Is Fernando Alonso for real? [Archive]

race aficionado

8th April 2007, 18:22

Now this is the understatement thread title of the year.

When young Fernando appeared in Renault and started winning, we were also all witnessing a new fantastic car (design and engine) appearing front and center ....and challenging Michael and his Ferrari.
While many of us were waiting and expecting Juan Pablo or Kimi to dethrone the Champ Michael, Fernando appeared front and center and for 2 years in a row showed us all who was the new King.
. . . . . but he was driving that amazing blue car that seemed indestructible... so that was why he was probably winning would be the sarcastics fan point of view . . .

Then his bonehead and untimely move to Mclaren - well, at least I thought it was bonehead and untimely - why leave a winning team for a mediocre and unrealiable "exploding motor" team?
Well, Alonso comes in, gets into a Mclaren and says: "No wonder Kimi could not beat me in this car" and then proceedes to work with the team to set up the car, or whatever it is that they did so that this car no longer goes "Boom!"

What is the reason for this great upsurge of McLaren?
Does Alonso have a lot to do with it? It looks like it is because what a change a year makes.
Kimi and Juan never had it like this and I am no F1 genius to know the answer but I do tend to go towards Alonso's talents having to do with it.

McLaren are in for a great year.
The champ Alonso is shinning again and he has a superb team mate.
Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Alonso on those new and improved Mclarens are going to take us for a ride.

:s mokin:

e2mtt

8th April 2007, 18:29

fizzicist

8th April 2007, 20:23

Lest we forget that by about May/June last year, Mclaren knew that both their drivers were leaving. At that point in time, they were in a so-so position championship wise. They froze development and started on the 07 car.

Fernando is brilliant, but it ain't all him. Remember the upsurge in Ferrari's form when Irvine was allowed to test. Schuey had a lot to do with it, but lets not get carried away!

Juppe

8th April 2007, 20:58

Yeah it looks like the results are speaking for themselves. Just as MS was essential in molding Ferrari back into a winning team, FA seems to have brought along both the winning attitude AND the technical smartness that it takes to be WDC. I have to think that Mclaren's fantastic starting ability so far must be in part due to Alonso's setup & tuning preferences, as that was of course a strong point of the Renault.

You guys are really reading too much in this. McLaren has been a fast car every other year and this tendency seems to continue. It is too early to say, if they will be reliable this year as well, but we will see.

2005 McLaren was the fastest car on the grid, I wouldn't say it was all because of Kimi's car development abilities.

akv89

9th April 2007, 00:54

Alonso is the youngest race winner, champion, and double-world champion and the man to dethrone Michael Schumacher. You can't pull off things like that simply with a good car. I think he's already proved his worth as the best complete driver on the current grid and he will probably continue to do so at whatever team he is in the next few years. If he can keep up the snobbish image that some have of him, then he may even be as polarizing a figure as Schumacher ;)

jso1985

9th April 2007, 01:06

I think Fernando Alonso motivated the team to work harder but he didn't do any miracle, McLaren has been a winning team for many years, not far back in time in 2005 they had the fastest car. So Alonso helped a lot but I still think the team could have made a good car without him.
Now that Fernando can do impressive drives like the one he did today is certainly something not many can do !

Ranger

9th April 2007, 02:15

Of course he's for real!

The statistics speak for themselves. Youngest world champion, double world champion, race winner, pole winner.

I think that's pretty real to me.

ShiftingGears

9th April 2007, 02:24

I think that hes got a good chance of being the only person since Fangio to win back to back world championships in different teams.

Sleeper

9th April 2007, 03:02

The MP4-22 woul have been a top line car whoever was driving it, remember the design was all but complete by the time Alonso first set foot in a McLaren. The strength of the basic car has nothing to do with him, though he most certainly will be the one to lead the development of the car along with de la Rosa.

leopard

9th April 2007, 06:01

It is simply because Alonso has ability to dig more potency of the real capacity of the car, luckily Mercedez has it better than Renault.

PSfan

9th April 2007, 06:53

cannonman

9th April 2007, 07:10

Dirty tactics? Hamilton was "damn fast" until he got in front of the ferraris? So...for less than half a lap? Balderdash!

I wouldn't read to much into a snippet of a radio comment. The comment has other more likely interpretations. For example, "one of these times, i want to be as fast as alonso was today and then i'll win a race".

Let's hold back from the allegations of team orders and/or dirty tactics until it's a LOT more obvious. PSFan, why is it so hard to believe that Alonso, a double world champion, is legitimatley faster than Lewis Hamilton (whom without a doubt is immensley talented), a rookie in his second F1 race?

Obviously, Alonso is "for real"

F1boat

9th April 2007, 08:48

Well, probably Lewis blocked Massa and Kimi - by the way it shows that he is unnaturally calm, but with modern F1 cars this is not that hard IMO, but I think that Alonso is simply faster than Hamilton. In the final stint Lewis wasn't blocking anyone and Alonso still extended his lead tremendously.
And about Kimi topic, it's normal, it's OK. Both Kimi and Alonso are terrific drivers. They are for real. We should be happy that there are two great F1 drivers today.

Donney

9th April 2007, 11:32

Well he seems real to me. He made Ranult a winning team, and now he's gone and look Renault is, of course there's always the tires issue.

He went to Mclaren and brought that little extra that separates a good team from a winning team, and they also had to go from Michelins to Bridgestones.

Obviously he's driving a great car, but I think the driver input has something to do with the pre-season work and development.

F1boat

9th April 2007, 12:39

jens

9th April 2007, 13:30

It seems that the prohibition of alcohol has had a good effect on McLaren drivers. :D

But it also looks to me that after the departure of Räikkönen and Newey McLaren-Mercedes has somehow found a new breathing. New driver line-up and also team's personnel has really already had a positive and refreshing effect. For many years McLaren had fast or reliable car - but never both. Now it seems that they have both! I thought that after all those changes it may take a bit of time for McLaren to find themselves again, but it has happened sooner than I expected!

samuratt

9th April 2007, 17:15

He is real! :up:

I think he has a lto to do with developing the car potential, but do not get me wrong the car potential was there thanks the the engineers who have made a great job too.

Since Alonso went to McLaren he has been working either at the track or at the factory constantly trying to improve the car everyway he could and pushing the team to got better (remember his words saying beforer Australia that the car was not ready to win, or how he wanted to saty a day more testing in Barhein due to the terrific ferrari's pace...). Do you remember about any other driver who take so damn seriously his job???? yes I do, and as much is I did not liked him, he was no other that probably the driver in the world: Michael Schumacher.

I wuold like to point out another thing about the Malasyan race, and it is about stratagy. i think that Ross Brawn retirement has hurted ferrari very badly. Look at the race and you will see that after the pitstops the ferrari never were able to run in free air... while on the other hand McLaren, who had made a lot of strategies misteakes in the past few years, made it look like Ross himself was the master of puppets at Mclaren.

so, this leds me to the next question: how can a team change so much in just 6 months????? is it Alonso for real?????

:D

samuratt

9th April 2007, 17:31

i found a commet of james Allen about Alonso which i found interesting too:
"If he can win, he wins, if he can’t he finishes second"

That is a very tough driver to beat!
:D

ioan

9th April 2007, 20:06

He is real!

