Briatore: Alonso surpasses Schumacher

[ShiftingGears]

This is an interesting one....


http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72574

"The more pressure you put on Fernando, the better he gets. Michael was not so good at handling pressure."

[goodf1fun]

yea yea big mouth big words

[Tazio]

Fred has proven his salt against the best!
At this point in his career he does not toot his own horn!
He doesn't need to!
I hope that Lewis does the same!

[f1rocks]

This is an interesting one....


http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72574

"The more pressure you put on Fernando, the better he gets. Michael was not so good at handling pressure."
The great one has finally spoken....

Quick question for everyone. If you were a team boss and had to chose between MS or Alonso then who would you pick ? That should sum it all...

[Tazio]

The great one has finally spoken....

Quick question for everyone. If you were a team boss and had to chose between MS or Alonso then who would you pick ? That should sum it all...But......Fred......Retired.......Mike's..... .A$$ :confused:

I admire the heck out of Mike!
But, I honestly don't think your comment sums up squat on a squat stick! :dozey:
It's a very tough choice!

[markabilly]

The great one has finally spoken....

Quick question for everyone. If you were a team boss and had to chose between MS or Alonso then who would you pick ? That should sum it all...

he was probably more team principal behind the scenes then most team "managers"

OTOH That would depend on whether my ego would let MS dominate the team management as much as he did at ferrari, something Flavio found out when he was left behind :o

No, if i were flavio, freddy would definetly be my choice but i ain't, so MS would be my choice.....

As to the news article, freddie being better at handling pressure????, well, it appears that freddie has not had exactly an outstanding history of being calm, cool and collected either inside or outside the car......

[speeddurango]

Not a tough choice for me at all really, but yes when it comes to pressure management though, I'd have to say MS did overcook it a few times, but Alonso just messes it all up sometimes when he's not even under pressure.

[ShiftingGears]

Not a tough choice for me at all really, but yes when it comes to pressure management though, I'd have to say MS did overcook it a few times, but Alonso just messes it all up sometimes when he's not even under pressure.

I think that in some ways ties into what Briatore is saying. Look at 2006 - high pressure season for both, and Alonso made less on track mistakes.

[Big Ben]

The great one has finally spoken....

Quick question for everyone. If you were a team boss and had to chose between MS or Alonso then who would you pick ? That should sum it all...

it does?? Then I guess Fred´s the man. Good night.

[jens]

The great one has finally spoken....

Quick question for everyone. If you were a team boss and had to chose between MS or Alonso then who would you pick ? That should sum it all...

Alonso, because MS is already "too old". So what does it sum up? ;)

[ioan]

But......Fred......Retired.......Mike's......A$$ :confused:


That's bollocks. MS retired because of his age, not because of Alonso, nor Kimi.
But hey, if you wish to flatter yourself, be my guest.

[Tazio]

That's bollocks. MS retired because of his age, not because of Alonso, nor Kimi.
But hey, if you wish to flatter yourself, be my guest.

Ioan my friend and, charter member of the sensible seven, you know I worshiped Mike, and hated Fred dethroning him.
And yes that statement was really a bit of playing the devil’s advocate. However,
Fred won two WDC's while Mike was still on the top of his game.
One of those years the Ferrari was not competitive enough. Kind of like last season’s Renault
(although not quite as much of a dog in the first half of the season).
I have taken up his cause in respect of the way he disposed of Mike!
Who if properly motivated and positioned as # 1 driver would have taken the WDC for Ferrari in 2008 IMHO!
Cheers my man, and Happy New Year.

BTW how was my statement construed as flattering myself?

[ioan]

Ioan my friend and, charter member of the sensible seven, you know I worshiped Mike, and hated Fred dethroning him.
And yes that statement was really a bit of playing the devil’s advocate. However,
Fred won two WDC's while Mike was still on the top of his game.
One of those years the Ferrari was not competitive enough. Kind of like last season’s Renault
(although not quite as much of a dog in the first half of the season).
I have taken up his cause in respect of the way he disposed of Mike!
Who if properly motivated and positioned as # 1 driver would have taken the WDC for Ferrari in 2008 IMHO!
Cheers my man, and Happy New Year.

BTW how was my statement construed as flattering myself?

Each can see things the way he wants, IMO MS loves like any other driver loves racing and especially F1 very much.
He retired because he was getting old and tired and was pressed by his wife to stop.

He went for 5 years without winning the championship and didn't give up because of DH, JV or MH and I'm pretty sure he didn't retire because of FA either.

As for the flattering part it wasn't directly directed to you but to all those who think that MS retired because of Fernando or Kimi.

Thanks and a happy new Year to you and your family too! :)

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I'm with Ioan on this one. Michael retired because he was old for an F1 driver (37) and didn't have anything left to prove after beating Senna's qualifying record in 2006.

He didn't retire because of Alonso, plus, didn't Schumacher announce his retirement before the end of the 2006 season and before Alonso won?

[ArrowsFA1]

Good old Flav :laugh:

For one thing he's obviously going to praise Fernando, his current driver. For another he "lost" Michael to Ferrari when he wanted to keep him. I guess he doesn't want to lose another :p :

[Tazio]

I'm with Ioan on this one. Michael retired because he was old for an F1 driver (37) and didn't have anything left to prove after beating Senna's qualifying record in 2006.

He didn't retire because of Alonso, plus, didn't Schumacher announce his retirement before the end of the 2006 season and before Alonso won?You are correct sir!
He announced it after Monza (a huge win for him as Fred (and Renault had a rare yet spectacular detonation while running second)) If memory serves me correctly Mike went on to win in China, and while leading in Japan he had an engine expiration, that pretty much ended his shot at the title!
I remember Fred waving at Mike as he passed him on the lap. I was thinking at that moment, I wish I was at the race with a 30 odd six with a sniper scope and "sanction" that ba$t@rd Fred before he crossed the finish line. Now I'm glad I didn't :p :
Mike didn't drive those races like a guy that was old, and over the hill IMHO :dozey:

[BDunnell]

I'm with Ioan on this one. Michael retired because he was old for an F1 driver (37) and didn't have anything left to prove after beating Senna's qualifying record in 2006.

He didn't retire because of Alonso, plus, didn't Schumacher announce his retirement before the end of the 2006 season and before Alonso won?

Absolutely. It's simply revisionist history. Schumacher's retirement was just a retirement on his own terms — simple as that.

[wedge]

This is an interesting one....


http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72574

"The more pressure you put on Fernando, the better he gets. Michael was not so good at handling pressure."

Why do you find that surprising?

I've said it before countless times before and other posters have said so as well.

People deal with pressure in different ways. Everyone knows how Schumi cracks under pressure.

Alonso is in the mould of Prost and Piquet. Highly intelligent, would rather influence things behind closed doors if he can help it - instigating team orders, showing his fustration at Indy, blackmail the boss and blocking his team mate at Hungary in 2007

[wedge]

Quick question for everyone. If you were a team boss and had to chose between MS or Alonso then who would you pick ? That should sum it all...

That's a tough one.

In one-to-one situation I'd rather deal Schumi. From what I gather on his personality seems far more humble and down to earth than most people think. But with that sometimes you're left wondering he's thinking in a split second....

I get the impression Alonso is more intense at accommodating his needs and what you see is what you get.

Out on the race track there's very little to separate them. Schumi is a mixture of Prost and Senna, almost 50/50 whereas IMO Alonso is more Prost but has made far less controversial manoeuvres on the track whereas Schumi is a very hard racer who breaks the limits.

On balance it probably be Michael but the perfect driver would be MS without crashing into (eg. Jerez '97) or blocking (ie. Monaco qualy 2006) your opponent.

[ioan]

I'm with Ioan on this one. Michael retired because he was old for an F1 driver (37) and didn't have anything left to prove after beating Senna's qualifying record in 2006.

He didn't retire because of Alonso, plus, didn't Schumacher announce his retirement before the end of the 2006 season and before Alonso won?

Excellent points! :up:
I even forgot about the fact that he announced his retirement long before the season's end.

[Tazio]

I see that almost everyone that has posted on this subject missed my point!
I admire Fred for the same reason I admire Lewis, Kimi, and Mike. I recognize the talent. Is Fred a better racer? The jury is still out. Fred has his flaws. He is not as smooth as Lewis, or Kimi. His style can be very destructive to tires given the proper set of circumstances. China 2006 is a good example. In changing conditions he wasn’t the only one to pit and keep his inter’s on in drying conditions. He did torture his much worse than others did and it cost him the race. I also agree with the distinction Wedge made in regaurd to Fred, and Mike.
Fred retiring Mike was never meant to be an empirical statement. It's a figure of speech albeit a flakey one, crude, and even rude. It is one that athletes understand. (Which makes me realize why I never should have brought it up here) If you don't get it, or like it, so be it. Mike had a streak of championships. While he was still competing it was taken away from him. My comment was in the context of every athlete that participates in an individual (that wasn’t killed while competing) sport is retired by someone. Off the top of my head I can think of only one exception, although I'm sure there are others.
Rocky Marciano, the only heavyweight champion to retire undefeated.
Why so serious fellas :p :

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I see that almost everyone that has posted on this subject missed my point!
I admire Fred for the same reason I admire Lewis, Kimi, and Mike. I recognize the talent. Is Fred a better racer? The jury is still out. Fred has his flaws. He is not as smooth as Lewis, or Kimi. His style can be very destructive to tires given the proper set of circumstances. China 2006 is a good example. In changing conditions he wasn’t the only one to pit and keep his inter’s on in drying conditions. He did torture his much worse than others did and it cost him the race. I also agree with the distinction Wedge made in regaurd to Fred, and Mike.
Fred retiring Mike was never meant to be an empirical statement. It's a figure of speech albeit a flakey one, crude, and even rude. It is one that athletes understand. (Which makes me realize why I never should have brought it up here) If you don't get it, or like it, so be it. Mike had a streak of championships. While he was still competing it was taken away from him. My comment was in the context of every athlete that participates in an individual (that wasn’t killed while competing) sport is retired by someone. Off the top of my head I can think of only one exception, although I'm sure there are others.
Rocky Marciano, the only heavyweight champion to retire undefeated.
Why so serious fellas :p :

I think that 'dethroned' is better terminology than 'retired'.

[ShiftingGears]

I see that almost everyone that has posted on this subject missed my point!
I admire Fred for the same reason I admire Lewis, Kimi, and Mike. I recognize the talent. Is Fred a better racer? The jury is still out. Fred has his flaws. He is not as smooth as Lewis, or Kimi. His style can be very destructive to tires given the proper set of circumstances. China 2006 is a good example. In changing conditions he wasn’t the only one to pit and keep his inter’s on in drying conditions. He did torture his much worse than others did and it cost him the race. I also agree with the distinction Wedge made in regaurd to Fred, and Mike.

Lewis' style looks much more ragged than Alonso's. The reason Alonso and Renault lost China 2006 was because of a wrong tyre call, not Alonso having ripped them to shreds. Both Alonso and the Renault team admitted this tactical error after the race.

[Tazio]

Lewis' style looks much more ragged than Alonso's. The reason Alonso and Renault lost China 2006 was because of a wrong tyre call, not Alonso having ripped them to shreds. Both Alonso and the Renault team admitted this tactical error after the race.That may well be, and easy to say in retrospect, but it was Freds style of throwing his fronts into the turns that did the damage. No one I've seen uses this same technique It is very obvious from the onboard camera!

[wedge]

I see that almost everyone that has posted on this subject missed my point!
I admire Fred for the same reason I admire Lewis, Kimi, and Mike. I recognize the talent. Is Fred a better racer? The jury is still out. Fred has his flaws. He is not as smooth as Lewis, or Kimi. His style can be very destructive to tires given the proper set of circumstances. China 2006 is a good example. In changing conditions he wasn’t the only one to pit and keep his inter’s on in drying conditions. He did torture his much worse than others did and it cost him the race.

I disagree a bit there I think you under/over estimate Alonso a bit.

Lewis has a problem with temperament as a racer - for him its maximum attack and nothing else. Kimi likes to attack too.

Alonso is in the mould of Piquet. I'd say Piquet was far more aggressive than Prost. Even though Piquet was conservative and stole WDCs at the last race, Piquet would attack when he knew he had the car that could win the race eg. his epic battle with Alan Jones in Germany '81 or whenever it was.

China 2006 - that was one of the few races in the latter half of the year where Alonso could get the upper hand over the better Ferraris because a dry race at Suzuka would be advantage to Ferrari.

