63 replies to this topic

[Pep]

I always like Brundle's articles in itv-f1.com. He talks about Alonso, Schumi, Kimi and Button in these couple of articles:

Alonso and Schumi: http://www.itv-f1.co...dle&PO_ID=38169

Kimi and Button: http://www.itv-f1.co...dle&PO_ID=38170

[Pep]

Some things that I was surprised to read:

--> "The Ferrari and Bridgestone combination was in a class of its own by quite a margin in Sao Paulo.

I was a bit disappointed to find out that [Kimi] Raikkonen had just been on the radio to find out whether he should let Michael through before he was passed.

I was gobsmacked to hear that."

Didn't Kimi almost crash with Schumi trying to avoid that he overtook him?

-------

I also liked this answer:

ITV-F1.com: Do you think there is an argument that you need to be more than just a winner? Nigel Mansell had star charisma, as did most drivers in the 80s, not just the ones that were winning. Are drivers too PC?

Martin: Well, I hear what you say. I think that's pretty much the way they are these days.

I was really p*****d off at a press conference recently.

I watched [Robert] Kubica and one of the other new boys giving it the old one-word answers, because that's what they think they should do, because that's what they've heard Schumacher and co. do.

I thought to myself: 'You silly boys. You had a chance to show who you are and instead you blew it with all those smart-ass comments.'

It's just endemic of the way the sport is at the moment.

[..]

[Sakae]

I like drivers who keep theirs mouth shut, and rather focus on driving. Not so in England, so it seems. Drivers, current or ex, Brundle would like us to believe, should speak more. Well, perhaps Mr. Brundle is saying, that if you don't have it in the cockpit, you must make up for it out of it; like JB, for example.

I would like to see Brundle speaking to German press (in German, should they be actually interested to talk to him at all) after the race, especially had he experienced some traumatic conditions on the track just minutes prior a microphone gets stuffed into his face. Maybe in moments like these he would find out, that short sentences are the safest way how to satisfy protocol, and yet stay out of the danger for being misunderstood or misquoted, especially when you don’t want to talk to anyone at all, and/or are lacking words to describe your condition. MS had made mistake in trying to answer questions in Jerez in foolish believe, that anyone would be sympathetic to his condition, and he had learned of it. Why is that so difficult to understand why he cut his answers well back after that?

I, in contrast to Brundle, do applaud to drivers who had learned from Michael’ experience, regardless what Brundle or some other ex say about it.

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by MiPe
I like drivers who keep theirs mouth shut, and rather focus on driving. Not so in England, so it seems. Drivers, current or ex, Brundle would like us to believe, should speak more. Well, perhaps Mr. Brundle is saying, that if you don't have it in the cockpit, you must make up for it out of it; like JB, for example.

I would like to see Brundle speaking to German press (in German, should they be actually interested to talk to him at all) after the race, especially had he experienced some traumatic conditions on the track just minutes prior a microphone gets stuffed into his face. Maybe in moments like these he would find out, that short sentences are the safest way how to satisfy protocol, and yet stay out of the danger for being misunderstood or misquoted, especially when you don’t want to talk to anyone at all, and/or are lacking words to describe your condition. MS had made mistake in trying to answer questions in Jerez in foolish believe, that anyone would be sympathetic to his condition, and he had learned of it. Why is that so difficult to understand why he cut his answers well back after that?

I, in contrast to Brundle, do applaud to drivers who had learned from Michael’ experience, regardless what Brundle or some other ex say about it.

I don't think thats quite what Martin's saying; I think he's saying that Michael is boring, and other drivers are following suit and being extremely boring, too. I agree with him - having interviewed Kubica recently I was extremely disappointed at the result - he could learn better from others.

When you are paid millions a year and feted by millions worldwide, it stands to reason that you should give a little bit back, in the way of interviews, insights etc, to the fans who support you.

[ARG]

"I was a bit disappointed to find out that [Kimi] Raikkonen had just been on the radio to find out whether he should let Michael through before he was passed.
I was gobsmacked to hear that."


