Current Fernando Alonso

Suprised there's no thread (although I had one for his blogs), so i'll start off:

A double world championship vs Raikkonen and then Schumacher in 2005 and 2006 respectively elevated Alonso's status but, apparently, no one told his rookie teammate at his brand new team of a theoretical 'pecking order' the following season ... and the Spaniard was 'seen off' by the young Englishman, Hamilton, into two years of Wilderness while both Hamilton and an even younger Vettel began to make their mark through '08 and '09.

Arguably, Alonso was in the Top 3 of all the Formula One 'Aces' in the 2000s following Hakkinen's retirement - up there with either Schumacher/Raikkonen and, then, Raikkonen/Hamilton - and remains so in the early 2010s along with Hamilton/Vettel...with only Kubica knocking on the door until the Pole's horrible Rallying accident.

A question mark initially over 2004 during which Trulli lead him in the standing until the Italian fell out with ex-manager and team boss Flavio Briatore (Alonso's then business manager) under dubious circumstances after the French Grand Prix.

Another question mark is...Who has progressed more since the end of 2007: Hamilton or Alonso?

A fan. Then came the unfortunate blackmail allegations against McLaren boss Ron Dennis on the morning of the 2007 Hungarian GP which came to light at the highly costly FIA 'Spy-Gate' hearings before Spa...followed by the odour of the deliberate crashing of the Number 2 Renault car at Singapore in 2008 which lead to Alonso finishing 1st in the event and ended in the banning of Briatore and Pat Symmonds a year later.

2009 was a poor year with 'Nando's' mind likely on the prospect of Santander paving the way to better prospects at Maranello one year earlier.

2010 was a fresh start at Ferrari (who no longer had Schumacher walking through the premises regularly) but first half season mistakes ultimately cost him a title inspite of being infamously aided by a Team Orders switch w Massa at Hockenheim (which lead to more world-wide criticism).

Relatively fast, relatively consistent but prone to mistakes and a possible insecurity complex (*) based on wanting sole focus from a team and being only happy with a Number 2 in the other car running behind him. Anything else and it seemingly rattles him.

(*) This is my own personal opinion.

..and so to 2011...

He's underperformed only at Malaysia (hit Hamilton) and China (invisible while Massa challenged McLarens and Red Bulls) and, arguably, Canada...but has maximized his chances in the other 6 races culminating in the British GP win.

He said in his post-Monaco blog that 'Silverstone would be the WDC cut-off'...and so, after some major upgrades, the Ferrari looks a winner again. It might be too late for 2011 given Vettel's finishing rate...but the 2012 regs means they should keep the hammer down at Maranello.

He's signed on through to 2016...So hopes are high of a WDC at some juncture...but not yet.
 
There are so many variables being ignored, it's not even funny.
  1. Alonso knows how good his car is, he doesn't know how good the other cars are.
  2. Alonso likes to point at the few times they were 4th or 5th fastest, and incorrectly makes it appear that McLaren or Red Bull have never not been 1st or 2nd fastest.
  3. Points are earned on Sunday, not on Saturday, and anyone who knows two things of modern day Formula One knows there is a very distinct difference between qualifying pace and race pace.

    With 6 out of 9 points scoring teams, there is more than 33% difference between qualifying results and race results.

    Or do you believe Red Bull was the 4th fastest team in f.i. Australia because three teams qualified ahead?
 
Going way back to what seemed to start all this, I actually believe that Alonso has been misquoted. I think I watched that interview and I'm pretty sure he was talking about Brazil specifically and making the point that Force India (well, Hulkenberg) etc. were ahead of them at the last race. I don't think he was talking about the last portion of the season in general.
 
With the greatest of respect the situations with the most variables are the races. I have no problem with folk's disagreeing with my take on things but I have a low tolerance threshold for those who argue the toss without reading and understanding what others have said. Long time members and readers of CTA will be familiar with my approach and relative neutrality with regard to teams, personnel and drivers, since I have stated on many occasion that I am a lover of the sport and have a general respect for everyone in it. They are also familiar with the fact that I do not get involved in tit for tat arguments that lead into forever decreasing circles of nonsense.

It has not escaped my attention that this conversation has all the signs of degenerating into just such a roundabout argument. If you have not the courtesy to understand what I and others have written then so be it. Maybe a timely reminder of the CTA rules is in order and I am sure that a moderator will be only too happy to guide one in their direction. Suffice it to say that CTA asks its members to have a modicum of respect for those in the sport. In that regard whilst we are more than happy to engage in witty banter which at times may be "disrespectful" to said people most of us do not slander them. My enjoyment of CTA during 2012 was much disturbed by a noticeable decline in this standard throughout the season. The moderators have fought bravely and at times I would suggest have displayed a remarkable tolerance for posts that have verged on the libelous in their vitriol toward drivers and team personnel.

There is a well known forum that I need not name that continues to allow its members to call drivers, managers (and each other) liars but I personally find that distasteful and thoroughly boring. Just thank the stars that I am not a moderator for I would be hitting the ban button faster than a gnat's blink.

If one wonders why I'm posting this at this time it is because I have had enough of this crap. Folk's can agree to disagree or push off. I'm tired of tossers trying to fuck CTA up and I'm not going to take it anymore.

P.S. If anyone feels that I have come on a bit strong feel free to report my post. At least that way I will know that it was actually read by the target audience! Peace. LOL
 
Going by that logic Hamilton lacks race craft, and you would actually be complimenting Vettel for his race craft. The first is very disagreeable and the second seems unlikely coming from you, yet that is what comes from fairly applying the standard you're voicing.