Have to admit you are right! :D

so, this leds me to the next question: how can a team change so much in just 6 months?????

Well in fact they started to design this year's car around one year ago, not 6 months.

One thing that helps them hugely is the rev limitation on the engine, I honestly doubt that the Mercedes would have been this good compared to the competition if they would have all run those over 20000 revs/min they showed they were capable of last season. But with 19000 Merc got the chance to get them all limited to its own level.

Garry Walker

9th April 2007, 20:50

One thing that helps them hugely is the rev limitation on the engine, I honestly doubt that the Mercedes would have been this good compared to the competition if they would have all run those over 20000 revs/min they showed they were capable of last season. But with 19000 Merc got the chance to get them all limited to its own level.

Also the new tyre rules have helped them tremendously. Also the fact that they started desiging this years car earlier than usual last year, because they saw they werent good enough last season.

Alonso should try to win/beat his teammate without team-orders

ArrowsFA1

9th April 2007, 22:03

Alonso should try to win/beat his teammate without team-orders
Here we go :rolleyes:

race aficionado

9th April 2007, 22:41

Now that I think of it, it must be his new haircut -

Also fortunately he still shows his uniqueness on his "get out of his car" celebrations and his zig zag stint before crossing the finish line was fun too.

Whatever it is that has happened with these new McLarens - the engineers, designers, and all of the rest of the wizzards that specialize in this F1 business coupled with the drivers input has made a great difference to the car that my man Juan once drove with team McLaren.

Pitty that Juan nor Kimi had the benefit of what seems to be a fast but most important, a reliable racing car.

How did it happen? Many of you have given your oppinion on how it happened and the bottom line is that I'm glad for Alonso and Hamilton and of course, for the excitement that it may continue to bring to this sport.

:s mokin:

Cozzie

10th April 2007, 00:37

Alonso will become a legend, just like Schumacher, Senna, Clark, Stewart etc. As far as this year goes, Fernando Alonso three time world champion has a nice ring to it!

jjanicke

10th April 2007, 03:59

samuratt

10th April 2007, 10:31

Have to admit you are right! :D

Well in fact they started to design this year's car around one year ago, not 6 months.

One thing that helps them hugely is the rev limitation on the engine, I honestly doubt that the Mercedes would have been this good compared to the competition if they would have all run those over 20000 revs/min they showed they were capable of last season. But with 19000 Merc got the chance to get them all limited to its own level.

You are right about the engine, but I think that the car has improved a lot in every area, if compared with lasts years car. So, not only the rev limited engines have helped them. ;)

Mark

10th April 2007, 10:39

Please help us understand how a team switching from a different constructors tire to a spec tire will have a "tremendous" benefit?

Why didn't renault, honda, bmw, ... benefit tremendously?

It's the nature of rule changes that quite often teams have to take a best guess as to how to adapt to them, some teams will get it right i.e. McLaren, some teams will get it horribly wrong, i.e. Honda.

raphael123

10th April 2007, 10:57

3 weeks ago did I sleep in and miss the "Is Kimi for real thread?"

Seems to me, they each have 1 win... Except Kimi's win didn't reek of dirty tactics (which confuses the hell out of me cause I thought it was Ferrari's specialties, I'm sure they'll do it too first chance they get.)

Funny how Hamilton's car was damn quick until he got in front of the Ferrari's, add that to his "I wanna win" comments over the radio, followed by the I made him make a mistake comments.

I'll translate his radio conversation as: "One of these times, you'll let me race, and have Alonso hold everybody up"

And his "Forced Massa to make a mistake" remindsa me of some jerks I use to work with that on the drive home after work would insist on driving 20km below the speed limit, and speed up when you tried to pass.

What dirty tactics?

And Hamilton was damn quick until he got infront of the Ferrari? You mean the first corner? Before that, Hamilton was nearly 1sec slower than Alonso in qualifying. Or do you expect Hamilton to be at Alonso's level after 1 GP race experience?

And were you expecting Hamilton to say 'I don't want to win' after finishing second? I just think it's Hamilton saying what he's done even before Oz, he wants to win races. No one else 'translated' it quite the way you have.

The only thing I agree is when Hamilton said he forced Massa into a mistake was quite arrogant. However I'd rather have him say that, than be all politically correct. We need a character, I hope McLaren let him show us his personality, not just his racing talent.

raphael123

10th April 2007, 11:06

Also the new tyre rules have helped them tremendously. Also the fact that they started desiging this years car earlier than usual last year, because they saw they werent good enough last season.

Alonso should try to win/beat his teammate without team-orders

Where did Alonso benefit from team orders in this race? Hamilton managed to get past the Ferraris, but he wasn't holding them up by compromising his race. He was going as fast as he could.

Should Schumacher have tried to win without team orders?

What I found interesting was when Martin Brundle asked Massa if he would be allowed to beat Kimi, Jean Todt interrupted him and said 'Can you not ask some GOOD questions'. Jean Todt really did look embarrassed by the suggestion that Massa may have to help out Kimi.

Shows how it was obviously Schumacher who implemented the ruling at Ferrari for a decade that there should be a clear No1 and No2! Though for those who were watching F1 in the 90's knew that Ferrari never had a system in place before Schumacher, and Benetton got rid of it as soon as he left for Ferrari.

Still, glad to see Jean Todt knows the difference between right and wrong now it seems :)

Btw, regarding the reliability of the McLarens. It was only Kimi who suffered so many problems. Yes Montoya had the odd mechanical failure, but nothing in comparison to Kimi!

And Kimi's race was compromised due to an engine related problem which started in Oz. Saying that, if everyone says it's just circumstantial, it obviously is :)

ioan

10th April 2007, 11:55

Where did Alonso benefit from team orders in this race? Hamilton managed to get past the Ferraris, but he wasn't holding them up by compromising his race. He was going as fast as he could.

:rolleyes: :laugh:

raphael123

10th April 2007, 12:51

:rolleyes: :laugh:

Wow, did you just not critizise Arrows F1 for responding with smilies? So are you a hypocrite as well as a liar? Or is that too personal? Sorry :)

I don't mind discussing things with you, if you actually have anything intelligent to say on the matter.

I'm assuming you think Hamilton was DELIBERATELY driving slowly to hold up Ferrari?

As I said, I'll discuss things with you, if you can actual back up your opinions, and reply with some sort of intelligence. Maybe start with a sentence? :)

ioan

10th April 2007, 13:10

Wow, did you just not critizise Arrows F1 for responding with smilies? So are you a hypocrite as well as a liar? Or is that too personal? Sorry :)

You might have want to read again my post to Arrows.
Arrows was laughing about a very realistic point, while I am laughing about a very laughable suggestion.

BTW do you know who posted the fastest lap of the race?

ArrowsFA1

10th April 2007, 13:19

Arrows was laughing about a very realistic point, while I am laughing about a very laughable suggestion.
:laugh:

Try guessing what I'm laughing about now :p ;)

raphael123

10th April 2007, 13:31

You might have want to read again my post to Arrows.
Arrows was laughing about a very realistic point, while I am laughing about a very laughable suggestion.

BTW do you know who posted the fastest lap of the race?

Ioan, be mature.

Explain yourself. Back up what you say.

What is laughable about the fact Hamilton was simply not as quick as Alonso over the course of a race distance?