"Ron, we need points, sure, but I'm heading to a rival team next year. What say I let Michael cruise by, mate?"


Brundle

[santori]

I don't see much to disagree with in his discussions of the driving.

About the interviews - I don't mind drivers giving brief answers, I just mind them feeling that they need to do so.
Then again, he points out that some of Alonso's statements were far from bland.

[Mauseri]

I think Brundle should talk more about the drivers and not what the drivers should talk. That's what he is paid for and where he is good at.

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by micra_k10
I think Brundle should talk more about the drivers and not what the drivers should talk. That's what he is paid for and where he is good at.

Isn't he paid to give us an insight, and extra angle into the job, the world, the trials and tribulations that these 'superstars' inhabit and undergo? Let's be honest - the post race interviews are totally and utterly tedious in the extreme, and even someone such as Martin needs the help of the men themselves to bring it to life. Michael Schumacher post race script, the one he used after every victory, will continue to be trotted out by ever more drab and colourless individuals who believe in toing the company line, and leaving it at that.

f1 drivers are already too aloof and inaccessable where the fans are concerned - at least lets have the Brundles of this world encourage the 'new breed' to inject a bit of life into the proceedings.

[BuonoBruttoCattivo]

Originally posted by Lifew12


Isn't he paid to give us an insight, and extra angle into the job, the world, the trials and tribulations that these 'superstars' inhabit and undergo?

Yes, like American TV style "human interest" stories that accompany sports events with nice background music.

"One-legged, half-blind, ex-crackhead rose against all odds to compete in olympic games".

[Sakae]

Originally posted by Lifew12


Isn't he paid to give us an insight, and extra angle into the job, the world, the trials and tribulations that these 'superstars' inhabit and undergo? Let's be honest - the post race interviews are totally and utterly tedious in the extreme, and even someone such as Martin needs the help of the men themselves to bring it to life. Michael Schumacher post race script, the one he used after every victory, will continue to be trotted out by ever more drab and colourless individuals who believe in toing the company line, and leaving it at that.

f1 drivers are already too aloof and inaccessable where the fans are concerned - at least lets have the Brundles of this world encourage the 'new breed' to inject a bit of life into the proceedings.

Christ, have you ever listen to post game interviews with cherished heros of american sport arena? You get two or three sentences out of them, almost always the same words, spoken through the nose with forth grade skills in oratory. Come on, let's don't go overboard. MS was (and is) product of our times. His defensive posture is there for a reason; at least I can understand and accept that. I reject Brundle' premise that drivers need to be talkative. If he wants to have more inside while talking to Kimi, learn Finish, or have a Finish reporter to do the interview, and have him translate that into English. Fair is fair. Kimi is at F1 for piloting the car. Brundle, if he wants to play reporter, should do his job, and make the effort to facilitate the communication.

I rather have a driver who cannot speak english at all but drives well, than someone who spekas like Mr. Cooke used to, but cannot drive.

[Jacquesback]

Originally posted by MiPe
If he wants to have more inside while talking to Kimi, learn Finish, or have a Finish reporter to do the interview, and have him translate that into English.

I think you mean "insight" and "Finnish". Perhaps you should stick to a forum that communicates in your own first language as you clearly possess fourth grade english skills.

[carbonfibre]

Originally posted by Lifew12


I don't think thats quite what Martin's saying; I think he's saying that Michael is boring, and other drivers are following suit and being extremely boring, too. I agree with him - having interviewed Kubica recently I was extremely disappointed at the result - he could learn better from others.

When you are paid millions a year and feted by millions worldwide, it stands to reason that you should give a little bit back, in the way of interviews, insights etc, to the fans who support you.

Again why would you blame Michael?

Did Michael say to him that he shouldnt talk? No i still wonder why some people here need to relate everything to Schumacher. Schumacher didnt say much because he didnt feel like or if he would say to much people would use it against him.

[stevewf1]

Originally posted by MiPe
I like drivers who keep theirs mouth shut, and rather focus on driving. Not so in England, so it seems. Drivers, current or ex, Brundle would like us to believe, should speak more. Well, perhaps Mr. Brundle is saying, that if you don't have it in the cockpit, you must make up for it out of it; like JB, for example.

