140 replies to this topic

[Fontainebleau]

the thread on Alonso going to Red Bull has descended into a thread about 2007, Lewis and Kimi.

there are many other threads for that ;)

Not my intention to go off topic, I thought the reason for bringing Alonso's results and perceived value within the paddock in 2007-08, as well as Raikkonen's position within Ferrari, was in the context of understanding if/why he received an offer from Red Bull and turned it down. But I agree that we shoud not focus on those events beyond the role they could have played in this story.

[SCUDmissile]

This is one of those examples of a lie that, if repeated often enough, ends up being considered the gospel truth.

The only person to defend that idea was Hamilton himself. Dennis acknowledged that the pressure of the British press, to whom Hamilton had complained, forced him to try and soften Hamilton's hurt feelings, damaging his relationship with Alonso in the process, but that there was no doubt of who was the true winner at Monaco:
http://www.duemotori...ando_Alonso.php
"Dennis admits that Alonso was particularly annoyed after Monaco, when the McLaren boss openly admitted to holding back Lewis Hamilton rather than simply celebrate Alonso's dominant win.
Dennis replied: "I am not perfect. The British press jumped on me, attacked me.
"It was difficult. I had to think about what was best for the team. What was put about in the media did affect our relationship. But we are trying to improve that.
"He absolutely deserved to win in Monaco. He drove one of the best races that I have even seen.""

Andrew Benson offered a similar report on the BBC site:
"As a McLaren insider revealed to me: "Fernando won in Monaco fair and square in 2007.
"Lewis was generally quicker through the weekend, but in qualifying Fernando did it and Lewis didn't. Lewis was quicker in the first run but then he made mistakes and Fernando got pole.
"Fernando won the race because he pulled an 11-second gap in the first stint when Lewis had (tyre) graining and after that Fernando was just cruising because we had rear brake issues.
"But after the race, Ron said to Fernando: 'Be nice to Lewis because we had to (pit) stop him early.' And Fernando said: 'What do you mean? I was just cruising.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk...in_reargua.html

And finally, it only takes for someone to be patient enough and follow all the lap times during the race to check that there was no way Hamilton could have overtaken Alonso, even if he had stayed out for those three laps - try this site, for example http://www.visionf1....R05_monaco.html (it is quite fun too).

i think Alonso was quicker all weekend, and if i remember correctly, Hamitlon only started closing the gap when both guys were told to keep station.

i think Alonso had an answer, and he could have gone faster if he wanted to. he won that race by being quicker, fair and square.

Edited by SCUDmissile, 07 July 2011 - 10:12.

[DrewishPrince]

You described Kimi's season perfectly except he won the WDC which Alonso could not do against a rookie.

3 factors were different: Kimi enjoyed a car superior to Alonso's (although not by much but anyway...) and Kimi got helped by his teammate (2 points). Kimi was not in a hostile environment as well.
Every factor alone was worth more than 1 point that was the difference between then at the end.

Edited by DrewishPrince, 07 July 2011 - 13:40.

[Nivra]

Vettel is a boring world champion always will be no matter how many WDC's he wins, he has had the out and out best car for the last 2 years only if he goes to a lesser team and drags it to the front ala Schumacher with Ferrari and Alonso with Renault will my opinion change of him.

Sour Grapes...

If you hadn't noticed, there's two RBR's in every race, driven by another talented, race winning driver.... who has zero victories.

So your apparently fastest car is only fastest because of a really really fast driver. But then again, you can't look beyond your personal favorite or appreciate other great talents! Really sad.

[Nivra]

3 factors were different: Kimi enjoyed a car superior to Alonso's and Kimi got helped by his teammate. Kimi was not in a hostile environment as well.
Every factor alone was worth more than 1 point that was the difference between then at the end.

Another sour grapes...

If you hadn't noticed... Kimi won more races in 2007 than his rivals.... hence was deserving anyways!!

Your assumptions are pretty lame to put down a Driver's hard earned World Championship!!

Edited by Nivra, 07 July 2011 - 13:42.

[DrewishPrince]

Another sour grapes...

If you hadn't noticed... Kimi won more races in 2007 than his rivals.... hence was deserving anyways!!