But Alonso is highly intelligent. Suzuka 2006 he decided to risk all out pressure on Schumi and it paid off (Schumi's Ferrari broke down) even though it was Alonso's to lose. At Brazil he settled for second, let Massa walk it and let Schumi do all the hard work.

I remember Turkey 2005 he saved his car for the end, pressured Montoya into a mistake and stole second place.

Another brilliant example of intelligence is Turkey 2006 - being chased hard by Schumi and in the inferior car, Alonso did all he could by altering the engine maps - full revs on the back straight, low revs on the twisty bits.

When it comes to pressure, Alonso is more Prost and Schumi is more Senna.

I can only think of Imola 2006 when he stalled and out-witted Alonso mid-race but Schumi's great drives have come from maximum attack - Hungary 1997 being 1 of many.

There's a canny brilliance which I find so fascinating and IMHO a natural successor to L'Professour.

[ShiftingGears]

That may well be, and easy to say in retrospect, but it was Freds style of throwing his fronts into the turns that did the damage.

I have to respectfully disagree there.


No one I've seen uses this same technique It is very obvious from the onboard camera!

True, but I've thought that the '06 Renault demanded that technique - I've read articles explaining that Alonso's method of maximum lock into the corner stopped the tyre graining on that Renault. Something to do with how its weight was distributed, and the characteristics of the Michelin tyres.

[Tazio]

True, but I've thought that the '06 Renault demanded that technique - I've read articles explaining that Alonso's method of maximum lock into the corner stopped the tyre graining on that Renault. Something to do with how its weight was distributed, and the characteristics of the Michelin tyres.If that is true than I stand corrected. It certainly didn't apply to the inters' on a drying track, running two stints (which it shouldn't!) I never knew that about the characteristics of the '06 Renaut! on drys! Of course at my age I probably just forgot :p :

[ArrowsFA1]

Lewis has a problem with temperament as a racer - for him its maximum attack and nothing else. Kimi likes to attack too.
While I agree to an extent about Lewis perhaps we should balance your view with one of his great strengths. He learns very quickly. We're talking about a driver who has only just completed his second season in F1 and he will only learn from experience as the years go on.

There's a canny brilliance which I find so fascinating and IMHO a natural successor to L'Professour.
Alonso has the benefit of 8 years experience in F1, and perhaps only he, above anyone else on the grid, could have made the most of the Renault this season. He is the most complete driver IMHO.

[Knock-on]

Alonso has the benefit of 8 years experience in F1, and perhaps only he, above anyone else on the grid, could have made the most of the Renault this season. He is the most complete driver IMHO.

I agree with this.

It's very subjective comparing one driver to another.

A dog-fight between Schumy at his peak Vs Alonso as he is at the moment? It's just gut feeling but I have to say Fred as I think he would handle a 1 on 1 pressure situation better.

[donKey jote]

Deep down I don't think Hamilton is that bad either. Hell even Button can put in an occasional good drive on the day. :up:

There, I almost said it... :p :

Hugs and kisses all round :D (Love ya too knocks :p : :wave: )

[Knock-on]

Deep down I don't think Hamilton is that bad either. Hell even Button can put in an occasional good drive on the day. :up:

There, I almost said it...

Hugs and kisses all round :D (Love ya too knocks :p : :wave: )

OK, Donks. I think that's quite enough of the Christmas Spirits for you.

Off to bed now lad and sleep it off.

:D

[wedge]

While I agree to an extent about Lewis perhaps we should balance your view with one of his great strengths. He learns very quickly. We're talking about a driver who has only just completed his second season in F1 and he will only learn from experience as the years go on.

Alonso has the benefit of 8 years experience in F1, and perhaps only he, above anyone else on the grid, could have made the most of the Renault this season. He is the most complete driver IMHO.

What makes you think he's a quick learner? If Lewis was a quick learner then he wouldn't have made as many mistakes this year. If Lewis was a quick learner then he wouldn't have been unhappy at finishing on the podium at Singapore.

Alonso showed his brilliance in 2005 because he knew when to attack and when to settle for a podium. At 23 Alonso was a complete driver, Lewis at 23 is only a step or two away. Had Alonso been in Lewis's position in '07 I think Alonso would've been WDC in his first year.

While I agree to an extent about Lewis perhaps we should balance your view with one of his great strengths. He learns very quickly. We're talking about a driver who has only just completed his second season in F1 and he will only learn from experience as the years go on.

You're quite right. Fuji 2008 was a fantastic example of somebody who learns from their mistakes.

Oh, hold on.....

And please don't say that Interlagos 08 proves he has learnt from Interlagos 07. Without Glock losing 13 seconds in a lap, an extreme fluke of circumstance, he would have made a right balls up of it, as his mess up letting Vettel past showed he was more than capable of achieving.

Lewis is young, and has plenty of opportunities to learn from his mistakes, but all the evidence suggests that so far he hasn't.

When the car is strong and/or circumstances play well for him, he shows a level of talent rarely seen....but quite often he seems to think that his natural brilliance behind the wheel will amply make up for a lack of thought.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

[markabilly]

What makes you think he's a quick learner? If Lewis was a quick learner then he wouldn't have made as many mistakes this year. If Lewis was a quick learner then he wouldn't have been unhappy at finishing on the podium at Singapore.

Alonso showed his brilliance in 2005 because he knew when to attack and when to settle for a podium. At 23 Alonso was a complete driver, Lewis at 23 is only a step or two away. Had Alonso been in Lewis's position in '07 I think Alonso would've been WDC in his first year.


Yes might have happened in 07 for Freddie in his first year----Frankly, had FA been in Lewis' position in 2007 as a defacto number one, he would have added a third consecutive WDC title, with just those extra points he lost in Hungary thanks to LH antics.........Kimi should be grateful to Lewis....and wo those antics, Freddie never would have gone crazy and bit the hand that was handing him all those stolen secrets from ferrari

And this talk about why MS retired, if there was any reason for it from a third party, that third party would have been Luca as shown by the behavior of everyone at Monza when it was announced, as I think that Luca had decided that sleepie Kimi was the future, and that Kimi would not be able to compete with MS on a team built by the MS legacy with huge loyalty to MS, no more than Freddie could surive at Mac, with LH and "his team"....indeed, Kimi might have had an out in his contract if MS did not retire....

And I do not care how good the driver is, read the discussions about how understeer can hamper one driver, yet enhance the spped of another driver, per the discussions on the thread about the ferrari engineer for Kimi and so forth....and when a team is setting the car up for such two different drivers and doing more understeer, then the other driver will suffer as a simple matter of fact....so what driver wants to be the number 2, when he thinks he is more than a capable number one????

Neither the threat of Freddie nor Kimi made MS retire, no more than the threat of HK winning two WDCs make him retire, or the threat of having to race Senna make MS decide to quit F1 in his early years

[ArrowsFA1]

What makes you think he's a quick learner? If Lewis was a quick learner then he wouldn't have made as many mistakes this year.
Experience inevitably brings lessons, and I do think Lewis is learning. That doesn't mean all mistakes will be eliminated, but the bottom line is he won the WDC, and having achieved that goal I think Lewis may be in less of a hurry, figuratively speaking, from now on.

Alonso showed his brilliance in 2005 because he knew when to attack and when to settle for a podium. At 23 Alonso was a complete driver, Lewis at 23 is only a step or two away. Had Alonso been in Lewis's position in '07 I think Alonso would've been WDC in his first year.
Very possibly. I'm not so sure about being a complete driver at 23, but he most certainly is the most complete driver today, and I think this year at Renault has contributed to that.

You're quite right. Fuji 2008 was a fantastic example of somebody who learns from their mistakes.

Oh, hold on.....
Please try and read before creating an argument for the hell of it :rolleyes: Given that I've already said I agree somewhat with wedge that Lewis has a problem with temperament as a racer that should give you the clue that I don't think he is perfect.

And please don't say that Interlagos 08 proves he has learnt from Interlagos 07.
Interlagos 08 showed Hamilton learnt from Interlagos 07 because he approached the two races entirely differently, and the results were entirely different. Fuji may have been a factor in how he approached Interlagos as well.

Pick and chose whatever circumstances from the race you wish; the bottom line is the result.

Lewis is young, and has plenty of opportunities to learn from his mistakes, but all the evidence suggests that so far he hasn't.
The overall results say otherwise. That's not to say he will not gain more experience, and make errors, in the coming seasons, but he's not alone among the drivers in that.

[wedge]

Interlagos 08 showed Hamilton learnt from Interlagos 07 because he approached the two races entirely differently, and the results were entirely different. Fuji may have been a factor in how he approached Interlagos as well.

That was partly down to team orders and the McLaren uncharacteristically not working well in damp conditions.

In Singapore he was told to hold onto 3rd and finished the race with a sulk.

As Tamburello said before, Lewis expects his natural talent to get him out of trouble. As much as I admire the Gilles Villenueve school of attacking driving it can only get you so far - Lewis lost and won WDC by the skin of his teeth.

[ShiftingGears]

You're quite right. Fuji 2008 was a fantastic example of somebody who learns from their mistakes.

Oh, hold on.....

And please don't say that Interlagos 08 proves he has learnt from Interlagos 07. Without Glock losing 13 seconds in a lap, an extreme fluke of circumstance, he would have made a right balls up of it, as his mess up letting Vettel past showed he was more than capable of achieving.

Lewis is young, and has plenty of opportunities to learn from his mistakes, but all the evidence suggests that so far he hasn't.

When the car is strong and/or circumstances play well for him, he shows a level of talent rarely seen....but quite often he seems to think that his natural brilliance behind the wheel will amply make up for a lack of thought.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

Agreed.

[f1rocks]

If Alonso dethroned MS in 2005 and 2006 then MS kicked his butt big time in 2001, 2003, 2004....That makes it 3-2....

Not that I believe that logic anyway. Also it could very easily have been 4-1 had the Ferrari not given up on MS in both Jap and Brazil 2006....

Alonso also holds the unique distinction to having been beaten by a rookie...MS never ever lost to any of his team mates over the entire season...

[ShiftingGears]

If Alonso dethroned MS in 2005 and 2006 then MS kicked his butt big time in 2001, 2003, 2004....That makes it 3-2....

Not that I believe that logic anyway. Also it could very easily have been 4-1 had the Ferrari not given up on MS in both Jap and Brazil 2006....

The Ferrari and the Renault were evenly matched in 2006, and Alonso came out on top. Might be hard for you to stomach, I know.


Alonso also holds the unique distinction to having been beaten by a rookie...MS never ever lost to any of his team mates over the entire season...

"We were racing Fernando" - Ron Dennis.

[555-04Q2]

The Ferrari and the Renault were evenly matched in 2006, and Alonso came out on top. Might be hard for you to stomach, I know.



"We were racing Fernando" - Ron Dennis.

f1rocks is right. Schumi won every year for 16 years and broke all records that are classed as important in F1. He retired at 37 still competitive and nearly winning an 8th WDC. Schumi's last drive in Brazil was a fine example of the type of racer he was, brilliant...fast...committed...passionate...consis tent...a master class as we have never seen before. One day our kids will look at the F1 record books and see a certain MS dominating every record and they will say, "man, this Schumacher guy must have been brilliant".

And BTW, Frodo WAS beaten by a rookie,in the same team, in the same car. Not exactly something to be proud of.

[ArrowsFA1]

In Singapore he was told to hold onto 3rd and finished the race with a sulk.
Lewis Hamilton (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70989):
"I didn't want to take chances - particularly as the Ferraris were outside the points."
He may have had to curb his natural instincts given the championship situation, but curb them he did.

More evidence that he doesn't learn?

[wedge]

Lewis Hamilton (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70989):
He may have had to curb his natural instincts given the championship situation, but curb them he did.

More evidence that he doesn't learn?

http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=Ted_Kravitz&id=44141


Lewis Hamilton looked pretty annoyed on Sunday night, and he had every reason to be.

It was bad enough to be beaten by a Williams with a 10 second stop & go penalty, but to be ordered not to attempt a passing move will have really ticked Lewis off.

Hamilton hates having his wings clipped, and I reckon he knows deep-down that he should have scored eight points on the day when Ferrari scored none.