While I have never heard any of Brundle's commentary (I live in the USA), I can't help thinking that Mr. Brundle has some uh, "distinctive" stats on his F1 career...

He's at or very near the top of the following lists:

number of starts without a win
number of starts without ever leading a race
number of starts without setting a fastest lap
number of entries without gaining a pole position

:

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by stevewf1


While I have never heard any of Brundle's commentary (I live in the USA), I can't help thinking that Mr. Brundle has some uh, "distinctive" stats on his F1 career...

He's at or very near the top of the following lists:

number of starts without a win
number of starts without ever leading a race
number of starts without setting a fastest lap
number of entries without gaining a pole position

:

And for losing teammate comparisons to all competent teammates he had, he doesnt have bad car excuses for that.

[Sakae]

Originally posted by stevewf1


While I have never heard any of Brundle's commentary (I live in the USA), I can't help thinking that Mr. Brundle has some uh, "distinctive" stats on his F1 career...

He's at or very near the top of the following lists:

number of starts without a win
number of starts without ever leading a race
number of starts without setting a fastest lap
number of entries without gaining a pole position

:

On that account I heard once "those who can they do, and those who cannot, they teach it or talk about".

[smartie_f1]

Originally posted by Pep
Some things that I was surprised to read:

--> "The Ferrari and Bridgestone combination was in a class of its own by quite a margin in Sao Paulo.

I was a bit disappointed to find out that [Kimi] Raikkonen had just been on the radio to find out whether he should let Michael through before he was passed.

I was gobsmacked to hear that."

i would be very disappointed if this was true but i suspect Martin either hasn't heard, or has neglected to tell us the context of any such comment.

While MB might not have been the most successful driver, i do appreciate most of his insights on race weekends, more than makes up for mark blundell and james allen.

[BorderReiver]

Originally posted by micra_k10

And for losing teammate comparisons to all competent teammates he had, he doesnt have bad car excuses for that.

Go and watch highlights of the 1984 and 1985 season's, come back and tell me Martin Brundle was a waste of a seat.

[Racer Joe]

Originally posted by stevewf1


While I have never heard any of Brundle's commentary (I live in the USA), I can't help thinking that Mr. Brundle has some uh, "distinctive" stats on his F1 career...

He's at or very near the top of the following lists:

number of starts without a win
number of starts without ever leading a race
number of starts without setting a fastest lap
number of entries without gaining a pole position

:

What a load of irrelevant crap. Anybody can have an opinion on F1 without having his or her past record in F1 questioned. Brundle is certainly more qualified to comment on F1 than just about anyone on this forum, if that's the angle you insist on using.

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by BorderReiver
Go and watch highlights of the 1984 and 1985 season's, come back and tell me Martin Brundle was a waste of a seat.

According to F1-facts teammate comparison:

Mika Häkkinen -1.867
Michael Schumacher -1.250
Stefan Bellof -0.579
Rubens Barrichello -0.500

Mark Blundell +0.250
Olivier Panis +0.364
Stefano Modena +0.563
Christian Danner +0.750
Philippe Streiff +1.875

He beat mediocre drivers, he was beat by good drivers, and he was trashed by great drivers.

[KWSN - DSM]

Getting topic back on track.

I do not think that Brundle is saying especially unpredictable at all in the two articles, and I do not think that he is saying something much different from what most other paid F1 commentators and unlaid F1 BB forumnites would have said.

Possible we would use other words, but he basically is saying what the consensus currently hold to be true.

[Racer Joe]

Originally posted by micra_k10

According to F1-facts teammate comparison:

Mika Häkkinen -1.867
Michael Schumacher -1.250
Stefan Bellof -0.579
Rubens Barrichello -0.500

Mark Blundell +0.250
Olivier Panis +0.364
Stefano Modena +0.563
Christian Danner +0.750
Philippe Streiff +1.875

He beat mediocre drivers, he was beat by good drivers, and he was trashed by great drivers.

