8092 replies to this topic

[shure]

Perhaps it would have been more accurate if you called Max once in a generation talent.

I think so, yeah.  It's nit-picking though, really.  I understood what the OP meant.  I think other people did, too.  Just seems an odd point to get fixated on

[shure]

Max is truly gifted and this year at last looked mature. There is still room for him to achieve no WDCs though, depends on the car but also on how he uses it. To call him a talent inherently superior to those around him is at this point excessive I think, there is no reference point to say he is fundamentally faster or better than the guys in the other top teams.

Isn't there?  He was better than Ricciardo, who beat Vettel.  He won his very first race after being promoted to the Red Bull team, which is no easy task especially after a mid-season team change.  He had precious little experience before entering F1 and showed tremendous potential pretty much from day one.  He's absolutely dominated his recent team mates and has managed to beat both Ferraris to 3rd in this year's WDC in a car which looked inferior to theirs.  I'd say at the very least there's enough evidence to call him one of the best out there and after that it starts getting very subjective anyway.

 

I'm quite surprised acknowledging he has a special talent is in any way controversial, tbh.  

[baddog]

Isn't there?  He was better than Ricciardo, who beat Vettel.  He won his very first race after being promoted to the Red Bull team, which is no easy task especially after a mid-season team change.  He had precious little experience before entering F1 and showed tremendous potential pretty much from day one.  He's absolutely dominated his recent team mates and has managed to beat both Ferraris to 3rd in this year's WDC in a car which looked inferior to theirs.  I'd say at the very least there's enough evidence to call him one of the best out there and after that it starts getting very subjective anyway.

 

I'm quite surprised acknowledging he has a special talent is in any way controversial, tbh.  

 

He is a damned good, special driver in the top rank of current drivers, and 'one of the best out there' is obvious and uncontroversial (I would call him driver of the year in 2019), but better inherently than the others at the top, which is absolutely what has been said here? I don't see any reason to think that let alone it be somehow proven. In contrast to the current 'everyone knows' story, he hardly dominated Daniel, beating him in 2018 yes, but overall its clear enough that a top line teammate would trade results with him over a season.

 

Oh and anyone doing the old worn out 'he is better than a who was better than b' had better be ready for finding out they eventually proved someone is worse than themselves.

Edited by baddog, 30 December 2019 - 01:35.

[V8 Fireworks]

I don´t see anyone hating or being skeptical of Charles, I just believe that Ferrari should not repeat the same mistake and putt all the eggs on his basket. Beating Vettel is not necessarily rare or sign of greatness, Ricciardo beat him even more convincingly than Charles did now. There is a good chance that Charles is indeed great, world champion material, but I would still put another top tier driver along side him, hungry for achievements such as Ricciardo...that´s all. Getting Hamilton though would be ideal.

In this case, Ferrari banking on Vettel and paying Vettel a huge salary for so many years has surely been a colossal error?

Ferrari perhaps would have been far better off to retain the more talented Alonso.

[Flyhigh]

Once in a lifetime talent?  You mean like Fangio, Clark, Stewart, Prost, Senna, Schumacher and HAmilton?  That's a lot of lifetimes.  WHat is clear is that they had all won the WDC in five years (except Prost who was a little slow out of the blocks) unlike Max.

Are you serious? Senna won his first title when he was 28 years old, Schumacher 25 years old, Prost like 30 years old, Hamilton the youngest 23 years old...   Max is 22,  he only has about 16 years at least... so little time and opportunities   

Edited by Flyhigh, 30 December 2019 - 04:20.

[baddog]

Ferrari perhaps would have been far better off to retain the more talented Alonso.

 

Get your coat, the door is over there -->

[kosmos]

Get your coat, the door is over there -->

 

Valid comment by V8, is not like Vettel is doing better than Alonso, in fact he is doing worse. Even an unhappy Alonso will be doing better than Vettel at this point.

[baddog]

Valid comment by V8, is not like Vettel is doing better than Alonso, in fact he is doing worse. Even an unhappy Alonso will be doing better than Vettel at this point.

 

No post which repeats 'should have hired Alonso' in a non-Alonso thread, let alone one about a driver hired to replace Alonso who left of his own accord, is on topic ever.

 

Its just embarrassing at this point seeing you all try to wheel your old man out of his rest-home hobby driving to compete with a young charger like Leclerc.

[as65p]

Its just embarrassing at this point seeing you all try to wheel your old man out of his rest-home hobby driving to compete with a young charger like Leclerc.