I'm not denying the fact that Alonso benefitted from the fact Hamilton held up the Ferrari. I find it strange you find it 'laughable' for me to believe Hamilton (1 F1 GP experience) was simply not a match for Alonso (2 x WC).

I find it strange to see Ferrari/Michael fans going on about team order's 2 races after Michael has retired. As I said in another topic, Jean Todt seemed embarassed by it!

PS: Also notice how Hamilton was 1sec a lap slower than Alonso in the final stint. Why on earth would he have done that on purpose? All it resulted in was he was put under immense pressure from Kimi. At the end of the day Hamilton wasn't as quick as Alonso over the course of a race distance. It really isn't that absurb of a thing to admit!!

ioan

10th April 2007, 14:47

:laugh:

Try guessing what I'm laughing about now :p ;)

:rolleyes: :p :

ioan

10th April 2007, 14:51

Ioan, be mature.

Explain yourself. Back up what you say.

What is laughable about the fact Hamilton was simply not as quick as Alonso over the course of a race distance?

OK, let's see, what you first said:

Hamilton managed to get past the Ferraris, but he wasn't holding them up by compromising his race. He was going as fast as he could.

He wasn't holding them up? Are you kidding or you really believe it? Hamilton was the fastest out there Sunday, but team orders are team orders (and I have nothing against them given that I am a Ferrari fan), and he had to make sure that FA was clear before he upped his pace.
Of course he wasn't as fast as Alonso over the, cause he had to lose time at the beginning playing "Barichello"!

raphael123

10th April 2007, 14:59

OK, let's see, what you first said:

He wasn't holding them up? Are you kidding or you really believe it? Hamilton was the fastest out there Sunday, but team orders are team orders (and I have nothing against them given that I am a Ferrari fan), and he had to make sure that FA was clear before he upped his pace.
Of course he wasn't as fast as Alonso over the, cause he had to lose time at the beginning playing "Barichello"!

I see where this is coming from. It's your lack of understanding of the English language which has thrown you.

I said Hamilton wasn't holding back the Ferraris by compromising his race (in other words, more simple words, just for you - he wasn't driving slower than what he could achieve).

As I pointed out, the last stint again Hamilton couldn't keep up to Alonso's pace.

Please read it properly before commenting on my posts, or just don't bother :)

Ranger

10th April 2007, 15:05

I see where this is coming from. It's your lack of understanding of the English language which has thrown you.

I'm pretty sure he knows exactly what you're saying. I think he just disagrees with this:

He wasn't driving slower than what he could achieve

And I question that a little as well.

ioan

10th April 2007, 15:08

I see where this is coming from. It's your lack of understanding of the English language which has thrown you.

Don't worry I understand and speak English much better than you do Romanian, Hungarian, French, Italian and German (which I also do speak), so as I told you get of the high horse and discuss the threads subject not the members of the forum.

airshifter

10th April 2007, 15:08

ioan

10th April 2007, 15:20

Race,

I do think Alonso has a great deal of talent and is without a doubt "for real". I also hope that McLaren gets back into the game with their cars holding up better. But, history shows us that what killed both Montoya and even worse Kimi was the fact that the engines kept going south.

I think it's too early to get the hopes up for a Mclaren season win. They already had capable drivers in past years, they simply didn't have capable engines.

The FIA took care of that limiting the engines revs to 90% of what the best could do last season ad to that the engine development freeze and Mercedes are on a level playing field with the rest of them for the first time since 2000.

andreag

10th April 2007, 15:34

The FIA took care of that limiting the engines revs to 90% of what the best could do last season
Maybe last season engine revs were over the 100%:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym0Nzp0d2VQ

TMorel

10th April 2007, 16:03

93VTEC

10th April 2007, 16:19

>>The FIA took care of that
ZOMG! the FIA are always helping Ferrari... erm I mean Renault... erm I mean McLaren
(I'm confused, can some one help me out with this seasons conspiracy theories? maybe with a flowchart)

LOL

Back to the topic. Fernando is for real, he smoked Ferraris Nough said. All this he had help from his teammate thing is absolute rubbish. Hamilton was heavier on fuel, and anyone that believes that a rookie racing in only his 2nd race with heavier fuel can beat his 2xWDC teammate is high on some cheap stuff. Perhaps if Hamilton started the race on less fuel, we could start discussing possible team orders, but under the circumstances that he started in, he had no chance. Perhaps McLaren knowing that they have great starts, they decided to fill up Hamilton in hopes, that his skill and starting speed of McLaren would put him ahead of the Ferraris and then hold them there. That is not team orders, just genious race strategy. Perhaps if Massa was not such a fool, he would have passed Hamilton and made for a more interesting race. Speaking of Massa, he hsould be #2, he doesn't deserve to have #1 status.

ioan

10th April 2007, 16:27

Maybe last season engine revs were over the 100%:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym0Nzp0d2VQ

There is no over 100% in mechanics.
If an engine goes to 21000 revs/min than that's it's 100%, if it gets to 25000 than that's the 100%.

Back to Mercedes, they never looked like having the best engines since 1999/2000, their power plants were either fast and unreliable or slow and reliable.

ArrowsFA1

10th April 2007, 16:38

Back to Mercedes, they never looked like having the best engines since 1999/2000, their power plants were either fast and unreliable or slow and reliable.
That's the past. Now they have what seems to be a fast and reliable car, the 2xWDC, and the finest rookie to enter F1 for many, many years. That makes for a tough combination to beat :cool:

jas123f1

10th April 2007, 17:10

[quote="raphael123"]Where did Alonso benefit from team orders in this race? Hamilton managed to get past the Ferraris, but he wasn't holding them up by compromising his race. He was going as fast as he could.
QUOTE]

Sure :angel: He was going as fast as he should... and that,s racing ... ;)

rabf1

10th April 2007, 18:47

I don't think you can give Alonso much credit for making the McLaren car what it is at this point. As people pointed out above, the car was basically done before Alonso ever stepped foot in there. McLaren has produced a top car again and it didn't have anything to do with who the drivers were going to be.

To me, the question isn't whether Alonso is "for real." The real question is how did he get so lucky. He was at Renault at their peak and then he switches to McLaren who had been down a little just as they produce a top car and Renault falls back.

Donney

10th April 2007, 19:43

And you don't see that among many different factors the common one is Alonso?

I'm not saying he designed the car, but come on!

race aficionado

10th April 2007, 20:08

Going back to "hear say" and things that were written a while ago,
didn't FA get to drive the McCar for the first time and say "No wonder Kimi couldn't beat me driving this . . ."

If he did actually say this, when in the time line of the new car development did he say it?

tough question for sure because what the heck do we know . . .

any takers?????

:s mokin:

janneppi

10th April 2007, 20:20

race aficionado, I heard that comment in connection with Alonso after driving last years Macca.

race aficionado

10th April 2007, 20:31

race aficionado, I heard that comment in connection with Alonso after driving last years Macca.

thanks janneppi.
If I recall correctly FA was not allowed to get into a MacCar after contract responsibilities with Renault - or something like that . . . . the fact is that he had to wait a while before he was allowed into one.
So did he drive a Mac that was under development or did he drive an old version that happened to be in the garage?