And yet, yet despite all that he looked damn good against Schumi in races in 1992.

[Limits]

Originally posted by Pep
Some things that I was surprised to read:

--> "The Ferrari and Bridgestone combination was in a class of its own by quite a margin in Sao Paulo.

I was a bit disappointed to find out that [Kimi] Raikkonen had just been on the radio to find out whether he should let Michael through before he was passed.

I was gobsmacked to hear that."

Didn't Kimi almost crash with Schumi trying to avoid that he overtook him?

"Almost crashed" is a stretch, it was close but I think both drivers where in control. But you seem to assume that "Raikkonen had just been on the radio to find out whether he should let Michael through" means that he let him through or was supposed to let him through. It just means he asked. And Rons answer seem to have been "NO!"

[stevewf1]

Originally posted by Limits

"Almost crashed" is a stretch, it was close but I think both drivers where in control. But you seem to assume that "Raikkonen had just been on the radio to find out whether he should let Michael through" means that he let him through or was supposed to let him through. It just means he asked. And Rons answer seem to have been "NO!"

IMO...

Perhaps Kimi just didn't want to **** off his future employer?

I didn't see anything "gobsmacking" about it...

[Menace]

Considering Kimi's pace relative to his teammates, I must disagree with Brundle about Kimi's performance over the season. But it is always interesting reading interviews like this.

[Arrow]

Originally posted by micra_k10

According to F1-facts teammate comparison:

Mika Häkkinen -1.867
Michael Schumacher -1.250
Stefan Bellof -0.579
Rubens Barrichello -0.500

Mark Blundell +0.250
Olivier Panis +0.364
Stefano Modena +0.563
Christian Danner +0.750
Philippe Streiff +1.875

He beat mediocre drivers, he was beat by good drivers, and he was trashed by great drivers.

That gap to Mika isnt accurate. What figures did you use?
Brundle was a decent driver, thats all.

[Menace]

Originally posted by Arrow


That gap to Mika isnt accurate. What figures did you use?
Brundle was a decent driver, thats all.

Looks right to me. Mika was considerably quicker then Schumacher in comparison vs. Brundle IIRC.

[Limits]

Originally posted by stevewf1


IMO...

Perhaps Kimi just didn't want to **** off his future employer?

I didn't see anything "gobsmacking" about it...

What I mean is that Kimi was obviously slower and propably knew that he would not be able to hold Schumi behind him and the natural thing is then, I assume, to ask the team if it is ok to simply let him go. And no, from that quote I see nothing to be gobsmacked about either. Regardless of whatever the answer from pitlane was. If any. But without a follow up question by ITV on that topic it is difficult to say anything at all really

[Arrow]

Originally posted by Menace


Looks right to me. Mika was considerably quicker then Schumacher in comparison vs. Brundle IIRC.

The real qualifying gaps have been posted around here for years. Brundle was only .700 slower than Mika, and 1 second behind a rookie Michael.

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by Arrow
The real qualifying gaps have been posted around here for years. Brundle was only .700 slower than Mika, and 1 second behind a rookie Michael.

It's been posted here in the races Brundle could fight with Schumacher. But well, that was Schumacher's second season only so...

[Pep]

Originally posted by Limits

"Almost crashed" is a stretch, it was close but I think both drivers where in control. But you seem to assume that "Raikkonen had just been on the radio to find out whether he should let Michael through" means that he let him through or was supposed to let him through. It just means he asked. And Rons answer seem to have been "NO!"

Yes, I guess that's what happened. Even so it's strange that he asked if he should let him pass. It's obvious that many drivers did so (BMW drivers and others), but at least the top drivers that were fighting for podium positions should resist as much as they could, as Kimi or Fisi did.

[Arrow]

Originally posted by micra_k10

It's been posted here in the races Brundle could fight with Schumacher. But well, that was Schumacher's second season only so...

It was Michaels first season.

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by Arrow
It was Michaels first season.

Well you are either 100% or 33% wrong on that one.

[BorderReiver]

Yes, because we all know a man's qualifying pace indicates how good a race driver he is.