 

Especially as Vettel does the old-man-vs.-young-charger impression perfectly already, I doubt Alonso couls "improve" on that.

[V8 Fireworks]

No post which repeats 'should have hired Alonso' in a non-Alonso thread, let alone one about a driver hired to replace Alonso who left of his own accord, is on topic ever.

Its just embarrassing at this point seeing you all try to wheel your old man out of his rest-home hobby driving to compete with a young charger like Leclerc.

I'm not particularly an Alonso fan.

Just an impartial who is confused why Ferrari renewed Vettel and even more inexplicably Raikkonen for so many seasons.

They renewed Vettel and Raikkonen even though Ricciardo was off contract, Alonso was off contract, even Perez was off contract...

At least in 2021 Ferrari can fix their mistake, and finally replace Vettel with Sainz or Ricciardo.

Surely everyone can agree Vettel makes far too many mistakes and is not fast enough to justify a $60m/season salary?

If Vettel will accept $10m/season *and* stop making mistakes (the worst was crashing into Leclerc in Brazil on a straight (!!!), which was absolutely inexcusable) then he may still be a decent choice.

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 30 December 2019 - 08:25.

[1Devil1]

I'm not particularly an Alonso fan.

Just an impartial who is confused why Ferrari renewed Vettel and even more inexplicably Raikkonen for so many seasons.

They renewed Vettel and Raikkonen even though Ricciardo was off contract, Alonso was off contract, even Perez was off contract...

At least in 2021 Ferrari can fix their mistake, and finally replace Vettel with Sainz or Ricciardo.

Surely everyone can agree Vettel makes far too many mistakes and is not fast enough to justify a $60m/season salary?

If Vettel will accept $10m/season *and* stop making mistakes (the worst was crashing into Leclerc in Brazil on a straight (!!!), which was absolutely inexcusable) then he may still be a decent choice.

 

 

So many things wrong (!!!), with that post 60m salary? Where that comes from? Replacing him with Sainz? Not fast enough when he lead the head to head in races with Leclerc. Complaining about a race incident that had massive consequences while it was hard racing between team mates. With have seen clumsier stuff with Rosberg and Lewis in the past.

[Marklar]

I'm not particularly an Alonso fan.

Just an impartial who is confused why Ferrari renewed Vettel and even more inexplicably Raikkonen for so many seasons.

They renewed Vettel and Raikkonen even though Ricciardo was off contract, Alonso was off contract, even Perez was off contract...

At least in 2021 Ferrari can fix their mistake, and finally replace Vettel with Sainz or Ricciardo.

Surely everyone can agree Vettel makes far too many mistakes and is not fast enough to justify a $60m/season salary?

If Vettel will accept $10m/season *and* stop making mistakes (the worst was crashing into Leclerc in Brazil on a straight (!!!), which was absolutely inexcusable) then he may still be a decent choice.

When Vettel renewed his stock was definitely higher than now, obviously not extremely high either, but it came after a strong start into 2017. Meanwhile the mentioned Ricciardo started to massively struggle against Verstappen. Alonso was doing well as usual but considering that Vettel wasnt doing this bad at the time why would you go back to a driver you deemed as a failed project, older as well? Of course in hindsight they'd have been better off with him, but it wasnt this obvious back then. *Actually* perhaps Vettels contract ended a year too late, the doubts on both sides were definitely bigger in 2016.

I assume you mean Perez as a Kimi replacement which I agree with. The fact that Kimi got renewed despite being nowhere most of the time was indeed puzzling, as was keeping Massa for so long.

As for the salary discussion: Ricciardo gets 28 m and hasnt even won a title yet, neither looks like he will. Kimi still got 20 m when he was absolutely nowhere. Vettel should definitely be offered less next time, but it wont be as little as you think.

[baddog]

Hey Vettel's stock is not where it was for sure (better than mid season mind you and clearly he still has the pace) but an old retiree who is rusty and might be worse yet, and one with a reputation for drama is no future for a big team who already have a near perfect lineup of a multi wdc and a super-fast young driver under long term contract.

[as65p]

Hey Vettel's stock is not where it was for sure (better than mid season mind you and clearly he still has the pace) but an old retiree who is rusty and might be worse yet, and one with a reputation for drama is no future for a big team who already have a near perfect lineup of a multi wdc and a super-fast young driver under long term contract.

 

I agree Alonso is not the future obviously and Ferrari should look elsewhere for a driver beside Leclerc.