[f1rocks]

The Ferrari and the Renault were evenly matched in 2006,


Prove it...The Renault was much more superior in the beginning of the year and Ferrari were playing catchup. The Ferrari also ran into reliability problems during the beginning and end of season.. The Renault was bullet proof for most of the season except for maybe Monza. All Alonso had to do was pick up early lead and then cruise...It was only when MS caught him that he started to crack up.. Eg: China 2006... MS was exceptional under pressure during the end of the season however Alonso could not match him...He just got lucky in last 2 races like he did when Kimi's engine kept blowing up in 2005....




"We were racing Fernando" - Ron Dennis.
And who was to blame for that messup...It was Alonso himself who was whining and moaning because Hamilton was kicking his butt big time..Alonso should have been miles ahead of the rookie as a 2 times WDC. But it was the other way round right from the first corner in Australia when Hamilton overtook him...

I bet you cant digest the fact the Lewis is better than Alonso...

[ShiftingGears]

Prove it...The Renault was much more superior in the beginning of the year and Ferrari were playing catchup. The Ferrari also ran into reliability problems during the beginning and end of season.. The Renault was bullet proof for most of the season except for maybe Monza. All Alonso had to do was pick up early lead and then cruise...It was only when MS caught him that he started to crack up.. Eg: China 2006... MS was exceptional under pressure during the end of the season however Alonso could not match him...He just got lucky in last 2 races like he did when Kimi's engine kept blowing up in 2005....

Alonso's car failed twice in race conditions - Hungary and Monza. Schumacher's car failed once in race conditions. So no, I don't buy your idea that the Renault was more bulletproof.

China 2006 was an example of a poor tyre decision on behalf of Renault and Alonso. Certainly a sign of cracking under pressure. Ahem.



And who was to blame for that messup...

That would be Ron Dennis, for managing his drivers so poorly.


I bet you can't digest the fact the Lewis is better than Alonso...
That is your opinion, and not a fact.

[ArrowsFA1]

http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=Ted_Kravitz&id=44141
Sure he was annoyed. He wants to race so I'm none too surprised at his reaction. But he gained important points when the Ferraris gained none.

Hamilton's natural instinct is to race for the win, not for points. It's what makes him an exciting driver to watch. Combining that with a more measured approach, which is what the team has added at times, resulted in the title.

Hamilton's natural instinct is to race for the win, not for points. It's what makes him an exciting driver to watch. Combining that with a more measured approach, which is what the team has added at times, resulted in the title.

So by your very words, it was the team adding a more measured approach, not Hamilton learning.

That, therefore, has to be an enforced curbing of his natural aggression from without, not an internal thought process by Lewis.

That may come in the future, but there is little or no evidence to suggest that he has learnt anything yet.

[f1rocks]

That would be Ron Dennis, for managing his drivers so poorly.



Oh really. Then why did Dennis order Hamilton to hold station at Monaco 2007 when he was attacking Alonso. Also why did Dennis allow Hamilton to give up his second position at Australia to Alonso. They should have messed up his pit stops so that Hamilton remained ahead...

Admit it that Alonso only had himself to blame for threatening the team and demanding No 1 status...You can only do that if you are better than yur teammate. But Alonso was not...

Now if I were Ron Dennis I would have sacked Alonso much before Brazil so that Lewis would have easily won the WDC....Thats what Alonso really deserved for whining and threatening his own employer...

Alonso can never surpass Schumacher because Schumacher has never lost to a rookie teammate...

[Tazio]

Oh really. Then why did Dennis order Hamilton to hold station at Monaco 2007 when he was attacking Alonso. Also why did Dennis allow Hamilton to give up his second position at Australia to Alonso. They should have messed up his pit stops so that Hamilton remained ahead...

Admit it that Alonso only had himself to blame for threatening the team and demanding No 1 status...You can only do that if you are better than yur teammate. But Alonso was not...

Now if I were Ron Dennis I would have sacked Alonso much before Brazil so that Lewis would have easily won the WDC....Thats what Alonso really deserved for whining and threatening his own employer...

Of course Ron isn't as smart as you, Einstein! :)
He had this silly Idea that the 100 thousand frog-skins that comes along with the WDC would come in handy!
To say nothing of the fact that the advertisers would probably be pissed off about alienating a whole county of consumers! :dozey:

[wedge]

Oh really. Then why did Dennis order Hamilton to hold station at Monaco 2007 when he was attacking Alonso. Also why did Dennis allow Hamilton to give up his second position at Australia to Alonso. They should have messed up his pit stops so that Hamilton remained ahead...

Admit it that Alonso only had himself to blame for threatening the team and demanding No 1 status...You can only do that if you are better than yur teammate. But Alonso was not...

Now if I were Ron Dennis I would have sacked Alonso much before Brazil so that Lewis would have easily won the WDC....Thats what Alonso really deserved for whining and threatening his own employer...

There are elements at McLaren that I do not like namely the PR spin and Ron-speak.

Quite interesting how McLaren tried to cover up the rivalry by claiming there was no rivalry/internal friction.

Also they should've managed team orders better during qualy. If McLaren had real integrity in fair competition then surely the fastest driver in Q2 should have first pick on strategy, not take turns on a race-by-race basis. It was only after Hungary did they do anything about it when the signs were there in Monaco.

But in fairness when you have two top, top drivers gunning for number 1 within a team then you have a timebomb waiting to explode.


Alonso can never surpass Schumacher because Schumacher has never lost to a rookie teammate...

Schumacher never had a team mate who was a match for him.

[f1rocks]

Of course Ron isn't as smart as you, Einstein! :)
He had this silly Idea that the 100 thousand frog-skins that comes along with the WDC would come in handy!
To say nothing of the fact that the advertisers would probably be pissed off about alienating a whole county of consumers! :dozey:

What an idiotic post...Should be the nominated as the most dumb post of 2009....:d

[ArrowsFA1]

So by your very words, it was the team adding a more measured approach, not Hamilton learning.

That, therefore, has to be an enforced curbing of his natural aggression from without, not an internal thought process by Lewis.
I'd agree that in Singapore the curbing of Hamilton's natural instincts went against the grain for him. However I do think Hamilton has learnt from those kind of decisions, races and results.

...there is little or no evidence to suggest that he has learnt anything yet.
I guess "little or" is an improvement on your earlier "all the evidence" but 2 seasons is a short space of time and I do think Hamilton will improve.

As he's said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72554) himself: "I've won the championship in my second year, but there is a lot more to come. I can do better, I can be fitter, I can be sharper, I can make less mistakes."

[f1rocks]

There are elements at McLaren that I do not like namely the PR spin and Ron-speak.

Quite interesting how McLaren tried to cover up the rivalry by claiming there was no rivalry/internal friction.

Also they should've managed team orders better during qualy. If McLaren had real integrity in fair competition then surely the fastest driver in Q2 should have first pick on strategy, not take turns on a race-by-race basis. It was only after Hungary did they do anything about it when the signs were there in Monaco.

But in fairness when you have two top, top drivers gunning for number 1 within a team then you have a timebomb waiting to explode.
.

The race by race thing was probly decided before the season even began.. I did not see anyone complain about it at the beginning of the year...The truth is that Mclaren never realized that Hamilton would even be close to Alonso. So all credit to Hamilton for beating Alonso fair and square....



Schumacher never had a team mate who was a match for him.
Exactly so.. Because he beat them so badly that there was nothing the teammate could do..Plus he never lost to a rookie.....Dont forget that...

Whereas Alonso has had slave teammates at Renault from the beginning like Fisi and Piquet. When Trulli started to beat him in 2004 they let him go... Alonso has always been the favored one....

I'd agree that in Singapore the curbing of Hamilton's natural instincts went against the grain for him. However I do think Hamilton has learnt from those kind of decisions, races and results.

I guess "little or" is an improvement on your earlier "all the evidence" but 2 seasons is a short space of time and I do think Hamilton will improve.

If Hamilton learnt in Singapore, he instantly forgot it in Fuji just seven days later.

If you are going to learn, surely the lesson should stay with you for a bit longer than that.

All the evidence still suggests that Lewis was reined in by Mclaren at Singapore & Interlagos. Those were team decisions, not driver ones. When he himself said he was going to think about the championship before the start at Fuji, he stopped thinking about it within 100 yards of the start so it is evident that he does not yet employ the lessons he should have learnt.

He may, or he may continue to rely on his natural talent to dig him out of the mess he creates by not thinking.

Or to rely on Toyota getting their tactics wrong by 300 metres.

[Tazio]

Oh really. Then why did Dennis order Hamilton to hold station at Monaco 2007 when he was attacking Alonso. Also why did Dennis allow Hamilton to give up his second position at Australia to Alonso. They should have messed up his pit stops so that Hamilton remained ahead...

Admit it that Alonso only had himself to blame for threatening the team and demanding No 1 status...You can only do that if you are better than yur teammate. But Alonso was not...

Now if I were Ron Dennis I would have sacked Alonso much before Brazil so that Lewis would have easily won the WDC....Thats what Alonso really deserved for whining and threatening his own employer...


He had this silly Idea that the 100 million frog-skins that comes along with the WCC would come in handy!
To say nothing of the fact that the advertisers would probably be pissed off about alienating a whole county of consumers! :dozey:

I guess "little or" is an improvement on your earlier "all the evidence" but 2 seasons is a short space of time and I do think Hamilton will improve.

Well, if he learnt anything it was to follow team orders (or instructions if you prefer).....which is an improvement over Hungary 2007, for sure

So yes, there has been a little improvement.....but certainly it has been small. Nowhere near enough to bring about you claim that one of his greatest strengths is his ability to learn,

Learning not to defecate on your own doorstep isn't exactly a major step forward in anybody's wisdom.

But, he is only 23 and I would be very surprised if he didn't wise up in the next five years.

Then again, Michael was still prone to the same self-destructive actions in his last season (Monaco qualifying, Hungarian GP fighting for positions he couldn't realistically defend) as he displayed in his earlier seasons, so maybe Lewis won't change too much.

Maybe, and I think this is highly likely, his self-belief and his natural talent will mean that he still makes the same competitive "in the moment" decisions like Fuji 2008 when he is getting towards the end of his career.

At the moment, it's probably 50-50 as to how Lewis will develop.

[woody2goody]

To answer the question as to whether I would hire Alonso or M. Schumacher, I would say Michael because he is a better team player than Alonso it seems. Both are unbelievable though. I mean Schumacher could still win races now or in 5 years time lol, and Alonso is in his peak, or possibly not there yet!

[woody2goody]

Well, if he learnt anything it was to follow team orders (or instructions if you prefer).....which is an improvement over Hungary 2007, for sure

So yes, there has been a little improvement.....but certainly it has been small. Nowhere near enough to bring about you claim that one of his greatest strengths is his ability to learn,

Learning not to defecate on your own doorstep isn't exactly a major step forward in anybody's wisdom.

But, he is only 23 and I would be very surprised if he didn't wise up in the next five years.

Then again, Michael was still prone to the same self-destructive actions in his last season (Monaco qualifying, Hungarian GP fighting for positions he couldn't realistically defend) as he displayed in his earlier seasons, so maybe Lewis won't change too much.

Maybe, and I think this is highly likely, his self-belief and his natural talent will mean that he still makes the same competitive "in the moment" decisions like Fuji 2008 when he is getting towards the end of his career.

At the moment, it's probably 50-50 as to how Lewis will develop.

Hamilton is probably less self destructive than Schumacher was. I'm still sure he didn't do anything wrong in Fuji. Even more after watching the season DVD.

[ShiftingGears]

Oh really. Then why did Dennis order Hamilton to hold station at Monaco 2007 when he was attacking Alonso. Also why did Dennis allow Hamilton to give up his second position at Australia to Alonso. They should have messed up his pit stops so that Hamilton remained ahead...

Because he didn't want teammates crashing each other out.


Admit it that Alonso only had himself to blame for threatening the team and demanding No 1 status...You can only do that if you are better than yur teammate. But Alonso was not...

I believe it was Alonso wanting to be treated fairly, as a world champion. Always two sides.


Now if I were Ron Dennis I would have sacked Alonso much before Brazil so that Lewis would have easily won the WDC....Thats what Alonso really deserved for whining and threatening his own employer...

Alonso can never surpass Schumacher because Schumacher has never lost to a rookie teammate...

I am sure we can all nitpick reasons as to why our favourite drivers are always better than everyone else, but lets not go there.

[wedge]

Hamilton is probably less self destructive than Schumacher was. I'm still sure he didn't do anything wrong in Fuji. Even more after watching the season DVD.

As someone who admires Lewis Fuji incident disgusted me then and it still disgusts me now. He had no reason to race Kimi and almost threw the title away could've made winning it less harder.