There are statisticians, and then there are people who actually know about the sport . . .

[Ross Stonefeld]

Well, regardless of which camp you're in, Brundle was okay but not stellar. Well done to him for having a decent length career but it doesn't mean what he utters is anything more than a well informed opinion.

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by carbonfibre
Again why would you blame Michael?

Well I think that it may have a lot to do with the fact that, before the 'Schumacher era' drivers just seemes so much more interesting than they do since. I think the added point that every other post-race interview since the early 90#s has featured Michael has something to do with it, too.

had it been Bob Smith who had won 90 races and been interminably boring when talking about them, I would have been him, not Michael, I was castigating; as it happens, Schumacher remains the example of how not to excite an audience when speaking.

You may be a big fan, and of his driving so am I, but he's boring; full stop.

[Ross Stonefeld]

So what is the excuse of everyone else?

[VoidNT]

Originally posted by Arrow
The real qualifying gaps have been posted around here for years. Brundle was only .700 slower than Mika, and 1 second behind a rookie Michael.

Let Martin Brundle to decide himself. I think he has no reason to be dishonest about his feeling regarding the speed of Schumacher and Hakkinen.

The fastest guy I raced against was Mika Hakkinen. The most naturally gifted was Ayrton Senna – and in my view also the greatest. The most complete was Schumacher.

http://www.itv-f1.co...dle&PO_ID=37788

[BuzzingHornet]

Love it when someone goes to Forix and retreives a set of totally meaningless numbers. The only people who have to go to Forix are the ones that don't know what they are talking about and did not see the races.

Uhh... Mika Hakkinen... gets... 1.82225
Michael Schumacher gets 1.82226

OMFG Schumacher is better!!one111

[Arrow]

Originally posted by VoidNT


Let Martin Brundle to decide himself. I think he has no reason to be dishonest about his feeling regarding the speed of Schumacher and Hakkinen.



http://www.itv-f1.co...dle&PO_ID=37788

Many reasons for him to be dishonest, or he could simply have misjudged them. Opinion is never 100%. Facts speak for themselves though.

[Arrow]

Originally posted by BuzzingHornet
Love it when someone goes to Forix and retreives a set of totally meaningless numbers. The only people who have to go to Forix are the ones that don't know what they are talking about and did not see the races.

Uhh... Mika Hakkinen... gets... 1.82225
Michael Schumacher gets 1.82226

OMFG Schumacher is better!!one111

How are they meaningless? Because they destroy your biased views?

[kar]

Like most of what Brundle writes and says, it was interesting.

I disagree with several of his points, most usually those to do with Michael. He mentions that Massa had Michael's number on several occasions this season, and if you look at race results, Malaysia, Turkey and Brazil that is true. But it ignores the wonderful bit of number crunching done by Mark Hughes in Autosport that showed the gulf between Michael and Massa, and the races were Massa did finish in front of Michael was pretty simply explained away by fuel loads and / or circumstances.

Again he says he believes Alonso and Kimi were faster than Michael, but I disagree. I think the pair of them are probably better able to maintain to race with fewer errors these days but for pure pace I think Michael had it over both of them, but particularly Alonso. The gap between Alonso and Fisichella in pure pace terms was tiny. But Alonso's consistency meant he was a gulf ahead of Fisi.

It was that consistency of driver and especially that of his car that helped Alonso beat Michael. I just never saw any sort of qualification from Brundle for the things he said. I recall the interview with him and Max at Monza, Max is protesting WE HAVE DATA, Brundle petulantly replies 'I drove F1 cars in the 80s'.

Brundle IS insightful and very interesting and a passionate fan of motorsport. For that I enjoy listening and reading what he says. But like Ross S says, his opinion is often that...opinion, informed yes, but not absolute, and definitely not always correct.

I find him and Nigel Robuck very similar in a way. Both very passionate about the sport, but sometimes talk from the heart, and not so much from data or evidence. While I hate his writing, Mark Hughes is very good at qualifying what he says with substance, rather than any sort of passion.