Your assumptions are pretty lame to put down a Driver's hard earned World Championship!!

No.
Number of races won means nothing in terms of "deserving the title". Otherwise, the titles would have been won on win count and not points.
I did not say Kimi did not deserve the title. I said that, considering all the elements, Alonso had a great season and that Kimi had a few factors going for him that were unavailable to Alonso.

Taking all that into account, I would say that in sheer driving terms, Alonso had a better season in 2007 than Kimi, but it has nothing to do with winning the title, as the title is not won on driving level alone.
Kubica had a season better than anyone else in 2008, for example.

Edited by DrewishPrince, 07 July 2011 - 14:13.

[Hole]

Again, another sore comment. He has never claimed he is outperforming the car. People here do, because they feel it that way. Alonso's situation is only comparable to Massa's. How would fault Alonso when he is usually making better races than Massa? I mean, following your logic, Kimi was definitively underperforming in Ferrari, because the car was "great", the teammate was "great", but Kimi was just not doing a good job (I don't believe that, just following your strange reasoning...).

Actually the only ones saying that were Kimi and Schumacher's fans... Kimi won races and podiums in a crap car in 2009 and Schumacher could have won in a Minardi... Heard this for years.

Some people will never understand that drivers cannot make a car go faster than it can. If you do that to a machine it gets broken.

You described Kimi's season perfectly except he won the WDC which Alonso could not do against a rookie.

Kimi didn't have a hostile enviroment (not with Todt around) nor had a team mate of the calibre of Hamilton.

The honor will go to Vettel after this season. Back-to-back WDC, younger than Alonso and more wins/poles than Alonso (at similar ages). There's no way it isn't Vettel.

back to back? This year he's just flying away with his far superior car. Last time this didn't happen (Canada) he made a mistake... He has no challenge (unlike Alonso in 2005 and specially in 2006), only coming from his team mate and he seems to have problems with the tires... Or with things we don't even know (Vettel deserves more front wings, remember, wink, wink...)

Yes but what your missing is, it was too close for a rookie to beat a double world champion in his 7th season in the sport, who at the time was regarded as the best in the sport, and rightly so as he was the back to back reigning world champion. Whereas Lewis Hamilton had little experience in an F1 car, yet only took him 3 races to out-qualify and beat Alonso in a Grand Prix, and would have beaten Alonso in Monaco for the win too but for team orders. That is why the argument is so strong, because Alonso on all accounts should have beaten Lewis that year. That's the point that argument is making.

That thing of being a rookie is too overrated. He was the golden boy of McLaren and Ron, there was testing back then, and he came just after a season in another single seater racing cathegory that was using BD tires.

Also both finished with the same points, so I would not say so clearly that Hamilton beat Alonso as you said. They both beat the other as much, only that Alonso did better in the last races and that it was strange how Alonso started "underperfoming" right in the moment Hamilton cried to his team in Monaco.

Edited by Hole, 07 July 2011 - 14:50.

[velgajski1]

Why do Alonso threads always end up in getting discussed about 2007 and how he was disadvantaged? I'm wondering if Alonso fanboys will ever get over the fact that their idol was beaten fair and square, and was actually quite lucky to finish equal on points, given that Hamilton was disadvantaged by McLaren if you take all the facts into account

Edited by velgajski1, 07 July 2011 - 15:06.

[DrewishPrince]

Actually the only ones saying that were Kimi and Schumacher's fans... Kimi won races and podiums in a crap car in 2009 and Schumacher could have won in a Minardi... Heard this for years.

Some people will never understand that drivers cannot make a car go faster than it can. If you do that to a machine it gets broken.

Kimi didn't have a hostile enviroment (not with Todt around) nor had a team mate of the calibre of Hamilton.

back to back? This year he's just flying away with his far superior car. Last time this didn't happen (Canada) he made a mistake... He has no challenge (unlike Alonso in 2005 and specially in 2006), only coming from his team mate and he seems to have problems with the tires... Or with things we don't even know (Vettel deserves more front wings, remember, wink, wink...)

That thing of being a rookie is too overrated. He was the golden boy of McLaren and Ron, there was testing back then, and he came just after a season in another single seater racing cathegory that was using BD tires.