[ArrowsFA1]

As someone who admires Lewis Fuji incident disgusted me then and it still disgusts me now. He had no reason to race Kimi...
Other than he is a racing driver. That's the one thing to admire with the likes of Hamilton, Schumacher and Alonso. They're racing drivers. They may have made mistakes at times (who among us doesn't) but they're winners.

[ioan]

You're quite right. Fuji 2008 was a fantastic example of somebody who learns from their mistakes.

Oh, hold on.....

And please don't say that Interlagos 08 proves he has learnt from Interlagos 07. Without Glock losing 13 seconds in a lap, an extreme fluke of circumstance, he would have made a right balls up of it, as his mess up letting Vettel past showed he was more than capable of achieving.

Lewis is young, and has plenty of opportunities to learn from his mistakes, but all the evidence suggests that so far he hasn't.

When the car is strong and/or circumstances play well for him, he shows a level of talent rarely seen....but quite often he seems to think that his natural brilliance behind the wheel will amply make up for a lack of thought.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

I agree with you, the guy is plain dumb. In a worse than best car he would have troubles finishing races given his lack of reasoning.
He's got talent and balls, but no or very little brains.

[ioan]

Other than he is a racing driver. That's the one thing to admire with the likes of Hamilton, Schumacher and Alonso. They're racing drivers. They may have made mistakes at times (who among us doesn't) but they're winners.

There are plenty of racing drivers, it doesn't mean I have to admire all of them.
Some are intelligent and I like them (MS. FA, FM, KR, SV, NH and a few more) others lack high level thinking processes (LH, JPM, DC, GF etc), also these later ones like to talk their mouth of to such an extent to make you want to vomit.

[ShiftingGears]

Well, if he learnt anything it was to follow team orders (or instructions if you prefer).....which is an improvement over Hungary 2007, for sure

So yes, there has been a little improvement.....but certainly it has been small. Nowhere near enough to bring about you claim that one of his greatest strengths is his ability to learn,

Learning not to defecate on your own doorstep isn't exactly a major step forward in anybody's wisdom.

But, he is only 23 and I would be very surprised if he didn't wise up in the next five years.

Then again, Michael was still prone to the same self-destructive actions in his last season (Monaco qualifying, Hungarian GP fighting for positions he couldn't realistically defend) as he displayed in his earlier seasons, so maybe Lewis won't change too much.

Maybe, and I think this is highly likely, his self-belief and his natural talent will mean that he still makes the same competitive "in the moment" decisions like Fuji 2008 when he is getting towards the end of his career.

At the moment, it's probably 50-50 as to how Lewis will develop.

Agreed.

[TMorel]

Well considering how well a dumb retard with no brains is doing in his first two seasons, I'd dread to think how boring F1 would become should he ever knuckle down and start learning from his mistakes as he'd clean up completely !

Well considering how well a dumb retard with no brains is doing in his first two seasons, I'd dread to think how boring F1 would become should he ever knuckle down and start learning from his mistakes as he'd clean up completely !

Who said he was a dumb retard?

We are discussing how much he has learnt, with some of us arguing that it is due to his unmistakable natural talent that he perhaps/possibly isn't learning as quickly as he might otherwise because he can rely on his natural talent to get away with it....just.

Which is hardly the same as claiming that he is a dumb retard with no brains.

[f1rocks]

Guys.. I dont know about you but Lewis reminds me so much about MS when he was young. Granted he has made silly mistakes but so did MS sometimes..

Lewis is great at overtaking (the move on Massa at Ger 2008 was brilliant) and he is also atleast making an effort to learn to use his mind more..Plus he beat Alonso in his first year of F1 when people thought he would be destroyed by the 2 time Lucky WDC.

He may not reach the same level as MS but he aint doing so badly considering it is just his second year..

[BDunnell]

Who said he was a dumb retard?

We are discussing how much he has learnt, with some of us arguing that it is due to his unmistakable natural talent that he perhaps/possibly isn't learning as quickly as he might otherwise because he can rely on his natural talent to get away with it....just.

Which is hardly the same as claiming that he is a dumb retard with no brains.

:up:

[ArrowsFA1]

We are discussing how much he has learnt, with some of us arguing that it is due to his unmistakable natural talent that he perhaps/possibly isn't learning as quickly as he might otherwise because he can rely on his natural talent to get away with it....just.
I think that's a fair way of putting it :up: Lewis Hamilton is an exceptionally talented driver and is able to rely on that talent in ways less gifted drivers cannot. However, I don't think that precludes him from developing and learning, and I think the evidence is there that he is doing that. The very best are always looking for ways to improve, and that's one of the reasons they rank among the best. Alonso and Schumacher being good examples. But it is still very early in Hamilton's F1 career.

Perhaps, and I am assuming here, you'd compare Hamilton with the likes of Gilles Villeneuve and Ronnie Peterson, exceptionally talented drivers both, at this point in his career. It could be argued that they did not develop their talent (obviously neither had full careers by which we can fully judge) in a way that enabled them to become consistent winners and champions.

Perhaps, and I am assuming here, you'd compare Hamilton with the likes of Gilles Villeneuve and Ronnie Peterson, exceptionally talented drivers both, at this point in his career. It could be argued that they did not develop their talent (obviously neither had full careers by which we can fully judge) in a way that enabled them to become consistent winners and champions.

To a degree, yes. But I wouldn't put Lewis into the same grouping as he is more politically astute out of the car (despite a carefully spun 'nice guy' image).

Neither Villenueve or Peterson would have shafted their team-mate like Hamilton did Alonso in Hungary 2007....it just would not have crossed their minds.

Both Peterson & Villenueve were refreshingly niave....they honestly believed in just being out-and-out racers who weren't ruthless.

I'm not sure that Hamilton could be considered that, to be honest. He has shown a level of machiavellian instinct but that seems to disappear at some crucial moments to be replaced by....well, nothing.

[Bagwan]

Gilles was crushed by the idea that Pironi would not hold station , just as Alonso was shocked at being held up by Lewis .
Gentlemen were shocked at the dissolving of the gentlemen's agreement .

Fernando was happy to take the spoils , and happy to drop them in it when the agreement went awry , though , and I don't think Gilles would have liked the idea of the document theft .

I guess it depends on your circumstances , though .
I have a friend who worked with Gilles , boosting cars for the insurance money , in the old days , when it was the only way to get to the race .

[wedge]

I'm not sure that Hamilton could be considered that, to be honest. He has shown a level of machiavellian instinct but that seems to disappear at some crucial moments to be replaced by....well, nothing.

Reminds of a brilliant point James Allen made in an article a few months ago. He said young, quick drivers are aware of their awesome talent but don't necessarily understand it.

It's a bit like the adolescent superhero cliche - great power requires great responsibilty.

[PolePosition_1]

The great one has finally spoken....

Quick question for everyone. If you were a team boss and had to chose between MS or Alonso then who would you pick ? That should sum it all...

Alonso :)

[PolePosition_1]

Not a tough choice for me at all really, but yes when it comes to pressure management though, I'd have to say MS did overcook it a few times, but Alonso just messes it all up sometimes when he's not even under pressure.

What examples are you refering to where he messes it all up?

[PolePosition_1]

I agree with this.

It's very subjective comparing one driver to another.

A dog-fight between Schumy at his peak Vs Alonso as he is at the moment? It's just gut feeling but I have to say Fred as I think he would handle a 1 on 1 pressure situation better.

Couldn't agree more.

I think Schumacher excelled at what he did, but in the corporate environment of F1, I think Alonso's approach is the best, in the way he takes the lead role as a driver, and purely that.

With Michael, I think he was very lucky in that he was held up pretty high in management as well as driver, and considering FIAT is such a big TNC, lucky that they allowed this situation to happen, I don't think many of the manufacturers would let a driver have such huge development. And in this respect, with Schumacher being quite "cold" and businesslike in this manner, his approach is better than Alonso.

But Alonso would be the better in the "normal" F1 environment. And on track, I'd also rate Alonso more highly, Schumacher, without doubt a huge talent, one of the best F1 has ever seen in my view, but many of his statistic achievements stem from lack of competition in his era, had he been racing in current era, or in Senna/Prost/Mansell - I believe he would have the statistic achievements of a Jackie Stewart or someone. You also have to take into account, in his 16 year F1 career, 50% of his wins were between 2000-2004, thats a 5 year period, where his competition was limited. Thats not to say his success is unwarranted, F1 is a team game, and they were the best, and he optimised that further with his insistance of Number 1 status. But it does go a long way in explaining his statistical achievements.

[PolePosition_1]

And please don't say that Interlagos 08 proves he has learnt from Interlagos 07. Without Glock losing 13 seconds in a lap, an extreme fluke of circumstance, he would have made a right balls up of it, as his mess up letting Vettel past showed he was more than capable of achieving.




In this instance I think your being slightly harsh, if you look at 2007, he made him own luck in many respects, though you would have to argue his technical glitch cost him the title. But his approach nevertheless was not needed.

But in 2008, he adopted a totally different approach, however due to circumstances outside his control, the wet weather, he lost out. But McLaren made a strategic decision to pit him for wets, Toyota did not with their drivers, and McLaren got it right. End of really, it wasn't due to bad luck Glock lost so much time on last lap, more to do with Toyota taking a risk, and whislt it benefitted them, not to the extent to keep Lewis behind them.

[PolePosition_1]

MS never ever lost to any of his team mates over the entire season...

I think the quality of his team-mates and his contract may have had something to do with that :)

[PolePosition_1]

Prove it...The Renault was much more superior in the beginning of the year and Ferrari were playing catchup. The Ferrari also ran into reliability problems during the beginning and end of season.. The Renault was bullet proof for most of the season except for maybe Monza. All Alonso had to do was pick up early lead and then cruise...It was only when MS caught him that he started to crack up.. Eg: China 2006... MS was exceptional under pressure during the end of the season however Alonso could not match him...He just got lucky in last 2 races like he did when Kimi's engine kept blowing up in 2005....


And who was to blame for that messup...It was Alonso himself who was whining and moaning because Hamilton was kicking his butt big time..Alonso should have been miles ahead of the rookie as a 2 times WDC. But it was the other way round right from the first corner in Australia when Hamilton overtook him...

I bet you cant digest the fact the Lewis is better than Alonso...

How about you prove they weren't pretty equal in pace over course of season.

From the German GP onwards, the Ferrari had a decent advantage over Renault, the German GP, when the FIA suddenly decided to ban mass dampers, Renault strong point, giving an advantage to Ferrari.

You can see, from the German GP, he only got 1 pole from that point.

To me, its common knowledge both cars were pretty matched over the season.

Also, with regards to Alonso, whilst I won't say I was a fan of his approach in 2007, he was led to believe that he was going to be number 1, lead the team, only to find himself being back benched and team all around Hamilton. I'm can understand his behaviour.

[PolePosition_1]

why did Dennis allow Hamilton to give up his second position at Australia to Alonso.

Erm....what race did you watch, Hamilton never gave up his position to Alonso. Alonso got him in the pit stop period.

In this instance I think your being slightly harsh, if you look at 2007, he made him own luck in many respects, though you would have to argue his technical glitch cost him the title. But his approach nevertheless was not needed.

But in 2008, he adopted a totally different approach, however due to circumstances outside his control, the wet weather, he lost out. But McLaren made a strategic decision to pit him for wets, Toyota did not with their drivers, and McLaren got it right. End of really, it wasn't due to bad luck Glock lost so much time on last lap, more to do with Toyota taking a risk, and whislt it benefitted them, not to the extent to keep Lewis behind them.

I don't buy it. I'm not convinced that any tactical plan is safely based on the last 300 metres of a GP distance. What worries me is that, given the pace of the Mclaren relative to everything other than the Ferrari's, there was no need for Lewis to be so far back down the order to be put in such a desperately tight finish.

I do not believe that the Mclaren team could, or indeed should, have been thinking that Lewis was doing enough just trundling around allowing himself to give Vettel the opportunity to be close enough to take advantage.

It reminded me of Mansell at Monaco in 1992, who had the equipment and the time to have safely built up a huge pit-stop plus gap to Senna, but for some reason decided that an 18 second lead estabilished by lap 20 would be ok....then got a puncture and lost the race.

Whereas, for example, Fernando won the 2005 WDC by being constantly the 2nd/3rd quickest in the latter half of the season. Look no further than Alonso at Interlagos that year for a brilliant example of minimizing potential trouble.