[VoidNT]

Originally posted by Arrow
Many reasons for him to be dishonest, or he could simply have misjudged them. Opinion is never 100%. Facts speak for themselves though.

As Mark Twain said, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics ;) I think Brundle considers a wide range of factors, not only results and numbers, which makes his conclusions more accurate. But you will never know at 100% anyway.

[Oho]

Originally posted by VoidNT


As Mark Twain said, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics ;) I think Brundle considers a wide range of factors, not only results and numbers, which makes his conclusions more accurate. But you will never know at 100% anyway.

It seems rather disingenuous to refute Brundle's take with his own stats against those he evaluates as if he was unaware of how he did. I cant profess to comment on Brundle's accuracy but I have little reason to doubt his honesty. Please spare me of how he was puffing for Coulthard in 00 and for Paffett (?) in 2006.

[F1Champion]

Originally posted by kar
Like most of what Brundle writes and says, it was interesting.

I disagree with several of his points, most usually those to do with Michael. He mentions that Massa had Michael's number on several occasions this season, and if you look at race results, Malaysia, Turkey and Brazil that is true. But it ignores the wonderful bit of number crunching done by Mark Hughes in Autosport that showed the gulf between Michael and Massa, and the races were Massa did finish in front of Michael was pretty simply explained away by fuel loads and / or circumstances.

Again he says he believes Alonso and Kimi were faster than Michael, but I disagree. I think the pair of them are probably better able to maintain to race with fewer errors these days but for pure pace I think Michael had it over both of them, but particularly Alonso. The gap between Alonso and Fisichella in pure pace terms was tiny. But Alonso's consistency meant he was a gulf ahead of Fisi.

It was that consistency of driver and especially that of his car that helped Alonso beat Michael. I just never saw any sort of qualification from Brundle for the things he said. I recall the interview with him and Max at Monza, Max is protesting WE HAVE DATA, Brundle petulantly replies 'I drove F1 cars in the 80s'.

Brundle IS insightful and very interesting and a passionate fan of motorsport. For that I enjoy listening and reading what he says. But like Ross S says, his opinion is often that...opinion, informed yes, but not absolute, and definitely not always correct.

I find him and Nigel Robuck very similar in a way. Both very passionate about the sport, but sometimes talk from the heart, and not so much from data or evidence. While I hate his writing, Mark Hughes is very good at qualifying what he says with substance, rather than any sort of passion.

[Kilomeister]

Originally posted by kar

Again he says he believes Alonso and Kimi were faster than Michael, but I disagree. I think the pair of them are probably better able to maintain to race with fewer errors these days but for pure pace I think Michael had it over both of them, but particularly Alonso. The gap between Alonso and Fisichella in pure pace terms was tiny. But Alonso's consistency meant he was a gulf ahead of Fisi.

I recall when Brundle first made this point early in the 2006 season, he was actually making the point that, in his opinion, Alonso and Raikonnen would just shade Schumacher over a race distance given the same car/tyre/conditions etc. So, Brundle was not making a point about ultimate speed.

In any case, ultimate speed is fairly meaningless if you can't maintain it over a race distance - as the difference in race performances between Alonso and Fisi in 2006 demonstrated. Alonso and Schumacher's consistency of the ultimate race speed is what set them apart from their peers in 2006.

I would be inclined to agree with Brundle on Alonso possibly having the edge on Schumi in these circumstances, though I'm not so sure about Raikonnen (it would depend on Kimi's mood).

I won't let the moment pass without saying that I am finding some of the comments posted about Martin Brundle more widely on this forum rather disingenuous. He accepts as much as anyone that he is not an all-time great F1 driver, but he was certainly a very good one. What Martin Brundle also is is a world-class TV sports commentator - quite possibly the best on the planet that I'm aware of. Most of the time he's about the only thing worth tuning in to an F1 race for each Sunday.

He certainly deserves a lot more respect than is being offered by some on this forum, especially when his greatest 'crime' appears to be slightly qualifying his admiration of Michael Schumacher.

