I or most of the other members of this forum. The value of experts like Mika - who has actually raced in F1 - is how they can spot different driving styles or tell how team actually works or how driver/engineer relationship works etc but thats all.

Edited by yr, 26 December 2012 - 15:54.