At Interlagos 2008, all Lewis had to do was shadow the two Ferrari's, just as Fernando did the two Mclaren's in 2005.

For me, it was evident that the team didn't trust him to be able to do that and that they feared his natural tendency to race would once again over-rule, as had become evident in Fuji.

Hamilton in Brazil 08 is not an example of somebody learning. It is an example of somebody who could not dictate or safely conduct his own tactical strategy.

Only the good fortune of 20 seconds more rain than Toyota gambled on pulled him out of the crap he had, in effect, covered himself in.

[PolePosition_1]

I don't buy it. I'm not convinced that any tactical plan is safely based on the last 300 metres of a GP distance. What worries me is that, given the pace of the Mclaren relative to everything other than the Ferrari's, there was no need for Lewis to be so far back down the order to be put in such a desperately tight finish.

I do not believe that the Mclaren team could, or indeed should, have been thinking that Lewis was doing enough just trundling around allowing himself to give Vettel the opportunity to be close enough to take advantage.

It reminded me of Mansell at Monaco in 1992, who had the equipment and the time to have safely built up a huge pit-stop plus gap to Senna, but for some reason decided that an 18 second lead estabilished by lap 20 would be ok....then got a puncture and lost the race.

Whereas, for example, Fernando won the 2005 WDC by being constantly the 2nd/3rd quickest in the latter half of the season. Look no further than Alonso at Interlagos that year for a brilliant example of minimizing potential trouble.

At Interlagos 2008, all Lewis had to do was shadow the two Ferrari's, just as Fernando did the two Mclaren's in 2005.

For me, it was evident that the team didn't trust him to be able to do that and that they feared his natural tendency to race would once again over-rule, as had become evident in Fuji.

Hamilton in Brazil 08 is not an example of somebody learning. It is an example of somebody who could not dictate or safely conduct his own tactical strategy.

Only the good fortune of 20 seconds more rain than Toyota gambled on pulled him out of the crap he had, in effect, covered himself in.

I probably agree with everything you say.

Though do you acknowledge that in both years, actions outside of his control contributed to him losing / coming close to losing the title?

I probably agree with everything you say.

Though do you acknowledge that in both years, actions outside of his control contributed to him losing / coming close to losing the title?

I assume you're referring to his sudden drop of places due to the 'gearbox glitch' in 2007......if so, I've never really bought the idea that it was a gearbox glitch, to be honest.

Well, unless a clumsy/panic-induced errant thumb counts as a 'gearbox glitch'.

I thought it was very interesting that after Kovalianen had a similar 'glitch' early in 08, Mclaren changed the layout of the steering wheel to prevent such a thing happening again, which does suggest to me that it was caused by human error and not gremlins in the electronics.

[PolePosition_1]

I assume you're referring to his sudden drop of places due to the 'gearbox glitch' in 2007......if so, I've never really bought the idea that it was a gearbox glitch, to be honest.

Well, unless a clumsy/panic-induced errant thumb counts as a 'gearbox glitch'.

I thought it was very interesting that after Kovalianen had a similar 'glitch' early in 08, Mclaren changed the layout of the steering wheel to prevent such a thing happening again, which does suggest to me that it was caused by human error and not gremlins in the electronics.

I thought that, but I saw footage showing that he actually slows down before his wondering thumb pushes any buttons.

Fact that Mclaren insist this was not human error as well, I'm going to stick to facts which are known rather than comspiracy theories when making my judgement.

I thought that, but I saw footage showing that he actually slows down before his wondering thumb pushes any buttons.

Fact that Mclaren insist this was not human error as well, I'm going to stick to facts which are known rather than comspiracy theories when making my judgement.

Fact is I don't believe what Mclaren said, but that argument is for another thread.

[ioan]

Though do you acknowledge that in both years, actions outside of his control contributed to him losing / coming close to losing the title?

Nah, he blew it both times, first he ran of the track + hit the wrong button when he panicked following his 1st mistake, and in 2008 he simply wasn't up to the job in the last race.

[ioan]

Fact that Mclaren insist this was not human error as well, I'm going to stick to facts which are known rather than comspiracy theories when making my judgement.

We don't know any facts, we only know what McLaren declared and I'm having troubles believing what liars say!

[jens]

To avoid this discussion changing into endless I believe I am right "arguments", can someone post reliable sources about this Brazil '07 situation to verify whether Hamilton had a mechanical glitch or made a human error. To be honest, I'm not personally sure about it. About a year or more ago, both versions appeared in the media and it seemed like a final consensus wasn't reached about this matter.

[woody2goody]

I don't buy it. I'm not convinced that any tactical plan is safely based on the last 300 metres of a GP distance. What worries me is that, given the pace of the Mclaren relative to everything other than the Ferrari's, there was no need for Lewis to be so far back down the order to be put in such a desperately tight finish.

I do not believe that the Mclaren team could, or indeed should, have been thinking that Lewis was doing enough just trundling around allowing himself to give Vettel the opportunity to be close enough to take advantage.

It reminded me of Mansell at Monaco in 1992, who had the equipment and the time to have safely built up a huge pit-stop plus gap to Senna, but for some reason decided that an 18 second lead estabilished by lap 20 would be ok....then got a puncture and lost the race.

Whereas, for example, Fernando won the 2005 WDC by being constantly the 2nd/3rd quickest in the latter half of the season. Look no further than Alonso at Interlagos that year for a brilliant example of minimizing potential trouble.

At Interlagos 2008, all Lewis had to do was shadow the two Ferrari's, just as Fernando did the two Mclaren's in 2005.

For me, it was evident that the team didn't trust him to be able to do that and that they feared his natural tendency to race would once again over-rule, as had become evident in Fuji.

Hamilton in Brazil 08 is not an example of somebody learning. It is an example of somebody who could not dictate or safely conduct his own tactical strategy.

Only the good fortune of 20 seconds more rain than Toyota gambled on pulled him out of the crap he had, in effect, covered himself in.

You have to remember that both Toyotas stayed out while Lewis and race leader Massa cam in for stops. That meant that Glock got infront of both Hamilton and Vettel. Hamilton was fourth and would have comfortably been 5th before the rain pit stop.

Vettel was simply faster before and after the pitstop. Hamilton was keeping out of trouble behind the Ferraris and Alonso, which, on a normal day would have been fine. The only reason he was in any danger at all was because of the rain. And he didn't probably expect Alonso to be infront of him anyway.

And it was because he was in one of the fastest cars that he could be a little bit careful in Brazil. Yes it was good fortune that he got ahead of Glock when he did, but he didn't panic and drive too quickly and go off the road.

By the way he didn't do anything wrong in Fuji, that's happened about 100 times in GPs before with no penalty.

[wedge]

I don't buy it. I'm not convinced that any tactical plan is safely based on the last 300 metres of a GP distance. What worries me is that, given the pace of the Mclaren relative to everything other than the Ferrari's, there was no need for Lewis to be so far back down the order to be put in such a desperately tight finish.

I do not believe that the Mclaren team could, or indeed should, have been thinking that Lewis was doing enough just trundling around allowing himself to give Vettel the opportunity to be close enough to take advantage.

It reminded me of Mansell at Monaco in 1992, who had the equipment and the time to have safely built up a huge pit-stop plus gap to Senna, but for some reason decided that an 18 second lead estabilished by lap 20 would be ok....then got a puncture and lost the race.

Whereas, for example, Fernando won the 2005 WDC by being constantly the 2nd/3rd quickest in the latter half of the season. Look no further than Alonso at Interlagos that year for a brilliant example of minimizing potential trouble.

At Interlagos 2008, all Lewis had to do was shadow the two Ferrari's, just as Fernando did the two Mclaren's in 2005.

For me, it was evident that the team didn't trust him to be able to do that and that they feared his natural tendency to race would once again over-rule, as had become evident in Fuji.

Hamilton in Brazil 08 is not an example of somebody learning. It is an example of somebody who could not dictate or safely conduct his own tactical strategy.

Only the good fortune of 20 seconds more rain than Toyota gambled on pulled him out of the crap he had, in effect, covered himself in.

It's worth remembering Lewis had yet to play the 'joker card'/engine change so they came to into the last race with a detuned engine and compensated it with a low downforce package.

[ArrowsFA1]

...in 2008 he simply wasn't up to the job in the last race.
The fact of the matter is he won the WDC. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the strategy in Brazil he achieved the result that was needed. It was enough.

In contrast Felipe Massa's task was simple - win or bust - and he too achieved the result he needed. It wasn't enough.

IMHO emphasis is placed on the unpredictable role the weather played in order to criticise Hamilton/McLaren. While rain may have been predicted there was no certainty in when it might arrive, or how heavily it would fall; certainly not before the race started. Before those final few laps Hamilton was in 4th position behind Massa, Alonso and Raikkonen. McLaren's strategy had panned out as planned. Hamilton was up to the job.

Even when the rain fell Hamilton could easily have thrown the car into the scenery when Vettel passed, or when trying to make up ground on Glock. It's the kind of outcome the "panic-induced" "natural tendency" his critics may have expected. It didn't happen.

[PolePosition_1]

Nah, he blew it both times, first he ran of the track + hit the wrong button when he panicked following his 1st mistake, and in 2008 he simply wasn't up to the job in the last race.


Yeah, but him running off the track didn't cost him the title in 2007, it was the technical glitch which cost him, which all people in the know claim wasn't his fault.

Whilst you and Tamb obviously follow F1, I'm going to base my opinion on what the people in the know say over two Ferrari fans.

Regarding sources as per Jen request:

But on Lap Eight worse was in store for Hamilton, when a temporary gearbox glitch slowed him for over 30 seconds and dropped him to 18th.

SOURCE: http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2008/10/8613.html

The Briton’s day seemed to be done seven laps later when, having climbed to sixth, his car succumbed to a rare technical failure in the gearbox.........and from Hamilton:

“It was not a great start,” he said. “I locked up behind Fernando to avoid hitting him and went wide. But I was quite relaxed knowing I had the pace to regain position. But when I was down-shifting into turn four, the car slammed into neutral. I coasted for a long time and then it clicked back in. From then on we had to manage the engine. I kept pushing to the end, thinking we could still get it.”

SOURCE: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article2709975.ece

From McLaren:

We can confirm that the temporary gear shifting problem Lewis suffered on lap eight of the Brazilian Grand Prix was due to a default in the gearbox that selected neutral for a period of time. It was not as a result of Lewis pressing an incorrect button on his steering wheel.”

“It was a gearbox problem, and it went into forced-neutral and changing down seemed to rectify it - it might be mechanical, but we doubt it. If it was something mechanical, they usually don’t fix themselves. It could be electronics software - but there’s no evidence in the analysis to support that. Could be a sensor - but again, there’s no evidence in the data recordings.

“So it would appear that the barrels that change gear went out of control - and out of control of the driver - and that’s probably hydraulic.

“That could be either a very small Moog servo control valves that were interfered with by a tiny piece of debris or they are sensitive to magnetic interference - something generated a magnetic field which caused the valve to misbehave.”

SOURCE: http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2007/10/23/video-did-hamilton-cause-his-gearbox-problem/

The journalist who claimed Lewis Hamilton admitted causing his gearbox failure in Sunday’s race has admitted he invented the quote.

Luc Domenjoz of Canadian newspaper La Presse said: “My mistake was using a quote by Lewis when I did not talk to him myself. I had other verifiable information and I stand by my report, but under the time pressure I made a mistake by using that quote.”

SOURCE: http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2007/10/25/hamilton-did-not-admit-causing-car-failure-in-brazil/

It seems that the acknowledged verdict is technical glitch.

[Tazio]

It's worth remembering Lewis had yet to play the 'joker card'/engine change so they came to into the last race with a detuned engine and compensated it with a low downforce package.
Excellent point!
Let us not forget that Lewis was on a second engine, and third gearbox.
I'm neutral on this whole "ability to learn thing"
but we did have a spirited discussion on this subject,
and that racing at altitude may play into the strategy of a "tired engine"
as well!

By the way he didn't do anything wrong in Fuji, that's happened about 100 times in GPs before with no penalty.

I'm not discussing the 'penalty', just the fact that he was risking everything against a driver who wasn't a factor in the title race.

Kimi could easily have turned in on the out-of-control Mclaren. Massa would then never have had a penalty for the chicane incident. The title would then have been Massa's.

Thankfully, from a Mclaren perspective, Ferrari were true sports and didn't take the opportunity presented to them.