[Orin]

Originally posted by Kilomeister

I won't let the moment pass without saying that I am finding some of the comments posted about Martin Brundle more widely on this forum rather disingenuous. He accepts as much as anyone that he is not an all-time great F1 driver, but he was certainly a very good one. What Martin Brundle also is is a world-class TV sports commentator - quite possibly the best on the planet that I'm aware of. Most of the time he's about the only thing worth tuning in to an F1 race for each Sunday.

He certainly deserves a lot more respect than is being offered by some on this forum, especially when his greatest 'crime' appears to be slightly qualifying his admiration of Michael Schumacher.

Well said. A typically interesting article from Brundle and I don't need to agree with every point in order to appreciate it as a whole. It is only his opinion, after all. It's interesting to see the degree of the high regard he holds Alonso in and perhaps this has caused him to cool his opinion towards Raikkonen a little, though he still regards both drivers as in a different league to the rest of the field, which seems a sound enough judgement.

[nestor]

Originally posted by kar

Again he says he believes Alonso and Kimi were faster than Michael, but I disagree. I think the pair of them are probably better able to maintain to race with fewer errors these days but for pure pace I think Michael had it over both of them, but particularly Alonso. The gap between Alonso and Fisichella in pure pace terms was tiny. But Alonso's consistency meant he was a gulf ahead of Fisi.

.

The gap betwwen FA and Fisi was never tiny , i still can hear the voice of the Fisi's race engineer o whoever was talking to him at the radio, shouting : " C'MOM get on with it, your teammate is lapping 2 sec faster than you with the same car a same fuel load , what is going on !!!" . That day i felt sorry for Fisi and embarrased, and yes , before you say it , Fisi could beat and DID beat FA on the track , when FA didn't get it rigth ( althougth , that didn't happen so often), just like JPM beat Kimi or Massa beat Schumi whe they didn't get it rigth.

[Kilomeister]

Originally posted by nestor



The gap betwwen FA and Fisi was never tiny , i still can hear the voice of the Fisi's race engineer o whoever was talking to him at the radio, shouting : " C'MOM get on with it, your teammate is lapping 2 sec faster than you with the same car a same fuel load , what is going on !!!" . That day i felt sorry for Fisi and embarrased, and yes , before you say it , Fisi could beat and DID beat FA on the track , when FA didn't get it rigth ( althougth , that didn't happen so often), just like JPM beat Kimi or Massa beat Schumi whe they didn't get it rigth.

What you say is true but I believe what Kar was referring to is that last season Alonso's fuel-corrected times in qualifying were on average only about a tenth quicker than Fisi's. There was something about this in Autosport a few weeks back (though I'm only paraphrasing the article).

But you are correct to point out that on consistent race pace Alonso was often on a different planet to Fisi - I also recall the race engineer's comments being broadcast on TV, I believe it was during the Australian GP.

[klover]

Originally posted by nestor



The gap betwwen FA and Fisi was never tiny , i still can hear the voice of the Fisi's race engineer o whoever was talking to him at the radio, shouting : " C'MOM get on with it, your teammate is lapping 2 sec faster than you with the same car a same fuel load , what is going on !!!" . That day i felt sorry for Fisi and embarrased, and yes , before you say it , Fisi could beat and DID beat FA on the track , when FA didn't get it rigth ( althougth , that didn't happen so often), just like JPM beat Kimi or Massa beat Schumi whe they didn't get it rigth.

Selective memory indeed. You remember the voice yet you conveniently ignore the fact. It transpired after the race that Fisi's problems were even more severe and his pace was actually pretty good. If you seriously think that any F1 driver is 2 sec faster than his peers in equal machinery, you must be dreaming.

[Clatter]

Originally posted by klover


Selective memory indeed. You remember the voice yet you conveniently ignore the fact. It transpired after the race that Fisi's problems were even more severe and his pace was actually pretty good. If you seriously think that any F1 driver is 2 sec faster than his peers in equal machinery, you must be dreaming.

His race engineer had all the info regarding the state of Fisi's car available in front of him, he would not have made that call from a position ignorance, he knew Fisi was slow.