 

But look they definitely should! You're phrasing "near perfect lineup" is way off the mark, with Ferraris lead driver constantly making silly mistakes and failing to maximize his opportunities for 3 years in a row now.

[Sunnny]

Why are you omitting the part where I say that the future will tell whether he can prove that?

as for your argument: that *is* irrelevant. He didnt had the cars yet.

Btw, Prost won his first title in his 6th season - if you are already going down the random stats route.

 

I dont think you understand BRG's point. To say someone looks like a 'once in your lifetime' talent will suggest they have to do something that we dont expect to see for at least another 30 / 50 years. He is yet to do anything to suggest he will be the greatest driver we will ever see in the next 30/ 50 years. Right now he looks like another Lewis/Alonso. I wont call them ' once in a life time talent' not like you will say about the likes of Tiger Woods or Jordan who did things fans and peers had NEVER seen or likley to ever see in a life time. TBH in F1 I dont think we will every have a once in a life time talent in F1 because its never a level playing field with a great deal of luck invovled and the best ever driver might end up with a bad car year after year. 

Edited by Sunnny, 30 December 2019 - 13:25.

[kosmos]

No post which repeats 'should have hired Alonso' in a non-Alonso thread, let alone one about a driver hired to replace Alonso who left of his own accord, is on topic ever.

 

Its just embarrassing at this point seeing you all try to wheel your old man out of his rest-home hobby driving to compete with a young charger like Leclerc

 

 

I don't think he has any chance to return to F1, you are barking to the wrong tree

[Atreiu]

I agree Alonso is not the future obviously and Ferrari should look elsewhere for a driver beside Leclerc.

 

But look they definitely should! You're phrasing "near perfect lineup" is way off the mark, with Ferraris lead driver constantly making silly mistakes and failing to maximize his opportunities for 3 years in a row now.

 

FB still manages Alonso, right? If they ever look into FA, it should begin with "luggage and politics not needed, drop Briatore so we can see how serious you are and lets talk".

[FortiFord]

FB still manages Alonso, right? If they ever look into FA, it should begin with "luggage and politics not needed, drop Briatore so we can see how serious you are and lets talk".

 

They already did. Binotto has categorically ruled him out for a 2021 seat. 

""We talked to each other but he is no longer part of our plans."

 

https://www.essentia...or-2021-drives/

[shure]

They already did. Binotto has categorically ruled him out for a 2021 seat. 

""We talked to each other but he is no longer part of our plans."

 

https://www.essentia...or-2021-drives/

Not that I believe Alonso will be returning to Ferrari, but the majority of TP statements are generally valid only as long as it's convenient for them to be.  I don't think they should ever been taken as gospel

[ForzaFormula]

Not that I believe Alonso will be returning to Ferrari, but the majority of TP statements are generally valid only as long as it's convenient for them to be. I don't think they should ever been taken as gospel

Alonso won’t be returning to ferrari, he didn’t fit the team at all and was demoralising the spirit in the camp, he failed to bring success at ferrari, just the same as vettel is failing to do, we can look for excuses all day but it’s as simple as that.

[Nathan]

Alonso ... didn’t fit the team at all and was demoralising the spirit in the camp

 

I think you should spend time pondering if the reason Alonso didn't fit in was because Ferrari wasn't good enough. Hindsight shows they weren't.

[kosmos]

Alonso won’t be returning to ferrari, he didn’t fit the team at all and was demoralising the spirit in the camp, he failed to bring success at ferrari, just the same as vettel is failing to do, we can look for excuses all day but it’s as simple as that.

 

Alonso was demoralizing?, really?, I think he had too much morale and desire to win than Ferrari itself. Let's see how demoralizing Alonso was:

 

 

Pat Fry was on the Sky F1 Report today and he had a few interesting things to say about his time at Ferrari. He said with Luca di in charge everything was about winning the next race. It was all next race, next race. So their goals were too short term. As a result a lot of stuff was 8-10 years out of date. It took 6 months to figure out what was wrong with the wind tunnel and 1.5 years to fix it. Only a fraction of the budget was put into simulation tools - it was going to take 7-8 years to catch up. He reckons that now the right tools are in place and a management team that are more likely to have the bigger picture in mind

 

[gabbosprint]

Leo Turrini writes on his blog that the first results from simulator and Wind tunnel are not good...

[pitlanepalpatine]

Leo Turrini writes on his blog that the first results from simulator and Wind tunnel are not good...

 

What's the benchmark they've set? Not good compared to last year, not good compared to their projected gains requirement?