Yeah, but him running off the track didn't cost him the title in 2007, it was the technical glitch which cost him, which all people in the know claim wasn't his fault.

It seems that the acknowledged verdict is technical glitch.

To quote Mandy Rice-Davies, those 'people in the know' would say that, wouldn't they?

You have to remember that both Toyotas stayed out while Lewis and race leader Massa cam in for stops. That meant that Glock got infront of both Hamilton and Vettel. Hamilton was fourth and would have comfortably been 5th before the rain pit stop.

Vettel was simply faster before and after the pitstop. Hamilton was keeping out of trouble behind the Ferraris and Alonso, which, on a normal day would have been fine. The only reason he was in any danger at all was because of the rain. And he didn't probably expect Alonso to be infront of him anyway.

And it was because he was in one of the fastest cars that he could be a little bit careful in Brazil. Yes it was good fortune that he got ahead of Glock when he did, but he didn't panic and drive too quickly and go off the road.

By the way he didn't do anything wrong in Fuji, that's happened about 100 times in GPs before with no penalty.

It is exasctly because of the chance of rain that I believe that the 'strategy' Mclaren and/or Lewis were employing was very high risk.

If it was a 'strategy' at all.

The fact of the matter is he won the WDC. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the strategy in Brazil he achieved the result that was needed. It was enough.

Even when the rain fell Hamilton could easily have thrown the car into the scenery when Vettel passed, or when trying to make up ground on Glock. It's the kind of outcome the "panic-induced" "natural tendency" his critics may have expected. It didn't happen.

But neither of those points back up your claim that he is a quick learner.

The strategy, right or wrong, paid off....just. It did not need to have been so desperate, especially when Mclaren had the option of a new engine without penalty.

He didn't try a desperate move on Vettel because Vettel was way too quick, and he didn't try a desperate move on Glock because Glock was way too slow, fortnuately for Lewis & Mclaren.

Judging by his Spa & Fuji attempts, a desperate lunge would have been far more likely if he'd had the chance/needed to do it.

There is no evidence that Hamilton therefore has learnt anything.

[wedge]

Even when the rain fell Hamilton could easily have thrown the car into the scenery when Vettel passed, or when trying to make up ground on Glock. It's the kind of outcome the "panic-induced" "natural tendency" his critics may have expected. It didn't happen.

I think you're confusing Hamilton with Schumacher.

Had Schumi been in Lewis' position I think he would've given Vettel a hard time blocking and even try taking him out a la Jerez '97.

Hamilton's approach to a championship/race is maximum attack ie. if the doors open for an overtake he will go for it. As good as he is underbraking but being on the absolute limit one day your luck will run out which what happened in Brazil '07 and Fuji and France last year. He has to learn that there are times to sit back for a points finish.

[ArrowsFA1]

He didn't try a desperate move on Vettel because Vettel was way too quick, and he didn't try a desperate move on Glock because Glock was way too slow...
That can very easily be said as we have the benefit of hindsight.

I maintain that in the heat of the moment, with a WDC seemingly slipping away, the pressure on Hamilton was enormous and had he not drawn from previous experiences, but acted according to how he has been typecast, he might have been expected to make a WDC-losing error. In my view it is to his credit that he did not, and it shows that he is developing as a driver.

Of course, all of that is just my opinion.

There is no evidence that Hamilton therefore has learnt anything.
I happily accept that is your opinion.

He has to learn that there are times to sit back for a points finish.
Which is exactly what he did in Brazil '08.

[PolePosition_1]

To quote Mandy Rice-Davies, those 'people in the know' would say that, wouldn't they?

Well, I'd say its slightly more reliable than a conspiracy theory with no facts backing it up.

[wedge]

Which is exactly what he did in Brazil '08.

Because of team orders.


Just like in Singapore, McLaren forces Lewis to learn via team orders.

Well, I'd say its slightly more reliable than a conspiracy theory with no facts backing it up.

Mclaren changed their steering wheel set-up to prevent such an event after Kovalianen hit the pit-lane speed limiter by mistake.

That is a fact.

Since Kovalianen was driving a Renault at the time Hamilton had his 'technical glitch', it is reasonable to assume that the same steering wheel set-up was on Hamiltons Mclaren as was in Kovalianen's Mclaren.

Whilst both Hamilton & Mclaren have stated otherwise, a denial is not a fact. It is just a denial.

It may just be coincidence that one hit the wrong button whilst the other had a geniune 'glitch', but given the previous form of Mclaren circa 2007 when it comes to being truthful, it would appear to cast more than reasonable doubt on their version of events.

given the numerous misleading statements spoken from the mouth of Mr Whitmarsh, it's hardly a conspiracy to claim that Mclaren were not being altogether honest. Understandably they maybe wanted to protect their boy-wonder from further criticism following his hari-kari.

However, what you wish to choose as factual is, of course, your perogative.

Because of team orders.


Just like in Singapore, McLaren forces Lewis to learn via team orders.

Exactly.

In my view it is to his credit that he did not, and it shows that he is developing as a driver.

He made a mistake that dropped him behind Vettel. He made the mistake of not giving himself more margin for error should circumstances throw in a curve-ball.

Those are not indications of a man who learnt or who didn't make errors.

That he didn't make a mistake when trying to catch Glock does in no way show that he is learning, not when Bahrain, Canada, France, Spa, Fuji all say that he doesn't learn, yet you take one example, the last lap of a race where he had made errors, of him not making a mistake under pressure as evidence otherwise.

One lap proves something? No it doesn't. Many examples would, but those you don't provide, which weakens your argument greatly.

Your claim that he learns has no foundation compared to the amount of evidence to say he doesn't.

Provide some, or at least wait until Lewis provides you with some, which, as I've said, could well happen in the future.

[ArrowsFA1]

Your claim that he learns has no foundation compared to the amount of evidence to say he doesn't.
What you claim as evidence and present as if it were fact is merely a different interpretation of events, i.e. an opinion. As I've said I happily accept that you hold a different opinion to mine.

What you claim as evidence and present as if it were fact is merely a different interpretation of events, i.e. an opinion. As I've said I happily accept that you hold a different opinion to mine.

So you can't provide the evidence to support your claim then?

[woody2goody]

I'm not discussing the 'penalty', just the fact that he was risking everything against a driver who wasn't a factor in the title race.

Kimi could easily have turned in on the out-of-control Mclaren. Massa would then never have had a penalty for the chicane incident. The title would then have been Massa's.

Thankfully, from a Mclaren perspective, Ferrari were true sports and didn't take the opportunity presented to them.

Understood :)

[ArrowsFA1]

No. I have no "evidence". I have an opinion.

The kitchen's big enough for everyone to have one.

While I agree to an extent about Lewis perhaps we should balance your view with one of his great strengths. He learns very quickly.

That is stated as a fact, not an opinion.

Lewis Hamilton (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70989):
He may have had to curb his natural instincts given the championship situation, but curb them he did.

More evidence that he doesn't learn?


No. I have no "evidence".

Which is it? You either have 'evidence' or it is just an opinion. You've used both to suit your argument, which suggests a somewhat disingenuous attitude.

[ArrowsFA1]

Whatever. Have fun with that.

Whatever. Have fun with that.

Run away then, just like you always do when your arguments fail.

[BDunnell]

Run away then, just like you always do when your arguments fail.

While you seem to take being disagreed with really well and not in a pompous, holier-than-thou fashion at all, don't you?

While you seem to take being disagreed with really well and not in a pompous, holier-than-thou fashion at all, don't you?

Well, since I am pompous and technically holier-than-thou, what would you expect?

I don't mind being disageed with if the opposition can provide a logical, evidence-based argument to support their case.

I don't mind being disagreed with if the opposition can stop shifting their position when their argument fails or comes unstuck.

What I do mind is fellow forumers being elusive and lacking basic honesty in their argument. If people do not wish to conduct a forum discussion on those simple terms, then they can expect me to call them what they are....tendentious and duplicitous.

Oh, and I won't stop replying in a debate just because somebody, say yourself for example, notes my character defects.

Which is a damn sight more than can be said for some.

[ioan]

Yeah, but him running off the track didn't cost him the title in 2007, it was the technical glitch which cost him, which all people in the know claim wasn't his fault.

Whilst you and Tamb obviously follow F1, I'm going to base my opinion on what the people in the know say over two Ferrari fans.

Especially when the only people who know exactly what happened are those who had no interest saying the truth! :D

Oh well, the guy went off track and panicked, as a result he pushed the wrong button. lLooks much more possible than the part about how the whole electronic system had a glitch and had to be restarted! Oh wait, I forgot that they are working together with Microsoft on their ECU's! :rotflmao:

[ArrowsFA1]

Run away then, just like you always do when your arguments fail.
I must say it's nice to see that old chestnut again :laugh: but who is running away?

My "arguments" haven't failed at all. You haven't provided any so-called "evidence" that has caused me to change my opinion so my opinion is just fine thank you very much.

BTW, since when have we been in a court of law with you as the judge and jury?

Of course I understand you disagree with my opinion, but that's nothing new. You've made clear a number of times your attitude towards my opinions. As I recall "if you can't stand the heat then get out of the kitchen" was your instruction, but I've been here a number of years now and decided I liked it some time ago so won't be moving kitchens any time.

I don't mind being disageed with...
Yus of course M'Lud :laugh:

As for "opposition"; it's rather odd seeing fellow motorsport enthusiasts as "opponents" :dozey:

What I do mind is fellow forumers being elusive and lacking basic honesty in their argument. If people do not wish to conduct a forum discussion on those simple terms, then they can expect me to call them what they are....tendentious and duplicitous.
My opinions are honestly held, and honestly given. If you chose to represent them any other way that is entirely up to you. Tiresome though that often is.

Which is a damn sight more than can be said for some.
Still here :wave: :laugh:

Still here :wave: :laugh:

Good. Now supply some fact-based evidence to support your opinion.

If you do, then your opinion won't be dismissed as utter drivel.

Until then, however...

BTW, since when have we been in a court of law with you as the judge and jury?

We're not, but when you present 'evidence', then claim you haven't got 'evidence', and when you declare as a factual statement something you later rely on as an opinion, don't expect your argument to be upheld.

If you continue to do so, you'll be judged accordingly.

I must say it's nice to see that old chestnut again

Well, if the cap fits....

As for "opposition"; it's rather odd seeing fellow motorsport enthusiasts as "opponents" :dozey:

Having opposing arguments is the point of a forum.

My opinions are honestly held, and honestly given.

Fair enough. Or, to use a legal term, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

[wedge]

Especially when the only people who know exactly what happened are those who had no interest saying the truth! :D

Oh well, the guy went off track and panicked, as a result he pushed the wrong button. lLooks much more possible than the part about how the whole electronic system had a glitch and had to be restarted! Oh wait, I forgot that they are working together with Microsoft on their ECU's! :rotflmao:

I don't think we well ever know the truth. It's like Canada 1991 where Mansell supposedly stalled the engine because he was busy waving to the crowd. Even after all these years Adrian Newey is still on message and insists it was a technical glitch.

[SGWilko]

I don't think we well ever know the truth. It's like Canada 1991 where Mansell supposedly stalled the engine because he was busy waving to the crowd. Even after all these years Adrian Newey is still on message and insists it was a technical glitch.

That was a rumour started by the ever jealous and generally not very nice natured Nelson Piquet.

Does anyone seriously think, that in the tight confines of an F1 cockpit, the designers & engineers would fit a toggle switch to cut the ignition? Think about all the vibrations etc - it just makes no sense.

These things I believe are an excuse people use and hold on to because they are jealous or are making up for their own shortcomings. That's my opinion, anyway.

[PolePosition_1]

Mclaren changed their steering wheel set-up to prevent such an event after Kovalianen hit the pit-lane speed limiter by mistake.

That is a fact.

Since Kovalianen was driving a Renault at the time Hamilton had his 'technical glitch', it is reasonable to assume that the same steering wheel set-up was on Hamiltons Mclaren as was in Kovalianen's Mclaren.

Whilst both Hamilton & Mclaren have stated otherwise, a denial is not a fact. It is just a denial.

It may just be coincidence that one hit the wrong button whilst the other had a geniune 'glitch', but given the previous form of Mclaren circa 2007 when it comes to being truthful, it would appear to cast more than reasonable doubt on their version of events.

given the numerous misleading statements spoken from the mouth of Mr Whitmarsh, it's hardly a conspiracy to claim that Mclaren were not being altogether honest. Understandably they maybe wanted to protect their boy-wonder from further criticism following his hari-kari.