I just ask this because I would like to believe that FA had a lot to add in terms of making the car what it is today. Just by listening to him talk to the engineers and thank them at the end of the race, it is obvious that he is involved and aware of all the hard work in setups and all.

:s mokin:

jjanicke

10th April 2007, 21:02

It's the nature of rule changes that quite often teams have to take a best guess as to how to adapt to them, some teams will get it right i.e. McLaren, some teams will get it horribly wrong, i.e. Honda.

So a team with no bridgestone experience over the last 6 years, benefitted more than all other teams, including the ones that had been on bridgestone for years?

Donney

10th April 2007, 21:09

thanks janneppi.
If I recall correctly FA was not allowed to get into a MacCar after contract responsibilities with Renault - or something like that . . . . the fact is that he had to wait a while before he was allowed into one.
So did he drive a Mac that was under development or did he drive an old version that happened to be in the garage?

I just ask this because I would like to believe that FA had a lot to add in terms of making the car what it is today. Just by listening to him talk to the engineers and thank them at the end of the race, it is obvious that he is involved and aware of all the hard work in setups and all.

:s mokin:

If I recall correctly it was related to another comment, he supposedly made. When he first arrived to McLaren he was under contractual limitations from Renault so he could not drive the car. It seems he tried the simulator machine and he said to the engineers he needed a better machine because that one was completely rubbish. After driving the 2006 car in December he talked to the engineers again and said that the simulator was perfect it was the car which was entirely wrong, and he then said "no wonder Kimi couldn't beat me on this"

rlenis

10th April 2007, 22:00

yes

rabf1

10th April 2007, 22:31

Alonso is a great driver, no doubt. But I think anyone who says he is the reason the car is so good is living in a fantasy world. My guess is that kimi had a lot more to do with the car than Alonso. I am sure Kimi told them what was wrong with the old car which would have influenced the design of the new car.

andreag

11th April 2007, 00:57

Maybe you're the one who live in a fantasy world.

After Malaysian GP finished, Alonso had a two and a half hours meeting with the engineers, to talk about the race, the recent improvements (how the new front wing did), the weakest points, and how all this would be facing Bahrain. By the time he left Sepang, Kimi (is an example) had left almost two hours before.

In words of Martin Whitmarsh, his dedication to the team has been an inspiration to everyone in McLaren. They were simply not used to this level of feedback from their recent drivers.

That's what right now they're missing in Renault.

PSfan

11th April 2007, 04:38

What dirty tactics?

And Hamilton was damn quick until he got infront of the Ferrari? You mean the first corner? Before that, Hamilton was nearly 1sec slower than Alonso in qualifying. Or do you expect Hamilton to be at Alonso's level after 1 GP race experience?

And were you expecting Hamilton to say 'I don't want to win' after finishing second? I just think it's Hamilton saying what he's done even before Oz, he wants to win races. No one else 'translated' it quite the way you have.

The only thing I agree is when Hamilton said he forced Massa into a mistake was quite arrogant. However I'd rather have him say that, than be all politically correct. We need a character, I hope McLaren let him show us his personality, not just his racing talent.

What dirty tactics? Ok here we go, on Hamilton's first stint with Massa and Kimi on his tail, Hamilton was dropping almost a sec. a lap to Alonso. After the first round of pit stops, Kimi came out about 10 sec back of Hamilton, on that stint Hamilton was actually faster then Alonso clawing back to I believe less then 8 secs to Alonso. After the last set of stops, After Hamilton cleared the Honda's he was about 20 secs back of Alonso, but cut it to about 17 after he was pushed by Kimi. So there is no way your gonna convince me that Hamilton was almost a sec a lap slower then Alonso in the first stint without being told to hold up the ferraris (Hamilton did set fast lap of the race remember...)

And Ron Dennis almost confirmed as much after the race anyways with:

team boss Ron Dennis' hints to reporters after the race that both Alonso and Hamilton contributed "tactically" to the victory
http://www.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/070409161844.shtml

Yes I know Haug denies it in that story, but who would believe that when lap time say otherwise, and Ron has other things to say:

“He was very, very committed and clean, and of course withstanding the pressure of a charging Kimi. He could have gone quicker, but the key is to finish and get the best result you can, and it’s not about by how much.

http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/formulaone/36560/

And As I suggested, the only way I can imagine he could have forced anyone to make a mistake would be to drive a tad slower, and then speed up so that Massa couldn't get back to the racing line. And I would also like to note that Hamilton had a pretty good wheel lock up when Masse flew by and off track...

jjanicke

11th April 2007, 06:05

What dirty tactics? Ok here we go, on Hamilton's first stint with Massa and Kimi on his tail, Hamilton was dropping almost a sec. a lap to Alonso. After the first round of pit stops, Kimi came out about 10 sec back of Hamilton, on that stint Hamilton was actually faster then Alonso clawing back to I believe less then 8 secs to Alonso. After the last set of stops, After Hamilton cleared the Honda's he was about 20 secs back of Alonso, but cut it to about 17 after he was pushed by Kimi. So there is no way your gonna convince me that Hamilton was almost a sec a lap slower then Alonso in the first stint without being told to hold up the ferraris (Hamilton did set fast lap of the race remember...)

And Ron Dennis almost confirmed as much after the race anyways with:

Yes I know Haug denies it in that story, but who would believe that when lap time say otherwise, and Ron has other things to say:

And As I suggested, the only way I can imagine he could have forced anyone to make a mistake would be to drive a tad slower, and then speed up so that Massa couldn't get back to the racing line. And I would also like to note that Hamilton had a pretty good wheel lock up when Masse flew by and off track...

I concur with all your points, however I don't see the "dirty tactics". Hamilton was driving a smart race for himself and Mclaren, wouldn't you say?

Shalafi

11th April 2007, 07:04

McLaren has finally made a reliable AND quick car, like in 1998. I have to say though that last year I was thinking that Alonso is absolutely stunning driver. Now he has problems against a ROOKIE. So he is not that special after all. However talented Hamilton is, with Alonsos supposed greatness, there should be more difference between them. But there is not.

jjanicke

11th April 2007, 07:23

Shalafi

11th April 2007, 07:42

I'm not so sure. Hamilton has had quite the upbringing in the ranks of open wheelers. He's a very experienced multi-champion.

Yes, he is extremely talented, for sure. But my point was that while people claim how dominant and great Alonso is, he doesnt seem much better than Hamilton who is a rookie and must go through some learning experiences. He will soon start to beat Alonso...How "special" Alonso is then...? ;)

Ranger

11th April 2007, 07:43

Now he has problems against a ROOKIE. So he is not that special after all.

I can guarantee you that all drivers on the grid would have "problems" with said rookie. So I think that credits Hamilton as opposed to detracting from Alonso.

Besides, Alonso has qualified and raced better than his team-mate has, including one win. I don't see how he has had any "problems" thus far.

Now to you, that may not be special, but F1 isn't and was never about being "special".

As far as I'm concerned, F1 is about winning.

And Alonso has won the past two F1 championships, being the youngest driver to do so. Now I personally think that's pretty special.

Shalafi

11th April 2007, 08:04

I can guarantee you that all drivers on the grid would have "problems" with said rookie. So I think that credits Hamilton as opposed to detracting from Alonso.

Besides, Alonso has qualified and raced better than his team-mate has, including one win. I don't see how he has had any "problems" thus far.