And are you seriously saying that all the teams just curiously happened to have paired drivers according to either both having racecraft or both having qualifying skill? Really? Such a coincidence?
 
Going way back to what seemed to start all this, I actually believe that Alonso has been misquoted. I think I watched that interview and I'm pretty sure he was talking about Brazil specifically and making the point that Force India (well, Hulkenberg) etc. were ahead of them at the last race. I don't think he was talking about the last portion of the season in general.
That would make even less sense, since in Brazil, Sauber was nowhere near them and they were ahead of Lotus, not to mention that Red Bull was not a pace setter.
 
:friends: From me also Fenderman.

mnmracer......You haven't indicated who your last posting was aimed at. If it was me you obviously don't read my postings very carefully. I've sung Hamiltons and Vettels praises many times in the past and will continue to do so. I will also criticize when I feel it's justified. :popcorn:
 
Kewee
It just goes to show how completely unrealistic your assumption is that pace difference on Sunday is due to race craft and not car pace. There are so many holes in that theory, which you simply avoid. The inconceivable coincidence that all the drivers that 'have race craft' -as apparently the reason for Sunday performance is- driver for the same few teams, you just completely ignore.
 
mnmracer........Your attitude to people has always been the same. Your comment "coming from you" indicates you believe you know me well enough to know what my views are on all things discussed on CTA. YOU DON'T. Attacking other members and being rude is unnecessary and has become boring. Unfortunately the moderators will probably delete this posting though I hope not. I feel I have the right to respond to your attitude to myself and others you clearly upset.
 
I'm sorry but maybe something is getting lost in translation. It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to attribute a better performance in a race compared to qualifying position to the additional factors of good race-craft on the part of the driver, good strategy on the part of the team, a dose of good luck for them and a dose of bad luck on the competition - and that's ignoring other factors such as the weather, red flag restarts and safety cars etc. Surely the pace of one car relative to another can only be truly judged when all of those factors are minimised. Those factors are limited only in the practice and qualifying sessions when driver and car are in pursuit of only one goal: i.e. the best race pace in the former and and the best outright lap time in the latter.

I really can't see why Kewee should receive such disrespect when clearly he understands this and you mnmracer somehow do not.

There, history has just been made I have just been drawn in ... well done matey!:D
 
How about we go back on topic eh?! Fernando looks to be better than Massa already, does this prove that he was only using him as a test dummy to get rid of the gremlins in the first test? If so, very clever!
Also, no sign of that broken rib!
 
Excuse me Jos the Boss , but we were discussing whether or not Alonso's comments about his car were or were not accurate and truthful. Kewee and I contend that his comments about the Ferrari are fair. I also cannot accuse mnmracer of straying "off topic" since his contention is that the Ferrari is not as bad as Alonso makes out. It is not unreasonable for him to disagree and whilst we have a small issue with regard to the manner of the argument it was the topic under discussion.

Having said all that I'm more than happy to change the subject since I think we have exhausted that one! :) ...
... for now anyway ...
 
The first test is exactly as you said, hunting for unwanted gremlins, or put differently testing for reliability. Alonso is the obvious turn to driver for Ferrari when the development work begins in earnest during the second test and the engineers need accurate feedback. I'm sure Massa will be more than happy to have Fernando in the car for these first 3 days. He likes a car thats well sorted and will benefit from the work Alonso has been doing and will continue to do at the next test before they head off to Australia.
 
Indeed. It's also the natural order at Ferrari since the relationships within the team have been clear for all to see throughout the teams long and vivid history. I am reminded by the lovely photo of the old Merc' in the "best looking car" thread that there was a time when most of the teams worked in a similar fashion - i.e. the No.2 driver drove like hell and found the weaknesses of the car whilst the No.1 would seek to maximise its endurance. For example that was one of the characteristics of the dominant era's for Mercedes under Alfred Neubauer and. I suspect, Ferrari's dominance under Jean Todt.

Apart fro, the fact that Massa is unlikely to ever be as fast as Alonso in the drive like hell stakes, why should the overall approach be any different for Ferrari this season?
 
Kewee mnmracer - Right, lets analyse the Ferrari without Alonso formula. To start with, I'd like to add that I start this post without any idea of what I'll find here, and I'd like to assure you I don't believe this to be conclusive. But here goes.

I'm going to remove Alonso from Ferrari and instead replace him with a theoretical driver named "Massa-2". "Massa-2" will finish directly behind Felipe Massa in every race, and Alonso will be removed to give an alternate Championship:

CTA.webp


Now I am aware that this doesn't take into account Vettel's importance to Red Bull, Raikkonen's to Lotus etc.. (It's interesting to note certain changes in the WDC order caused by this, McLaren fans... ;)) However, what it does show is that with a "two Massas" Ferrari line-up, they could have finished some distance behind Lotus in the Constructors' Championship, with the main differences coming in the first few races when the red car was quite poor.

Ferrari gained 400 points in the real WCC. That means that Ferrari achieved 133 more points as a consequence of having Alonso in the car in comparison to Massa-2. While I note that this is not scientific, I think that suggests that Alonso's driving had a significant impact on Ferrari's season. I also believe it proves beyond reasonable doubt (and if it is good enough for a court of law...) that without Alonso, Ferrari would not have beaten McLaren in the Championship.
 
Back
Top Bottom