However, what you wish to choose as factual is, of course, your perogative.


Yeah, they may well have changed their steering wheel (source would be good though :) ) after Heikki hit pit lane limiter by mistake. But I don't really see how this proves Hamilton done the same in Brazil - its still a conspiracy theory.

Its quite probably, I'm just saying I'm basing my opinion on known fact rather than conspiracy theory.

And I don't really want to go into their truthful form of 2007. Because again, thats totally subjective, personally as far as I know Hamilton or Ron Dennis did not lie over course of season, simply poor management from what I take from that season.

Massa stated that he qas able to catch up Kimi and overtake him by racing him in China 2008, does that make all of Ferrari liars? Not in my eyes.

And with the regards to misleading statements from Mr Whitmarsh - I'm not aware of them, can you source me these?

Yeah, they may well have changed their steering wheel (source would be good though :) ) after Heikki hit pit lane limiter by mistake. But I don't really see how this proves Hamilton done the same in Brazil - its still a conspiracy theory.

Its quite probably, I'm just saying I'm basing my opinion on known fact rather than conspiracy theory.

And with the regards to misleading statements from Mr Whitmarsh - I'm not aware of them, can you source me these?

Certainly....

Kovalianen source - http://www.f1minute.com/2008/03/19/19-mar-08-mclaren-to-revise-pit-speed-limiter-system/

"McLaren will be looking into their pit speed limiter process after the incident in Australia with Kovalainen. Engineering director Paddy Lowe has said they will be revising the system in future as: “It shouldn’t be something you can pick up by accident when you’re moving your hands around.”

Whitmarsh source - From the FIA -

http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2007/December/071207-01.html

"10. Press statements

10.1. The WMSC notes that in advance of the hearing there had been statements in the press indicating that Renault had possession of very large numbers of McLaren drawings. McLaren has acknowledged to the WMSC that it circulated an erroneous press briefing which had created this impression,"

Which is Ronspeak for a good old fashioned lie.

Whitmarsh is the Managing Director, it was therefore on his watch that Mclaren issued such a false statement.

Hope that's to your satisfaction.

[PolePosition_1]

Certainly....

Kovalianen source - http://www.f1minute.com/2008/03/19/19-mar-08-mclaren-to-revise-pit-speed-limiter-system/

"McLaren will be looking into their pit speed limiter process after the incident in Australia with Kovalainen. Engineering director Paddy Lowe has said they will be revising the system in future as: “It shouldn’t be something you can pick up by accident when you’re moving your hands around.”

Whitmarsh source - From the FIA -

http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press_Releases/FIA_Sport/2007/December/071207-01.html

"10. Press statements

10.1. The WMSC notes that in advance of the hearing there had been statements in the press indicating that Renault had possession of very large numbers of McLaren drawings. McLaren has acknowledged to the WMSC that it circulated an erroneous press briefing which had created this impression,"

Which is Ronspeak for a good old fashioned lie.

Whitmarsh is the Managing Director, it was therefore on his watch that Mclaren issued such a false statement.

Hope that's to your satisfaction.


Thanks for sourcing information, makes things much easier.

With regards to the Heikki link, again thanks for sourcing this, however my previous point still stands, it has no indication that the same situation happened with Hamilton.

And with regards to Whitmarsh, I thought you were refering to his comments with regards to Hamiltons technical glitch in Brazil 2007.

Also, the source you've provided, there is no mention of Whitmarsh himself, so don't really see where you got the idea that he himself was giving mixed signals.

I agree its under his duty to monitor this sort of thing, but as I said previously, all it showed from 2007 was poor management, not all of McLaren being liars.

[Garry Walker]

Couldn't agree more.

I think Schumacher excelled at what he did, but in the corporate environment of F1, I think Alonso's approach is the best, in the way he takes the lead role as a driver, and purely that.

With Michael, I think he was very lucky in that he was held up pretty high in management as well as driver, and considering FIAT is such a big TNC, lucky that they allowed this situation to happen, I don't think many of the manufacturers would let a driver have such huge development. And in this respect, with Schumacher being quite "cold" and businesslike in this manner, his approach is better than Alonso.

But Alonso would be the better in the "normal" F1 environment. And on track, I'd also rate Alonso more highly, Schumacher, without doubt a huge talent, one of the best F1 has ever seen in my view, but many of his statistic achievements stem from lack of competition in his era, had he been racing in current era, or in Senna/Prost/Mansell - I believe he would have the statistic achievements of a Jackie Stewart or someone. You also have to take into account, in his 16 year F1 career, 50% of his wins were between 2000-2004, thats a 5 year period, where his competition was limited. Thats not to say his success is unwarranted, F1 is a team game, and they were the best, and he optimised that further with his insistance of Number 1 status. But it does go a long way in explaining his statistical achievements.
Schumacher was never beaten or slower than his teammate (except a few races in his career). Alonso has been beaten over a season by Trulli and Hamilton, thats two teammates already. While it is fair to say Schumacher never had a driver as fast as Hamilton as teammate, it is also fair to say that Schumacher had several teammates at least as fast as Trulli in his career and he dismantled them all.
To say that alonso is better than Schumacher is like saying I could box with Lennox Lewis and beat him.



Well, unless a clumsy/panic-induced errant thumb counts as a 'gearbox glitch'.


I dislike Hamilton a lot, but that "thumb" incident it really a creation of wild minds, nothing to do with reality. Hamilton slowed down a lot before pressing the button, look at the videos.

That said, he has again and again shown that in some pressure situations he is very vulnerable.
But we have proof for that already, so trying to make up things is really not needed.

Thanks for sourcing information, makes things much easier.

With regards to the Heikki link, again thanks for sourcing this, however my previous point still stands, it has no indication that the same situation happened with Hamilton.

And with regards to Whitmarsh, I thought you were refering to his comments with regards to Hamiltons technical glitch in Brazil 2007.

Also, the source you've provided, there is no mention of Whitmarsh himself, so don't really see where you got the idea that he himself was giving mixed signals.

I agree its under his duty to monitor this sort of thing, but as I said previously, all it showed from 2007 was poor management, not all of McLaren being liars.

That's fair enough. You're willing to give Whitmarsh the benefit of the doubt, and that is to your credit.

I just don't buy into the notion, that's all. Mclaren have made several erronoues statements, so after a while for me it becomes a case of "Cry Wolf". That's why I don't believe his claims.

[PolePosition_1]

Schumacher was never beaten or slower than his teammate (except a few races in his career). Alonso has been beaten over a season by Trulli and Hamilton, thats two teammates already. While it is fair to say Schumacher never had a driver as fast as Hamilton as teammate, it is also fair to say that Schumacher had several teammates at least as fast as Trulli in his career and he dismantled them all.
To say that alonso is better than Schumacher is like saying I could box with Lennox Lewis and beat him.


I dislike Hamilton a lot, but that "thumb" incident it really a creation of wild minds, nothing to do with reality. Hamilton slowed down a lot before pressing the button, look at the videos.

That said, he has again and again shown that in some pressure situations he is very vulnerable.
But we have proof for that already, so trying to make up things is really not needed.


Erm, can you let me know what year Trulli beat Alonso over course of the season?

And with regards to Hamilton beating him, considering the team attitude of "we were fighting Alonso" from Ron Dennis himself, to finish on equal points, 1 point away from winning the title - that doesn't really go with the flow of Alonso is no where near as good Schumacher.

And with regards to Schumacher and his team-mates, he was contracted number 1 from 1994 - 2006. I think that has a big say in why he was never beaten by any of his team-mates.

Not much I can say really, I think Schumacher is one of the best drivers to have ever raced in F1 history, but I do think his statistics don't really give the full picture.

You may think Schumacher is better than Alonso - thats your opinion and your entitled to it, I happen to disagree, which is my opinion.

[Garry Walker]

Erm, can you let me know what year Trulli beat Alonso over course of the season?
2004. Check the point standings. Remember to take into account that Trulli did not take part in the last races for Renault.



And with regards to Hamilton beating him, considering the team attitude of "we were fighting Alonso" from Ron Dennis himself, to finish on equal points, 1 point away from winning the title - that doesn't really go with the flow of Alonso is no where near as good Schumacher.
Will you point out how Alonso was disadvantaged by the team compared to Hamilton? Thank you.


And with regards to Schumacher and his team-mates, he was contracted number 1 from 1994 - 2006. I think that has a big say in why he was never beaten by any of his team-mates.
What about 1991? 1992? 1993? He had pretty good teammates then and what happened? He destroyed them. Remember Patrese in 1992. He was often quite close to Mansell and in 1991 for half a season he was beating Mansell. What happened in 1993 in a team with Schumacher? He was getting lapped by MS.
As for the contract, they still had equal cars. But none was as good as MS.




Not much I can say really, I think Schumacher is one of the best drivers to have ever raced in F1 history, but I do think his statistics don't really give the full picture.

You may think Schumacher is better than Alonso - thats your opinion and your entitled to it, I happen to disagree, which is my opinion.

You say Schumacher is one of the best ever, but then rate Alonso above him. You obviously rate Alonso as probably the best driver of all times then?

Who would I sign?

Either of them, and be bloody ecstatic.

[PolePosition_1]

2004. Check the point standings. Remember to take into account that Trulli did not take part in the last races for Renault.


Will you point out how Alonso was disadvantaged by the team compared to Hamilton? Thank you.


What about 1991? 1992? 1993? He had pretty good teammates then and what happened? He destroyed them. Remember Patrese in 1992. He was often quite close to Mansell and in 1991 for half a season he was beating Mansell. What happened in 1993 in a team with Schumacher? He was getting lapped by MS.
As for the contract, they still had equal cars. But none was as good as MS.



You say Schumacher is one of the best ever, but then rate Alonso above him. You obviously rate Alonso as probably the best driver of all times then?

Erm, in 2004 Alonso scored more points than Trulli. Trulli was off pace consistantly throughout second half of season in the Renault. I don't really see how you can state as clear cut Trulli beat Alonso in 2004.

Well - I think your team boss stating they are racing against you - is a pretty clear cut sign that they're supporting the other driver more than yourself.

“But we weren’t at all fazed about Kimi [Raikkonen, of Ferrari]. We weren’t racing Kimi, we were basically racing Fernando.”

SOURCE: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article2617378.ece

1991 - He did one race, retired, albeit impressive, against Andrea de Cersaris, not really a legend.

1992 - He partnered Martin Brundle, again, I wouldn't really rate Martin Brundle as true competition in comparison to the amount of talent Schumacher had.

1993 - Ricardo - again, a solid driver, but in his final year of F1. Its like comparing MS and DC in his final year, not exactly a good way of proving how good MS was.

Without doubt, they both had equal cars. But surely you can acknowledge F1 is more than just the car. Its the team of people the team provide you with for support. How the team shape around you, and the environment they provide. F1 is psychology as well.

Well, no I don't rate Alonso as best driver of all time, simply because I hesitate when judging drivers of the past, as not watching that era, I don't like to comment too much, as I obviously haven't got the full picture, no matter how many books and stories you read.

As I said earlier, MS was very talented, and he was able to infiltrate the Ferrari management, and he made it work for both himself and the team. And I don't think Alonso would have been able to do that in way MS did. Alonso seems to wear his heart on his sleeve so to speak, and in a position like MS, you've got to be very objective, and kind of 'cold hearted' in many ways.

Who was better, its hard to say, both excell in different circumstances. For example, I think MS is better than FA at being highly involved in the team at all levels, I think FA is better at handling pressure when on track.

But if you look at the corporate style of F1 today, I'd say I'd rather have Alonso driving one of my cars than MS.

1991 - He did one race, retired, albeit impressive, against Andrea de Cersaris, not really a legend..

He then joined Benetton against a 3xWDC.

He beat him first time out.

[PolePosition_1]

He then joined Benetton against a 3xWDC.

He beat him first time out.

Again, does beating a 3 time world champion in his final year in F1 doesn't really represent beating an F1 great.

Its the equivalant of beating Mika in his final year of F1, or even Damon Hill in his 1999 season.

I've said how much I respect and acknowledge Schumachers talent. But one thing that cannot be said of him is that he raced against others of similar talent, and he never had a 'real' match as a team-mate.

And I guess credit has to go for that, he orchestrated his career to put himself in a position where he didn't have to compete against his team-mate, enabling him to have 100% of the team focus on him, and use it to his advantage, and reward the team with strong results.