Now to you, that may not be special, but F1 isn't and was never about being "special".

As far as I'm concerned, F1 is about winning.

And Alonso has won the past two F1 championships, being the youngest driver to do so. Now I personally think that's pretty special.

How difficult it is to understand what I ment... When Hamilton is immediately this close to Alonso, give him more time to get used to F1 more, to know the tracks better and to get better as a driver, he will beat Alonso not before long. So, Alonso for sure is a good driver BUT I thought he was a better driver than it now seems and Renault really had a super car for last two seasons. Its just my opinion.

Ranger

11th April 2007, 08:18

How difficult it is to understand what I ment... When Hamilton is immediately this close to Alonso, give him more time to get used to F1 more, to know the tracks better and to get better as a driver, he will beat Alonso not before long. So, Alonso for sure is a good driver BUT I thought he was a better driver than it now seems and Renault really had a super car for last two seasons. Its just my opinion.

What has the speed of the Renault for the past two years got to do with anything? Remember, like Benneton in 1994-95 with Schumacher, Renault wouldn't have won anything without Alonso there.

What I don't understand is your perceived problems Alonso has had. Alonso has beaten his team-mate twice in two attempts, has not been pressured by his team-mate has made no mistakes in doing so.

It may be well-hidden to some people, but Alonso is a brilliant driver.

Shalafi

11th April 2007, 08:32

What has the speed of the Renault for the past two years got to do with anything? Remember, like Benneton in 1994-95 with Schumacher, Renault wouldn't have won anything without Alonso there.

What I don't understand is your perceived problems Alonso has had. Alonso has beaten his team-mate twice in two attempts, has not been pressured by his team-mate has made no mistakes in doing so.

It may be well-hidden to some people, but Alonso is a brilliant driver.

Renault was made for Alonsos unique driving style and they had a great package. It obviously made him look better than he is. Yes, Alonso has beat Hamilton, but pacewise they are very close to each other, it seems. If Alonso is such a brilliant driver, should there be more gap between them? Considering Hamilton is just learning F1 and tracks and will surely improve a lot in next two years...

I dont want to take anything away from Alonso, his records speaks for itself, but he is not a second incarnation of God and he is not the only reason why Renault is now in such a mess and why McLaren is now quick again. Some people seem to think so...

leopard

11th April 2007, 08:51

I think it is now even a layman inclined to think that Alonso isn't an average driver, as opposed to the fact that many said he was having a great regret when he decided to leave Renault which was on top performance for McLaren which was having less reliability.

In this two opening races Renault, the former consecutive two winning car didn't look even better than midfield car, is a point that Alonso had remarkable contribution on the last Renault.

I’m not sure, would Hamilton perform such impressive if he is driving last year's McLaren.

Ranger

11th April 2007, 08:57

I dont want to take anything away from Alonso, his records speaks for itself, but he is not a second incarnation of God and he is not the only reason why Renault is now in such a mess and why McLaren is now quick again. Some people seem to think so...

I, for one, am not one of those people. :)

I agree with the rest of your post, except this:

Renault was made for Alonsos unique driving style and they had a great package.
True. Alonso basically developed that car, made the team work around him and showed the results by winning two titles.

It obviously made him look better than he is.
But I really do not understand this. How can you look better than you are, when you've just won a race and finished second in the other race, and beating your team-mate, on your first two races for a completely new team?

Shalafi

11th April 2007, 09:21

But I really do not understand this. How can you look better than you are, when you've just won a race and finished second in the other race, and beating your team-mate, on your first two races for a completely new team?

I ment in Renault-times compared to Fisi who had a great difficulty to drive a car that was designed perfect for Alonso. Now when he is in a new team that made the car without Alonsos influence, rookie driver is very close to him when before the season all people thought that Hamilton would be a way behind Alonso. Im sure that if Mac had been developed like Renault, to perfectly suit Alonsos driving style, Hamilton wouldnt be nearly as close to him as he is right now.

Ranger

11th April 2007, 09:40

I ment in Renault-times compared to Fisi who had a great difficulty to drive a car that was designed perfect for Alonso. Now when he is in a new team that made the car without Alonsos influence, rookie driver is very close to him when before the season all people thought that Hamilton would be a way behind Alonso. Im sure that if Mac had been developed like Renault, to perfectly suit Alonsos driving style, Hamilton wouldnt be nearly as close to him as he is right now.

Ah, I see where you're at.

Well in contrast, I just think that's because Hamilton is pretty bloody good, especially compared to someone like Fisi.

raphael123

11th April 2007, 09:41

Mallen, I questioned Ioans understanding of English due to the fact, for whatever reason, he thought I'd stated that I didn't believe Hamilton held up the Ferraris - when I stated I don't think he did it by compromising his race. I hope that's cleared it up.

I don't see why people believe Hamilton did deliberately drive slower than he could to hold up the Ferrari's. Hamilton qualified 0.7 behind Alonso. He was around 0.9-1s slower in the first stint. Its to be expected you lose a bit of time (0.2-0.3 at least) when you have to drive as defensively as Lewis did to keep the Ferrari's back, when you have to take different lines and different braking points.

Ranger

11th April 2007, 09:43

I don't see why people believe Hamilton did deliberately drive slower than he could to hold up the Ferrari's. Hamilton qualified 0.7 behind Alonso. He was around 0.9-1s slower in the first stint. Its to be expected you lose a bit of time (0.2-0.3 at least) when you have to drive as defensively as Lewis did to keep the Ferrari's back, when you have to take different lines and different braking points.

Yes, but if I were a McLaren critic, I would say that's pretty damn suss though.

Shalafi

11th April 2007, 09:48

Hamilton qualified 0.7 behind Alonso. He was around 0.9-1s slower in the first stint. Its to be expected you lose a bit of time (0.2-0.3 at least) when you have to drive as defensively as Lewis did to keep the Ferrari's back, when you have to take different lines and different braking points.

I read somewhere that Hamilton blew his las quali-lap because he he thought it was gonna rain and that is why he lost so much compared to Alonso...

Of course he deliberately holded Ferraris, it was only common sense to do that.

Shalafi

11th April 2007, 09:53

Ah, I see where you're at.

Well in contrast, I just think that's because Hamilton is pretty bloody good, especially compared to someone like Fisi.

And that takes away some of the Alonsos unique brilliance, would you say? ;)

Think what will happen next year, Hamilton knows the tracks, has driven F1 a year and is much more comfortable. If Alonso is brilliant and Hamilton starts to beat him consistently what is Hamilton then? Or is there a little possibility that Alonso is not as good as everyone thought... :)

raphael123

11th April 2007, 09:57

Yes, but if I were a McLaren critic, I would say that's pretty damn suss though.

I'm not saying you hate McLaren, but a 'McLaren-hater' I guess could say it's suss.

But when you look at the figures. It really isn't that unrealistic! If anything he should have been losing even more time some might say!

raphael123

11th April 2007, 10:03

What dirty tactics? Ok here we go, on Hamilton's first stint with Massa and Kimi on his tail, Hamilton was dropping almost a sec. a lap to Alonso. After the first round of pit stops, Kimi came out about 10 sec back of Hamilton, on that stint Hamilton was actually faster then Alonso clawing back to I believe less then 8 secs to Alonso. After the last set of stops, After Hamilton cleared the Honda's he was about 20 secs back of Alonso, but cut it to about 17 after he was pushed by Kimi. So there is no way your gonna convince me that Hamilton was almost a sec a lap slower then Alonso in the first stint without being told to hold up the ferraris (Hamilton did set fast lap of the race remember...)