[shure]

Alonso won’t be returning to ferrari, he didn’t fit the team at all and was demoralising the spirit in the camp, he failed to bring success at ferrari, just the same as vettel is failing to do, we can look for excuses all day but it’s as simple as that.

well I did say I didn't believe he would be returning.  My post was about using what a TP says as evidence since most of them just say what is convenient for them at the time

[GoldenColt]

Leo Turrini writes on his blog that the first results from simulator and Wind tunnel are not good...

I remember hearing similar things prior to 2015 and 2017. We all know how that went.

[1Devil1]

I remember hearing similar things prior to 2015 and 2017. We all know how that went.

 

Yeah I remember those rocket ships 

[as65p]

Yeah I remember those rocket ships 

 

As well you should. Still, not rockety enough for their driver, evidently.

[Marklar]

Well, not 2015, although it was a rocket ship compared to everyone but Mercedes and the chassis only probably not far off (and compared to the hyped up 2016 car it was way better too). But a car like 2017 and they'd be easily right up there next year - at least with the car.

Edited by Marklar, 31 December 2019 - 11:31.

[1Devil1]

As well you should. Still, not rockety enough for their driver, evidently.

 

2015 was a rocket ship or 2017? maybe watch those seasons again, even your fan favourite Alonso wouldn't have won those years. 

[Atreiu]

The 2017 Ferrari was at least on par. Remember the Mercedes was 'the diva' and Hamilton could barely manage consecutive podiums before the summer break. The title was lost when Vettel and Ferrari imploded simultaneously between Singapore and Suzuka. That was a 56 point swing in a season decided by 46.

[Zilbert]

Maybe Hamilton's inability to cope with the car should reflect somewhat negatively on him, instead of blaming it all on the car. Mercedes had a better car in 2017.

[Marklar]

Mercedes had in 2017 the same issue as in 2015: a car that had strange performance swings. In 2015 they were saved by their superiority, so it only affected few races until they found a solution after Singapore, while in 2017 only a breakthrough after Monaco got it somewhat under control. But even after this Ferrari was usually quicker on race day and had better tyre management.

The one thing Mercedes was better was their quali pace (partly because at that point they were still slightly better on the engine side). They just had a good enough race operation (and driver) to survive with the usually slightly slower race car by using the track position advantage (a bit role reversal to this year, but with a smaller race pace deficit). I reckon Ferrari would have easily won in 2017 if overtaking was as easy as in say 2014 or as it's supposed to be in 2021, so the car itself was indeed very good. The circumstances just werent favourable (reliability, errors, race operation, importance of track position, etc.)

Edited by Marklar, 31 December 2019 - 17:36.

[Zilbert]

Bottas did relatively better than Hamilton at some weekends early in the season, while being new to the team as well. Its funny how Mercedes's superior quali pace, while being slower (not really though, equal is a better word there) in race pace in 2017 is evaluated as them having a worse car, at the same time very similar strengths and weaknesses of Ferrari's 2018 car makes it a rocketship. Double standards. 

[1Devil1]

Mercedes had in 2017 the same issue as in 2015: a car that had strange performance swings. In 2015 they were saved by their superiority, so it only affected few races until they found a solution after Singapore, while in 2017 only a breakthrough after Monaco got it somewhat under control. But even after this Ferrari was usually quicker on race day and had better tyre management.

The one thing Mercedes was better was their quali pace (partly because at that point they were still slightly better on the engine side). They just had a good enough race operation (and driver) to survive with the usually slightly slower race car by using the track position advantage (a bit role reversal to this year, but with a smaller race pace deficit). I reckon Ferrari would have easily won in 2017 if overtaking was as easy as in say 2014 or as it's supposed to be in 2021, so the car itself was indeed very good. The circumstances just werent favourable (reliability, errors, race operation, importance of track position, etc.)

 

Circumstances are part of the game or do you argue McLaren 2012 was the best car? All those factors you are mentioning are a reason Ferrari was clearly not the best package or car that year

[Marklar]

Circumstances are part of the game or do you argue McLaren 2012 was the best car? All those factors you are mentioning are a reason Ferrari was clearly not the best package or car that year

The McLaren was the quickest (or among the quickest) in about half of the races and nowhere in the other half, so that's quite a bit different, even before you consider their poor reliability and how inept the track team was.

Errors of team and driver and race operation have nothing to do with how good the car is. There have been plenty occasions in other teams in the past where the race team didnt used the potential of their car, either.