In my time of watching F1, I've not seen any other driver be able to do this, and his deliverence of results enabled him to continue to do this. Others tried (notably JV) and failed, so credit where its due.

[jens]

Erm, in 2004 Alonso scored more points than Trulli. Trulli was off pace consistantly throughout second half of season in the Renault. I don't really see how you can state as clear cut Trulli beat Alonso in 2004.


I would just like to clarify facts. With three races to go of the 2004 season Trulli had 46 points and Alonso 45. After that Trulli got sacked.

[ioan]

Again, does beating a 3 time world champion in his final year in F1 doesn't really represent beating an F1 great.

The same can be said about Alonso winning the WDC against MS in 2006! :p :

:s mokin:

[wedge]

He then joined Benetton against a 3xWDC.

He beat him first time out.

James Hunt criticised him around that time for struggling to beat Moreno. Piquet was passed his peak but still a good driver.

[woody2goody]

I would just like to clarify facts. With three races to go of the 2004 season Trulli had 46 points and Alonso 45. After that Trulli got sacked.

And also to be fair to Jarno, he didn't score in 3 or 4 races before that largely due to mechanical failures. Remember his huge crash at Silverstone?

At the end of that year he went to Toyota for 2 or 3 GPs and put the car (a poor one really) in the top 10 in Q.

[PolePosition_1]

The same can be said about Alonso winning the WDC against MS in 2006! :p :

:s mokin:

Well, depends how you view it, for me when MS retired he was still highly competitive and incredibly good. Schumacher, starting out so young, had an incredibly long career, and his talent shown through in his later years, where he was able to maintain his competitiveness when most drivers his age have well passed their peak.

If you think Schumacher had well passed his peak and was in a similar situation to Piquet in 1992 - I guess you have a point, but I'd find it slightly worrying if you did hold that view.

[ioan]

Well, depends how you view it, for me when MS retired he was still highly competitive and incredibly good. Schumacher, starting out so young, had an incredibly long career, and his talent shown through in his later years, where he was able to maintain his competitiveness when most drivers his age have well passed their peak.

If you think Schumacher had well passed his peak and was in a similar situation to Piquet in 1992 - I guess you have a point, but I'd find it slightly worrying if you did hold that view.

Schumacher was 37 (turning 38 in a couple of months) when retired, and he said he was tired and exhausted.

A driver retiring because of his age is the same thing be it M.Schumacher, A.Prost, Piquet or any other multiple champion. They are tired, exhausted and have difficulties pushing for more after they achieved their maximum several times.

You can't say that MS did comfortably beat Piquet straight away only because Piquet was not at the top of the game anymore and than try to support the ideea that Alonso's achievement against MS just before the later retired from the sport is much more valuable!
Well, you can say it but it has no objective value whatsoever because is clearly wrong and purely based on bias. :rolleyes:

[PolePosition_1]

Schumacher was 37 (turning 38 in a couple of months) when retired, and he said he was tired and exhausted.

A driver retiring because of his age is the same thing be it M.Schumacher, A.Prost, Piquet or any other multiple champion. They are tired, exhausted and have difficulties pushing for more after they achieved their maximum several times.

You can't say that MS did comfortably beat Piquet straight away only because Piquet was not at the top of the game anymore and than try to support the ideea that Alonso's achievement against MS just before the later retired from the sport is much more valuable!
Well, you can say it but it has no objective value whatsoever because is clearly wrong and purely based on bias. :rolleyes:

Ioan, compare Piquet in his prime, to his 1992 season.

Then compare Schumacher in his prime, and his 2006 season.

With Piquet, we witnessed a large drop in form, with Schumacher, he was able to sustain his competitiveness, where at his peak and in 2006, there was hardly a difference.

Surely you can see the fault in your analysis?

PS: Source me where he said he was "tired" and "exhausted". :)

I heard he retired because he knew if he stayed, it would have pushed Massa out with no where to go. So he went in order to make sure Massa could continue at Ferrari.

Michael Schumacher, the most successful f1 driver of all time, reveals why he walked away at the end of 2006 - and it wasn't because of Kimi Raikkonen, he claims... More than a year-and-a-half on from his retirement from F1 the most successful driver in the sport's history has revealed that he walked away to save his team-mate and friend felipe massas career.

“I stopped because I didn't want my friend Felipe Massa to be unemployed,” the 39-year-old is quoted as having said to a swiss newspaper “I would have had no problem racing against kimi”

SOURCE: http://www.flagworld.com/news/?p=2128

[ioan]

PS: Source me where he said he was "tired" and "exhausted". :)

You can find it yourself. I can't be bothered losing time in order to satisfy the wishes of someone who ignores such information.

[PolePosition_1]

You can find it yourself. I can't be bothered losing time in order to satisfy the wishes of someone who ignores such information.

Ioan, I've typed out 'Schumacher', 'retires', 'exhausted' and 'tired' on google - I've read through several articles and none back up what you claim.

At end of the day, we're on this message board to exchange opinions based on events. In any mature discussion, when talking about events or facts, you back it up with a reliable source.

When someone corrects you, you don't come back and say 'I can't be bothered to back up my story', and expect your version of events to be respected. If you can't be bothered, may be worthwhile not posting at all.

I've provided you with a source, quoting Michael Schumacher himself, its reliable - if you think you know why Schumacher retired more than Schumacher himself, thats fair enough, but I suggest that you acknowledge it as opinion over fact. Or do you think Michael was lying when he said he retired for Massa?

[ioan]

Ioan, I've typed out 'Schumacher', 'retires', 'exhausted' and 'tired' on google - I've read through several articles and none back up what you claim.

Is it my fault that you can't properly use a search engine?
Should I lose my time to go and feed you, or you can manage that alone?! :rolleyes:

You know what is the problem? Even if MS retired at 60 years old age you would want to have a link to an article that states he was tired and exhausted!

[PolePosition_1]

Is it my fault that you can't properly use a search engine?
Should I lose my time to go and feed you, or you can manage that alone?! :rolleyes:

You know what is the problem? Even if MS retired at 60 years old age you would want to have a link to an article that states he was tired and exhausted!

So just to confirm, when Michael said he retired to help Massa, you are claiming he is lying?

PS: A search engine doesn't find non-existant facts ;)

[ioan]

So just to confirm, when Michael said he retired to help Massa, you are claiming he is lying?


No, but he said that it was only one of several reasons why he retired.

[Knock-on]

Although MS was still very competitive when he retired, I am sure there were many elements that influenced his decision. I would suggest that tiredness / exhaustion, wanting to spend more time with his family, not wanting to be upstaged by Kimi, wanting to make way for Massa, not having as much drive etc would all contribute.

I've done a bit of searching but back in 2003 he said:


Schumacher again denied that he was considering quitting now he has broken Fangio's record.

"It hasn't really sunk in yet. I am empty and exhausted but proud of what we as a team have achieved with another constructors' championship,

There is no reason to stop, especially when I am still good at racing and still competitive,"

"It was an exhausting season but why not let me enjoy it?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/3184774.stm

I like this article from F1.com which I believe is probably quite true.

http://www.formula1.com/teams_and_drivers/hall_of_fame/7/


In his last season the 37-year-old driver who had made Formula One racing his personal playground was still at the peak of his powers. No champion had been so excellent for so long, but Michael Schumacher finally grew tired of the effort necessary to continue to excel and decided to quit while he was still ahead - so far ahead that his achievements are unlikely to ever be surpassed.

There is no doubt that Schumy was a hero / villian character but he never really saw that himself. Although personally a remarkably loval, caring and generous man, he never really understood the resentment and uproar his 'questionable' tactics produced such as parking at Monoco.

Personally, I think he realised that there wasn't a lot more in F1 as a driver and decided enough was enough. He could have fought on for a season or two but couldn't be bothered for all the right reasons.

[PolePosition_1]

No, but he said that it was only one of several reasons why he retired.

Ok, anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree, I'm not really willing to argue on events when you have a totally different version of facts, and no reliable source whatsoever to back up these facts.

[ioan]

There is no doubt that Schumy was a hero / villian character but he never really saw that himself. Although personally a remarkably loval, caring and generous man, he never really understood the resentment and uproar his 'questionable' tactics produced such as parking at Monoco.

I think that his capability to really concentrate on one thing at a time without being disturbed by external influence (complications) is what allowed him to go along for such a long time and to surpass himself each and every time (take for example the race just after his mother's death).

I'm sure he knows when and what he did wrong, and I suppose (given his nature) that he will acknowledge when the right moments will come, but his goals in the F1 car were not to think about charity and equity, it was all about doing everything needed to get the best result in a given situation.

If he would have indulged in philosophical meditations about what is right and what is not (given certain circumstances) he wouldn't have had enough time and concentration to achieve the amazing results he got.

I wouldn't say he never understood, he just didn't mix his professional behavior with his human nature, something difficult to achieve for most of us.

[wedge]

I think that his capability to really concentrate on one thing at a time without being disturbed by external influence (complications) is what allowed him to go along for such a long time and to surpass himself each and every time (take for example the race just after his mother's death).

I'm sure he knows when and what he did wrong, and I suppose (given his nature) that he will acknowledge when the right moments will come, but his goals in the F1 car were not to think about charity and equity, it was all about doing everything needed to get the best result in a given situation.

If he would have indulged in philosophical meditations about what is right and what is not (given certain circumstances) he wouldn't have had enough time and concentration to achieve the amazing results he got.

I wouldn't say he never understood, he just didn't mix his professional behavior with his human nature, something difficult to achieve for most of us.

After Jerez 1997 Schumi could never understand the criticism he recieved. He was like a rabbit caught in the headlights.

It's because within the racing environment he is strong and single minded to the extent every that every action he makes in the cockpit it was because he was in the right.

Senna had the same mentality.

[Garry Walker]

Erm, in 2004 Alonso scored more points than Trulli. Trulli was off pace consistantly throughout second half of season in the Renault. I don't really see how you can state as clear cut Trulli beat Alonso in 2004.
Trulli did not do all races for Renault and it is amazing that even with Renault being based around Alonso and Briatore hating Trulli, in the races he did with Renault that year, he outscored Alonso.



Well - I think your team boss stating they are racing against you - is a pretty clear cut sign that they're supporting the other driver more than yourself.But is there any proof Alonso was in any way disadvantaged by that? Just because his boss didn`t hug him all the time, doesn`t mean he wasn`t given 100% chance to win.
So no luck Alonso supporters, still no evidence.

[PolePosition_1]

Trulli did not do all races for Renault and it is amazing that even with Renault being based around Alonso and Briatore hating Trulli, in the races he did with Renault that year, he outscored Alonso.

But is there any proof Alonso was in any way disadvantaged by that? Just because his boss didn`t hug him all the time, doesn`t mean he wasn`t given 100% chance to win.
So no luck Alonso supporters, still no evidence.

I have no doubt that McLaren provided Alonso and Hamilton with equal equipment. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

But again, I don't think that psychology is an incredibly important part of the game. And knowing the team are fighting against you, and rooting for your team mate is a huge disadvantage.

Fact that Ron Dennis actually publicly declared they were racing against Alonso is of huge disadvantage.

But yes, I agree, there is no physical evidence, its my opinion that having your team fighting against you and not wanting you to win is a disadvantage.

With regards to Trulli, you have to look at the circumstances, statistics don't really give full picture. Alonso had 5 retirements compared to Trulli's 3.

Trulli had a run of 5 non-point finishes, whilst 2 were retirements, the others finishing no higher than 9th.

So yeah, if your going to argue statistics purely, then sure, but its a breakable argument. And its not really going to stand well, especially considering there is only a 1 point difference.

Whilst, its also worth noting Trulli was in his 9th season of F1 at the time (shocking Trulli about to hit the 200 races mark this year!). Alonso his 3rd.

[SGWilko]

The reference to 'we were racing alonso' is specific to the particular race from which or about which the quote was made/taken.

Probably because, the only car that Lewis was in direct competition with at the time was.......?

Those with brains and a dose of common sense can send their answers in on a postcard to;

Fernando Alonso Competition..............

[PolePosition_1]

The reference to 'we were racing alonso' is specific to the particular race from which or about which the quote was made/taken.

Probably because, the only car that Lewis was in direct competition with at the time was.......?

Those with brains and a dose of common sense can send their answers in on a postcard to;

Fernando Alonso Competition..............


Was after the China GP, which Kimi won, but in those conditions, all McLaren / Ferrari drivers were in position to win, and Kubica as well before his failure.