Yes, he was quite far off Alonso in Qualie, and then on top of having to drive as defensively as he did against the Ferrari's, losing 1sec a lap really wasn't that much of a surprise. On top of that he had more fuel.

Yes he caught up Alonso in the 2nd stint. One because he pitted in later, which helped him catch Alonso, then on top of that, he had a shorter pitstop (hence why he pitted in BEFORE Alonso for the 2nd pitstop, even though he came in later), and by then Alonso wasn't pushing like he was in the 1st stint.

And I think you'll find for the majority of the 3rd stint, Alonso was clearly the quicker driver right until the end when Alonso justed cruised to the finish in the final couple of laps. Hamilton struggled in that last stint.

Just because Ron stated it was a good tactical victory, I don't think he meant he asked Hamilton to slow down, more likely he told him to make sure they didn't get passed, and the pit stop strategies worked to perfection etc. I think we have got so use to Ferrari's way of using team-orders, some people assume every team will stoop to Ferrari's level, which even Ferrari don't do anymore since the departure of the man who wanted it implemented, Michael Schumacher.

ShiftingGears

11th April 2007, 10:04

Think what will happen next year,

No need to get ahead of yourself ;) lets wait and see!

Shalafi

11th April 2007, 10:06

No need to get ahead of yourself ;) lets wait and see!

Yes. It doesnt take that long...

jens

11th April 2007, 11:19

Shalafi

11th April 2007, 11:27

About Alonso vs Hamilton.

Alonso is still new to the team and probably the car is still not perfectly suitable to his driving style. If he gets used better to the car, then maybe he will beat Hamilton more convincingly? (LH started testing McLaren earlier than FA)

My wild quess would be that Hamilton have more potential to get better than Alonso... If other is 2 time WDC and other is rookie it would be quite bizarre to think that Alonso would be the one with more room to improve.

samuratt

11th April 2007, 11:29

Yes. It doesnt take that long...

I am goingo to apply the same logic you are using to compare Alonso and Hamilton, but with M Shucmacher and Massa in 2006. Michael is god and Massa was a noob, but Massa did beat michael on two occasions, so therefore we must asumed that after a year learning the car he would have been able to beat Michael consistently in 2007. If Massa is better than Schumi, and hamilton is better than Massa (for what we saw at malasya)... then is only about time Hamilton is the best driver of the world, without winning a race yet. If Massa is greater than Schumi and Alonso is better than Massa, then Alonso is better than Schumi. I am geting a little bit confused... So the list for best drivers goes like this:
1. Hamilton
2 Alonso
3. Massa
4 Michale Schumacher

Do you really believe it? On the other hand if you do really think that this years Mclaren cars potential has a lot more to do with Raikkonen's input rather than Alonso's, the why McLKaren have been so crappy the last 5 years, while Kimi was their car developer¿?

raphael123

11th April 2007, 11:32

It's quite clear Hamilton has done a wonderful job. But Alonso is still definately the King. To state otherwise is absurb. Who knows what will happen by the end of the year.

As for Kimi, it's quite well known the technical aspect of F1 is his weak link. Peter Saubers has said it, and he's not reknown for his technical feedback during his time at McLaren.

Donney

11th April 2007, 11:41

I ment in Renault-times compared to Fisi who had a great difficulty to drive a car that was designed perfect for Alonso. Now when he is in a new team that made the car without Alonsos influence, rookie driver is very close to him when before the season all people thought that Hamilton would be a way behind Alonso. Im sure that if Mac had been developed like Renault, to perfectly suit Alonsos driving style, Hamilton wouldnt be nearly as close to him as he is right now.

I see your point, but Alonso was a winner with a car perfectly designed for him, and now is a winner driving a car which is not built around his unique driving style. To me that means very good driver.

BTW Hamilton is another very good driver and time will tell if he is better than Alonso which is not impossible.

Shalafi

11th April 2007, 11:42

I am goingo to apply the same logic you are using to compare Alonso and Hamilton, but with M Shucmacher and Massa in 2006. Michael is god and Massa was a noob, but Massa did beat michael on two occasions, so therefore we must asumed that after a year learning the car he would have been able to beat Michael consistently in 2007. If Massa is better than Schumi, and hamilton is better than Massa (for what we saw at malasya)... then is only about time Hamilton is the best driver of the world, without winning a race yet. If Massa is greater than Schumi and Alonso is better than Massa, then Alonso is better than Schumi. I am geting a little bit confused... So the list for best drivers goes like this:
1. Hamilton
2 Alonso
3. Massa
4 Michale Schumacher

Do you really believe it? On the other hand if you do really think that this years Mclaren cars potential has a lot more to do with Raikkonen's input rather than Alonso's, the why McLKaren have been so crappy the last 5 years, while Kimi was their car developer¿?

That was the most confusing post I have seen for a long time...

But if you want my opinion... I think Kimi and Alonso are at the moment two best drivers, but I might of had either valued Alonso too high previously OR Hamilton is really, really brilliant driver.

Massa can be very quick at times, as he showed last year. On the other hand, MS wasnt as good last year anymore than he was when he was younger. Kimi is new to Ferrari but is already destroying Massa and will do even more so as season progresses.

As for Kimis car develop-abilities, McLaren was reliable in 2003, and fastest in 2005. It seems now that they finally have managed to do what they did in 1998, to build fast and reliable car.

Shalafi

11th April 2007, 11:44

I see your point, but Alonso was a winner with a car perfectly designed for him, and now is a winner driving a car which is not built around his unique driving style. To me that means very good driver.

BTW Hamilton is another very good driver and time will tell if he is better than Alonso which is not impossible.

Yes. At least someone understand what I am trying to say.

jjanicke

11th April 2007, 18:27

... On the other hand if you do really think that this years Mclaren cars potential has a lot more to do with Raikkonen's input rather than Alonso's, the why McLKaren have been so crappy the last 5 years, while Kimi was their car developer¿?

Mclaren wasn't "crappy" the last 5 years. In 2005 they very well could have won with a tiny little but more reliability. In 2003 the same. 2002 Ferrari were simply in a different league than Mclaren and the rest (same for 2004 but that year Mclaren sucked).

Schnell

11th April 2007, 19:30

Huh!!!...I felt sorry for Kimi in Sepang after the race...he suffers incredable unreliabilty (engines wasn't it?) when he was with McLaren, and then has to suffer a rookie and the World Champ benefitting from all new, total reliability, that they weren't anything to do with at all...and RD grinning like the preverbial cat that got the cream! Gutting!

rlenis

11th April 2007, 20:40

so far reliability in Ferrari is 50-50 between Kimi and Massa

F1boat

11th April 2007, 22:18

Alonso is Chuchk Norris in diguise. That's why he is winning.

Cozzie

12th April 2007, 00:40

Alonso Is A Legend! Eat Your Heart Out Michael Schumacher!

Donney

12th April 2007, 10:31

Alonso Is A Legend! Eat Your Heart Out Michael Schumacher!