Also both finished with the same points, so I would not say so clearly that Hamilton beat Alonso as you said. They both beat the other as much, only that Alonso did better in the last races and that it was strange how Alonso started "underperfoming" right in the moment Hamilton cried to his team in Monaco.

With the sole reservation about Vettel, he's been very good this year.

[Hole]

Why do Alonso threads always end up in getting discussed about 2007 and how he was disadvantaged? I'm wondering if Alonso fanboys will ever get over the fact that their idol was beaten fair and square, and was actually quite lucky to finish equal on points, given that Hamilton was disadvantaged by McLaren if you take all the facts into account

About the thing in bold, those "Alonso fanboys" are NOT precisely the ones who are obssesed about bringing out 2007 over and over again ;)

About the rest of your post, specially that thing about the Golden Boy being disavantaged by McLaren and Alonso being lucky:

pd: If you tried to be humouristic or sarcastic then I'm sorry. I'm a bit like Sheldon Cooper in that sense, not very good at grasping sarcasm in the English language.

[yr]

3 factors were different: Kimi enjoyed a car superior to Alonso's (although not by much but anyway...)

How do you know Kimi had a superior car?

My bet is; you think that if anybody beats Alonso, it must be due to superior car. Am I right? Alonso winning the WDC with only few points - he still would have had a slightly lesser car. Alonso winning with a say 10-20 pts, the cars were equal, right? Alonso winning with bigger margin - he had a slight car advantage.

Is that the way you rate the cars, or have you propably driven all those cars and thus know something that us mere F1 fans dont know?

[Dunder]

How do you know Kimi had a superior car?

My bet is; you think that if anybody beats Alonso, it must be due to superior car. Am I right? Alonso winning the WDC with only few points - he still would have had a slightly lesser car. Alonso winning with a say 10-20 pts, the cars were equal, right? Alonso winning with bigger margin - he had a slight car advantage.

Is that the way you rate the cars, or have you propably driven all those cars and thus know something that us mere F1 fans dont know?

.... or a hostile environment, don't forget the hostile environment.

[Nivra]

No.
Number of races won means nothing in terms of "deserving the title". Otherwise, the titles would have been won on win count and not points.
I did not say Kimi did not deserve the title. I said that, considering all the elements, Alonso had a great season and that Kimi had a few factors going for him that were unavailable to Alonso.

Taking all that into account, I would say that in sheer driving terms, Alonso had a better season in 2007 than Kimi, but it has nothing to do with winning the title, as the title is not won on driving level alone.
Kubica had a season better than anyone else in 2008, for example.

Here again, your opinion lacks serious judgement and reeks of bias! And pretty funny too


Pos Driver AUS MAL BHR ESP MON CAN USA FRA GBR EUR HUN TUR ITA BEL JPN CHN BRA Points
1 Kimi Räikkönen - 1 - 3 - 3 - Ret - 8 - 5 - 4 - 1 - 1 - Ret - 2 - 2 - 3 - 1 - 3- 1- 1-- = 110
3Fernando Alonso - 2 - 1 - 5 - 3 - 1 - 7 - 2 - 7 - 2 - 1 - 4 - 3 - 1 - 3 - Ret - 2- 3-- = 109

Raikkonen- 6 Wins, 6 Podiums = World Drivers Champion 2007
F Alonso- 4 Wins, 8 Podiums = 3rd behind Rookie teammate Hamilton.

Micro Analysis:-
Raikkonen- Pole, Fastest lap, Win in first race with a new team
Alonso- 2nd place with new team

Raikkonen- Two Retirements due to Car/Mechanical Failure... hence lost points.
F Alonso- One Retirement due to Driver Error

Raikkonen- got consistent challenge from Team-mate Massa, who was used to his Ferrari.
F Alonso- got consistent challenge and untimately beaten by his Team-mate in his Rookie year.

Raikkonen- finished on the podium 9 times of the last 10 races... with one being Mechanical failure.
F Alonso- finished on the podium 7 times of the last 10 races... with one Driver Error Retirement.

Overall, both Raikkonen & Alonso finished on the podium 12 times in 2007, with Raikkonen managing to gain 2 extra Wins.