Considering the track position is a thin line. Mercedes this year often didnt had track position, and overtaking was barely easier this year, but they still won 15 races, of course with a larger performance delta as I said, but to me this point goes a bit hand-in-hand with a good race operation. When you are ahead with a slower car you have to nail almost everything.

It's only the reliability where it's indeed dragging it down a bit, whether it drags it down enough to say that it wasnt as good as the Mercedes is a pure matter of preference IMO. It was much much closer than many have been re-writing it in retrospective. It's no coincidence that Vettel was leading the championship for two thirds of the year. And it's also no coincidence that most paddock figures agree with the sentiment that the car was good enough, regardless for which team they are working or for what publication they are reporting.

So again, the 2017 car was a very good car, and if Ferrari has a car like this in 2020, plus a now improved engine, then it's a success. I understand why 2015 was put in question, because while it was a good car it was ultimately nowhere near the best, but I dont understand questioning 2017, really.

It's actually in line with other years, as I mentioned a few days back. All cars that were hyped up before the season (e.g. 2011, 2016, 2019) turned out to be failures in one way or another, while many of the ones that were already reported to be catastrophic were pretty damn fine.

[BRG]

Leo Turrini writes on his blog that the first results from simulator and Wind tunnel are not good...

What does he know?  La Gazetta has already announced that the new car is 'far quicker'. 

[FortiFord]

I wasn't sure whether to put this in the car or team thread, but went with the latter. 

 

 

“We will design a car that is more in line with Sebastian’s driving style. With more downward pressure on the back,” Binotto told Motorsport.com.

 

This lack of downforce at the rear has impacted Vettel in the past such as 2012 and 2014. Even last year, the pendulum swung towards Leclerc after Canada which is when Ferrari updated their front wing, removing some of the early season understeer. I think this will continue to play a significant role in the balance of power between the 2 teammates. 

[mangeliiito]

Well congrats to Ferrari for finally figuring that one out. They basically designed a car for the driver who left.

[Marklar]

Well, you usually dont design cars for drivers in the first place though xD

[mangeliiito]

Well, you usually dont design cars for drivers in the first place though xD

Maybe some should do it more, like a certain American team who was perplexed why the drivers prefered something that was slower on the data. Like it shouldn't be news that Seb likes his cars planted in the rear, so for getting out the most of your package isn't is weird that you do quite the opposite. I mean Seb isn't Alonso, say what you want about him but he is great at adapting his driving style.

[Marklar]

Well, Ferrari has a 2nd driver, who presumably liked the car (I think?). Doesnt seem to be that strange that they took what looked the best on the data, even if it compromises one driver (they did the same when Kimi was around and when it benefitted Vettel after all).

your last sentence seems kinda contradicting? If he is good at adapting his driving style then Ferrari going for what looks to be the quickest package seems even *more* justified.

The situation changes of course if both drivers dont like it *entirely* (there is no driver who loves his car completely after all), then you are doing something wrong for sure. I dont know how much this was the case for Leclerc though, it seemed to me like it was a back and forth between the both of them over the year.

Anything else is really a matter of philosophy. For some teams it's more convenient if the car perfectly suits one driver to the max and they dont really care about the 2nd one. Some teams prefer to compromise the quicker driver for a better overall team result. There is really no right or wrong here, except if you chose the wrong philosophy entirely (with that I mean not the quickest before even considering driver preferences), which Ferrari did.

Edited by Marklar, 09 January 2020 - 15:28.

[mangeliiito]

your last sentence seems kinda contradicting? If he is good at adapting his driving style then Ferrari going for what looks to be the quickest package seems even *more* justified.

I meant that Alonso is great at adapting, Seb is not. Will answer rest later when I have time.

I think that when you get a new driver, and you don't really know what he prefers, you should take into consideration what the driver who you have been working with for several years like. I that way you know that atleast one side of the garage will do good and you work with the new driver during the year to figure out what he wants. I don't really think Charles knew what he really wanted, because he lacks experience. He said that it took some races for him to start telling the engineers what he wanted and not trying to change his style. So Ferrari started the year much worse than they could have done if they haven't gone for a low drag concept which ended up very unstable. And arguably both drivers performed even better after the Singapore update, Monza and Spa was supposed to be Ferrari tracks.

I feel like they did a car that atleast could win at Monza in 2019 and didn't think they would beat Merc in another way then go completly in the other direction from mercs 2018 car. So they gambled on like a 5% chance of winning the title instead of probably making another second best car with higher downforce.

Edited by mangeliiito, 13 January 2020 - 21:23.