Wow! Let's not get too carried away. :p He is on his way to become a real legend but so far Schumacher is out of reach.

Time will tell.

raphael123

12th April 2007, 11:10

They are leading very similar careers so far. Both joined Renault/Benetton (basically the same team) while they were the 3rd/4th best team, ended up winning two titles at a young age, both left the team after winning that 2nd title. Both times the Renault/Benettons have fallen behind. And now are we seeing Alonso bring McLaren their first championship in nearly 10yrs!?

I still think Ferrari will comfortably win both championship, but I'd be interested to see the stats of what Michael achieved at the same age. Anyone know?

I can't see Alonso beating Michael's stats, simply because Alonso has stated already he plans to hang up his helmet long before the age Michael stayed till. Also, I think Alonso has much more fierce competition in the likes of Kimi, Hamilton, even Button (when he gets a decent car). Schumacher, apart from his latter years, his only real rival was Mika Hakkinen, and that was only for 3yrs out of his 15yr career in F1. Damon Hill & Villenueve were no match for Schumacher really (I say that as a Hill fan too!!). Then Schumacher had by far the best machinery during 01 and 02, and in 03 I think Montoya would have probably won the title but for Michelin tyre controversy. Schumacher not no real challenge from a driver since Hakkinen, who was as talented AND had a car to compete until 2005.

I think Alonso is going to have some long battles against the likes of Kimi and Hamilton, even Kubica, Rosberg, Button - they all seem like the real deal at the moment. Michael never had that sort of competition. That's another reason why his stats look so good. Compare e.g. Prost, who had to deal with Senna, Mansell, Piquet, Lauda etc - these are all 'greats'. When looking at Michaels career, the closest guy we can call to being a great is Mika, and even then some would argue against that!

Ranger

13th April 2007, 01:26

I'd be interested to see the stats of what Michael achieved at the same age. Anyone know?

Alonso won his second World Championship at a younger age than Schumacher was when he won his first, but Michael had won more races by the time he left Renault/Benneton. Answer your question? :)

Cozzie

13th April 2007, 01:35

Alonso has now had 89 starts (90 races) starts for:
2 World Championships
16 wins
39 podiums
15 pole postions
(points are irrelevant as Schumacher raced this part of his career under the old scoring system.)
Michael Schumacher after 90 starts:
2 World Championships
24 Wins
49 Podiums
15 Pole positions

But the difficult thing is that Alonso raced one whole season in a very very slow car incapable of achieving anything (Minardi 2001) whereas Schumi only had six races with the Jordan which wasn't all that bad anyway.

Make your own conclusions.

race aficionado

13th April 2007, 01:43

. . . . .

Make your own conclusions.

Dam! they're good!

:s mokin:

Ranger

13th April 2007, 01:48

But the difficult thing is that Alonso raced one whole season in a very very slow car incapable of achieving anything (Minardi 2001) whereas Schumi only had six races with the Jordan which wasn't all that bad anyway.

Correction! 1 race with the Jordan and 5 or so races partnering Piquet in the Benneton which had won a race that year.

jjanicke

13th April 2007, 03:59

Malllen good catch. And the Benetton-Ford was 4th out of 17, and the Jordan-Ford 5th of 17 teams at the end of '91.

p.s. I would love to see 17 teams back on the grid again, batteling it out for a grid spot. It would make for a much more interesting weekend format. You could see F1 cars racing Fri-Sat with grid shootout races, and Sun the main event. Qualifying with a stock car, and racing in the F1 car. ;) that would be great.

Cozzie

13th April 2007, 05:35

Correction! 1 race with the Jordan and 5 or so races partnering Piquet in the Benneton which had won a race that year.

Yeah, sorry about that!!! :(

ioan

13th April 2007, 08:04

Correction! 1 race with the Jordan and 5 or so races partnering Piquet in the Benneton which had won a race that year.

Anyway who thinks that a rookie could have won in the 4th or 5th best car on the grid???

Also Michael didn't have 1 testing season in F1 to hone his skills so I don't see Fernando at a disadvantage.

wmcot

13th April 2007, 08:53

I don't see why people believe Hamilton did deliberately drive slower than he could to hold up the Ferrari's. Hamilton qualified 0.7 behind Alonso. He was around 0.9-1s slower in the first stint. Its to be expected you lose a bit of time (0.2-0.3 at least) when you have to drive as defensively as Lewis did to keep the Ferrari's back, when you have to take different lines and different braking points.

But Hamilton admitted that he was driving defensively to keep the quicker Ferraris behind him. Isn't that the definition of holding them up? (Not that there is anything wrong with defensive driving, just a matter of clarifying a point.)

raphael123

13th April 2007, 09:06

But Hamilton admitted that he was driving defensively to keep the quicker Ferraris behind him. Isn't that the definition of holding them up? (Not that there is anything wrong with defensive driving, just a matter of clarifying a point.)

He was holding them up yes, and deliberately in that he didn't just let them passed - but I think we're talking about whether the fact Hamilton was much quicker than that - nearer to Alonso's pace, but simply drove slowly so that Alonso could build up a lead. In otherwords did he significantly compromise his race speed, to deliberately hand Alonso a healthy lead? I've simply pointed out the facts that he was 0.6s slower than FA in Q2, 0.7 in Q3, and had 3-4 laps more fuel on board, and had to drive defensively rather than offensively to keep the much quicker, and lighter Ferrari's behind. When you put all that together, to be losing 0.9-1s to your lighter and quicker team-mate isn't all that unconceivable as some people want to make out.

Interesting stats about Schumacher Vs Alonso! I assumed Alonso would have had greater stat's for some reason. So was quite surprised Schumacher wins the war in stats. I guess it boils down to Schumachers dominance in 95. Whereas Alonso had the slower car, but more reliable car in both his championship winning years, Schumacher, in 94 had a pretty equal car (questions about its legality etc, but nevermind), and in 95 he obviously had the better car, therefore managed to dominant that year

Ranger

13th April 2007, 09:15

Anyway who thinks that a rookie could have won in the 4th or 5th best car on the grid???

Well the race the Benneton did win was an absolute fluke (Mansell ran out of fuel on the last lap whilst he had a 1-minute lead over Piquet) so no.

Having seen Kovalainen's and to a lesser extent Davidson's and Massa's results fresh after a year of testing I'm not sure a year of testing does anything for a driver in terms of what they will acheive on track, but rather, makes a driver more acquainted to the team and the team to the driver in Alonso's case.

Regardless this isn't too relevant as it's the championships that count.

ioan

13th April 2007, 09:59

Well the race the Benneton did win was an absolute fluke (Mansell ran out of fuel on the last lap whilst he had a 1-minute lead over Piquet) so no.

Having seen Kovalainen's and to a lesser extent Davidson's and Massa's results fresh after a year of testing I'm not sure a year of testing does anything for a driver in terms of what they will acheive on track, but rather, makes a driver more acquainted to the team and the team to the driver in Alonso's case.

Regardless this isn't too relevant as it's the championships that count.