So, your claim of Alonso had a better season than Raikkonen is utter bollocks by the drives mentioned above.
Alonso had a decent season as a driver, but to claim he had a better season than Raikkonen is pretty lame, considering he not only got beaten by Raikkonen to the crown... but also by a rookie in his first year.

Edited by Nivra, 07 July 2011 - 15:22.

[ArtShelley]

You haven't raise the bar with your previous comment. Still stupid

Yes it doesn't surprise me at all that some Nandophiles are getting their noses bent out of shape....

[velgajski1]

About the thing in bold, those "Alonso fanboys" are NOT precisely the ones who are obssesed about bringing out 2007 over and over again ;)

About the rest of your post, specially that thing about the Golden Boy being disavantaged by McLaren and Alonso being lucky:

pd: If you tried to be humouristic or sarcastic then I'm sorry. I'm a bit like Sheldon Cooper in that sense, not very good at grasping sarcasm in the English language.

Nope, at least from what I see on this page. I was looking at this thread to see some infos about possible Alonso 2009. RBR switch, but what I got is a lot of explanations as to why Alonso lost to Hamilton. There's an ultimate Alonso vs. Hamilton thread for that and you're late to the party

[DrewishPrince]

How do you know Kimi had a superior car?

My bet is; you think that if anybody beats Alonso, it must be due to superior car. Am I right? Alonso winning the WDC with only few points - he still would have had a slightly lesser car. Alonso winning with a say 10-20 pts, the cars were equal, right? Alonso winning with bigger margin - he had a slight car advantage.

Is that the way you rate the cars, or have you propably driven all those cars and thus know something that us mere F1 fans dont know?

And how do you rate the cars? Did you drive them? Where did you learn that McLaren was a better car?

[SCUDmissile]

Kimi did have the better car, but he also drove the best. youy have to consider that he also lost at least 12 points in old money (30 now) due to reliability. the others lost 0, apart from maybe Hamilton, although idont really know what happened there.

[yr]

And how do you rate the cars? Did you drive them? Where did you learn that McLaren was a better car?

Actually, I didnt say which of those two cars I thought was better, but you did, so it would be appropriate that you would be the first to tell us all how did you find out that Ferrari was superior car.

[Nivra]

And how do you rate the cars? Did you drive them? Where did you learn that McLaren was a better car?

You make absolutely no sense.... no sense at all!!!

In the same vain.... Where did you learn the Ferrari was a better car????? DUH

[lewymp4]

Well, the hate fest is not less obvious.

IMO, any of the drivers you mention is doing better than Hamilton this year (so far).

Hamilton at least has one win!

[Nivra]

Actually, I didnt say which of those two cars I thought was better, but you did, so it would be appropriate that you would be the first to tell us all how did you find out that Ferrari was superior car.

Exactly!!

DW is losing his own statements

Edited by Nivra, 07 July 2011 - 15:42.

[yr]

Kimi did have the better car, but he also drove the best. youy have to consider that he also lost at least 12 points in old money (30 now) due to reliability. the others lost 0, apart from maybe Hamilton, although idont really know what happened there.

12 points is more than a win, still you say that Kimi had the better car. I could understand if you would say "Kimi had faster car" - which is very debatable opinion in itself - but losing 12 pts due to reliability means you should win next 6 (six) rounds if your opponent comes 2nd and only after those 6 (six) ! races you have recovered that 12 pts lost. That doesnt sound like best car to me.

[Nivra]

12 points is more than a win, still you say that Kimi had the better car. I could understand if you would say "Kimi had faster car" - which is very debatable opinion in itself - but losing 12 pts due to reliability means you should win next 6 (six) rounds if your opponent comes 2nd and only after those 6 (six) ! races you have recovered that 12 pts lost. That doesnt sound like best car to me.

Excellent assessment of concluding cars advantages or disadvantages!!

[SCUDmissile]

12 points is more than a win, still you say that Kimi had the better car. I could understand if you would say "Kimi had faster car" - which is very debatable opinion in itself - but losing 12 pts due to reliability means you should win next 6 (six) rounds if your opponent comes 2nd and only after those 6 (six) ! races you have recovered that 12 pts lost. That doesnt sound like best car to me.

yeah, fair enough. Faster car, not best. that sounds more apt. i dont think it is debatable, as the Ferrari had more wins, fastest laps and poles.

