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.
 
Time to say good bye to Alonso. And the perfect sendoff is a documentary that is making the rounds in Youtube. Unfortunately is in Spanish with no subtitles but it's highly recommended even if you don't undrestand a word of it. A couple of highlights of the videos; one of the mechanics wishes Alonso that he wins the title with wichever team he's going to join. Alonso congratulating Hamilton after the race, lots of caramarederie between the two. And then there's Hamilton's gold chain! King Juan Carlos giving away that Alonso will join McLaren and then some guy speaking with Ron Dennis right after and he says "it's fine".
 
I believe saying a driver drives beyond the cars limits is a bit of a misnomer, I think they are just willing to get closer to the limit than some others are otherwise "Limit" which is a finite conception would have no meaning.
.

That's a cop out. f1 cars are designed to be as stable as possible. All of the design and testing is for the purpose of finding the fastest was to get round a circuit in a stable fashion. That there is the limit. When a driver comes along and drives it ragged in an unstable fashion and makes it go faster then he is driving beyond the limit. Just like if you turn the pressure right up on your boiler and it takes longer to explode than you thought it might.
 
Last edited:
.

.... f1 cars are designed to be as stable as possible....

I was always told that racing cars were designed to be either accelerating or braking with instability designed in to make them as responsive as possible to changes in direction. In other words a similar way to the design of fighter planes.
 
That's a cop out. f1 cars are desi
Firstly what am I copping out from?

Secondly I'm taking the term limit to mean.

The point, edge, or line beyond which something cannot proceed.

I don't know which definition of limit you are using I guess you mean that if a driver could drive at the speed of light there would be another driver who could drive at the speed of light and a little bit faster than that...
 
Last edited:
There is a difference between perceived limit and actual limit. Engineering a race car to go as fast as it can go is a battle between the drivers and the engineers. The engineers want to make it faster by compromising things like strength for weight. The drivers want the car to do what ever they tell it to and withstand whatever they can throw at it.

When a driver goes and rags the hell out of a car, despite them making it go faster than intended (possibly) they are generally putting the car under more stress than intended or driving it outside perimeters in which the engineers intended. These perimeters are limits. "These are the limits of what we want you to do with the car". Sometimes a driver finds a way to drive beyond those limits and it either ends in tears or the thing holds together as the engineers watch through winced faces.

Some drivers pretty much always drive within these limits, others don`t give a shit and just want to drive as fast as they can. At the end of the day there becomes a compromise where the engineers have to compromise their engineering for the driver or the driver has to compromise his or her limits for the machinery.

You definition of limit is very limited.
 
Last edited:
Well I reckon if a driver goes past the physical limit of the car then he will be in the kitty litter or worse I reckon if you could come up with a computer model that was 100% accurate that could show the absolute lap time of a given car on a given circuit then a very few drivers may be able to match it but not beat it.

I reckon the word limit when used to say a driver is driving beyond it is just that, a word to emphasize (Give special importance to.) how good a lap may have been and is used in the same way as 110% is, it is completely inaccurate and is scientifically, physically and mathematically impossible..
 
No sooner than everybody today accepting that the deal is officially done and Alonso is a McLaren driver there is speculation about how long he is likely to stick around:

http://www.marca.com/en/2014/12/09/en/more_sports/1418148244.html?

Let's look at Honda's first seasons in F1:

First full season in F1 - 1964. 1 win - 6th place overall (11 points)

First full season as an engine supplier - 1984 (Williams). 1 win - 6th place overall (25.5 points)

Return to F1 as an engine supplier - 2000 (BAR). No wins (best finish 4th) - 5th place overall (20 points)

Return to F1 as a team - 2006 - 1 win - 4th place overall (86 points)

So, by the looks of it, in 3 of their four "first seasons" in F1 they have managed to win one race.

I wonder, if there is a performance clause, exactly what Alonso will expect?
 
Kewee I was reading your comments about Alonson leading the development program for McLaren (These comments were posted on the Kmag thread for some unknown reason) so I thought I would ask you what makes you think that Alonso is the right person for the job, after all he didn't manage to lead Ferrari to become a championship winning team did he?
 
Last edited:
As a driver, Alonso has spent the last 7 years driving cars that are shite, and doing it to an incredible level.

If Alonso was a fairy godmother, he'd not turn Cinderella's pumpkin into a stage coach, but he'd get her to the ball anyway.
 
Mephistopheles ..... I didn't introduce Alonso to the Kmag thread, my posting was a direct response to a comment posted by Galahad. If you go back to my posting, No.188, you will read a direct quote from an interview with Ron Dennis in the May issue of F1 Racing 2007. That answers your question, why I believe Alonso is the right person to help McLaren develop their new car.
I also point out in the same posting any driver needs a car with a decent baseline to work with, that is an absolute accepted fact. A driver cannot develop a flawed car. Every Ferrari Alonso has driven during the last five years has had significant flaws. The first four had aerodynamic problems the fifth, last years car, was underpowered. Alonso had very little to work with. Read my posting carefully, they're not my opinions, they are Ron Dennis's. He's worked with enough of the sports leading drivers to know what he's talking about whether people like him or not.
 
Back
Top Bottom