Vettel had to do similar things in the RB6, yet people say that was the best car.

again, nothing to take away from Kimis achievements. he by a mile, the best that year, especially the second half. Silverstone was a great performance, along with Japan. maybe if there were 5 more laps, he could have won that aswell, but that is a different topic.

Edited by SCUDmissile, 07 July 2011 - 15:52.

[lewymp4]

Fair enough, though that can be said for any other driver. Hamilton vs Alonso was too close to call, so I cannot say Alonso was beaten as much as Hamilton's fans like to repeat it. One more year would have made things more clear.

I don't know who is the best. For me is Vettel this year (so far).

A 2XWDC dealing with a rookie, should never have come to the point of as you say, " too close to call. "

[Hole]

A 2XWDC dealing with a rookie, should never have come to the point of as you say, " too close to call. "

Again, that thing of Hamilton being a rookie is too much overrated. There was testing back then, he was the Golden Boy of McLaren, and he just came after a season in another single seater racing seasson with Brdigestone tires.

Also, Hamilton was not any rookie, ain't him that good and special?

Edited by Hole, 07 July 2011 - 15:59.

[Watkins74]

Please use caps.....not rookie......it's ROOKIE!

[Hole]

.... or a hostile environment, don't forget the hostile environment.

Those seem to be valid points though when excusing Raikkonen's terrible performances after he got his championship.

[Hole]

How do you know Kimi had a superior car?

My bet is; you think that if anybody beats Alonso, it must be due to superior car. Am I right? Alonso winning the WDC with only few points - he still would have had a slightly lesser car. Alonso winning with a say 10-20 pts, the cars were equal, right? Alonso winning with bigger margin - he had a slight car advantage.

Is that the way you rate the cars, or have you propably driven all those cars and thus know something that us mere F1 fans dont know?

And I bet that for you whenever ALonso wins it's due luck...

[Kohque]

Yes it doesn't surprise me at all that some Nandophiles are getting their noses bent out of shape....

Bent over backwards in my case...

[Buttoneer]

Subject under discussion;

I am not sure whether it was discussed already, but apparently Alonso got an offer from Red Bull for 2009 (several sources).

Please drop the Kimi discussion.

[SCUDmissile]

A 2XWDC dealing with a rookie, should never have come to the point of as you say, " too close to call. "

you forget to mention that in terms of points, that was his best year. so it could also be taken as Hamilton fails to beat Alonso in his best year to date in F1.

his rookie year was his best year, so far.

2007: 109
2008: 98
2009: 49
2010: 100

[Buttoneer]

And the Hamilton v Alonso discussion too. There's an 'ultimate' thread for that and you should copy/paste anything you wish to reply to there.

[Kohque]

Hamilton at least has one win!

Good for him!

... I have a cap from BMW.

[Kohque]

A 2XWDC dealing with a rookie, should never have come to the point of as you say, " too close to call. "

Not my fault

[lewymp4]

Not necessarily. Hamilton was a rookie in the championship, but not with McLaren. The "rookie" in the team was Alonso. The outqualifying didn't happen. They outqualified each other during the whole season.

At least Lewis didn't go into a rage and tear down a bathroom door when outqualified by Fernando, the same cannot be said for Alonso.

[Hole]

At least Lewis didn't go into a rage and tear down a bathroom door when outqualified by Fernando, the same cannot be said for Alonso.

And what was what happened in Monaco?

[lewymp4]

Please use caps.....not rookie......it's ROOKIE!

GOOD IDEA!!!

[Kohque]

At least Lewis didn't go into a rage and tear down a bathroom door when outqualified by Fernando, the same cannot be said for Alonso.

What can I say dude? Make a video about it.

[MichaelPM]

Hmm so Alonso could of moved to a team where they took Webber's front wing and gave it to Vettel?
2007 was clearly a lesson well learnt which is why he wisely rejected the offer.

[Buttoneer]

I think this discussion is done.