One year of testing helps a lot in the development of a driver if taken seriously, and I think that Massa did a lot better after that testing year than before, just ask JV.

raphael123

13th April 2007, 10:35

I agree with Ioan here, a year of testing is definately beneficial to the driver. To say otherwise is naive. I suppose if you compare it to a year of actual racing, then a year of testing is not as beneficial, but a year of testing, or a year in GP2, I think it depends on your level of experience, but for Alonso, a year of testing at Renault was probably more useful. It's when you become a test driver for more than a season that things can become a bit stale. Look how long it took Davidson to get a drive, and even then it's with the Aguri's, and then Wurz, he's been out yonks it seems!

I definately think Alonso benefitted from being Renault's test driver, if only to prove himself to the team, and get to know the team well, before becoming a full works driver. However a season racing even with a lower team is more useful, as long as you have a deal with a big team at the end of the year.

ioan

13th April 2007, 11:43

I also mean that it helped FA in the comparison vs MS. Alonso was getting better while testing but the no of races was the same, when he came back to racing he was more experienced than before and could maximize the results in the races he run. ( example: when he run his 18th race MS had 1 year F1 experience, on the other side FA had 2 years of F1 experience at the moment he was driving his race no 18. you see what I mean?)

raphael123

13th April 2007, 11:51

Good point Ioan. The fact that after 90 races, Alonso also had a year's worth of experience as a test driver does mean Alonso was in a better position. Saying that, it also means while Alonso developed his skills in F1, he didn't have as much experience as Schumacher when he first came into F1, something Schumacher has always said was of great benefit to him. He use to say the more formula's and formats you race in, whether it be sports cars or single seaters was always great way to prepare yourself for F1.

Though obviously, it goes without saying Alonso had 3yrs in F1 plus a year testing before winning his first title. While Schumacher had 2 and a half years racing before he won his. Though obviously there are a lot of variables in each careers. Schumacher came good just as the last era of greats, Senna, Prost and Mansell finished their careers, and he was competing with an even less experienced driver for the 94 title - Hill, who was no comparison to Schumacher in terms of natural talent. Alonso has come along in a much tougher era, what with Schumacher who was still going strong till the end, in a weaker car, and with strong competition from the likes of Kimi etc

They are all factors to take into consideration about their careers and achievements so far. Though to be honest, I don't ever see Alonso being in F1 for as long as Schumacher was, and never beating his records, at least not the important ones.

aryan

13th April 2007, 12:17

ioan

13th April 2007, 12:26

He also faced a weakning field -- he came when Senna, Prost and Mansell were gone

That's bullsh!t, they were still there and he did beat them fair and square on the track when he was far from having their experience.

raphael123

13th April 2007, 12:30

I don't believe anyone can beat Schumacher's records in the forseeable future.

[putting on my anti-flame sheild]

Schumacher had enourmous talent, raw speed, and knew how to overtake. He also faced a weakning field -- he came when Senna, Prost and Mansell were gone -- Hill was no match for him and Mika was only good for 2-3 years. He had a team built around him, had dedicated second drivers prepared to give way to him, had very fast cars, in some years much faster than the second placed car, had TC before TC was allowed ;) , had a dedicated tyre suuplier, and a host of other advantages (grin!!)

I don't think anyone else can come up and gather all these advantages in one package.

Now, let the flame wars begin! :D

I couldn't agree more to be honest. There's no doubting he was one of the greatest drivers. However the time he was in F1, and the different variables which can make or break a career, were all ideal for Schumacher!

Compare Prost, the guy closest to Schumi's record, had to race against the likes of Senna, Piquet, Mansel etc. Schumacher, up until 2005/6, had the likes of Hill, Villeneuve, Mika, and Coulthard. Apart from those 3 years where Mika was at his peak, the other's hardly put much fear when you see those coming up behind you.

Then as you point out, there was the team situation, which as I've pointed out in another topic, which was obviously there under Schumachers influence, hence both times he's left the teams he drove for, both have abolished the system the following season, seemingly suggesting they know it's unsporting. Then there's the 'Ferraristone', the FIA's 'helping hand' in some situations, the Adelaide 94, the TC on the car in 94, which the FIA could never prove it was used, even though it was on the car, there was the loophole of how you could have it on the car, as long as you never used it. Benettons of course claimed they never used it. Of course they didn't - they just wanted to make it look nice on the car ;)

Still, Schumacher was a great driver, one of the greatest, if not unsporting and a liar.

raphael123

13th April 2007, 12:40

That's bullsh!t, they were still there and he did beat them fair and square on the track when he was far from having their experience.

Mmmm, Prost was not in F1 in 94, Senna only competed in 3 races, and Mansell completed 3 races at the end, mainly as a supporting role for Hill.

Sometimes I feel it's best to admit something even if it's not what you want to hear, because it's pointless denying the undeniable. It's a fact, that the greats of the 80's and early 90's were retiring, just as Schumacher was coming into his own, and Schumacher raced in an era where the quality of drivers was much weaker.

Prost had to race against the likes of Senna Mansell Piquet even Lauda right up until he retired! His entire career! Schumacher raced against them for 2 seasons when he wasn't in a car capable of challenging for the title, and the odd race in 94. Schumacher competition included Hill (3yrs), Villeneuve (2yrs), Mika (3yrs) and DC. It was only in his last 2 seasons where he had drivers who could be remotely considered in the same league as the likes of those drivers in the 80's. This obviously had an impact on what Schumacher achieved.

To try and claim Schumacher's era was as strong as that in the 80's and early 90's is pointless. Don't take it the wrong way, I don't think anyone is claiming Michael isn't a great. He definately is. I'm sure if he was racing in the 80's, he would have at least matched these drivers, and beaten them. But there's no way he would have the records he currently has. That doesn't take anything away from his obvious talent though :)

ioan

13th April 2007, 12:55

Mmmm, Prost was not in F1 in 94, Senna only competed in 3 races, and Mansell completed 3 races at the end, mainly as a supporting role for Hill.

They were there before in 91, 92 and 93 and the young MS did beat them with much less experience compared to those multiple WDCs.

raphael123

13th April 2007, 13:15

They were there before in 91, 92 and 93 and the young MS did beat them with much less experience compared to those multiple WDCs.

Beat them? In what way exactly?
In 91 in those 5/6(?) races he competed he only scored a few points didn't he? 4 or 5pts?

In 92 he did finish infront of Senna, but when you consider the fact Senna only finished 50% of the races that season, and only just beat him. But that doesn't take anything away from the fact Schumacher had a great first full season in F1.

In 93 he finished miles behind Prost and Senna, and even Hill beat him. But of course his car wasn't a match to those two. Still an impressive season though! And he beat his team-mate comfortably, though that was Patrese lol.

I'm not saying Schumacher wasn't impressive. But the fact that 95% of his success was achieved while Senna Mansell Pross Piquet Lauda weren't racing in F1 say's a lot about the competition he had when you compare Senna and Prost etc achieved what they achieved when the 'big guys' such as Senna PRost Mansell Piquet Lauda were around.

It's not a hard concept to understand, and it's nothing which needs denying, as it's a fact. It's not as if we're trying to say Schumacher isn't a great - he is!! But it's fact he had less competition from great drivers.

ioan

13th April 2007, 13:37

Beat them? In what way exactly?
In 91 in those 5/6(?) races he competed he only scored a few points didn't he? 4 or 5pts?

It would have been a bit difficult to beat WDCs in your first 6 races in an inferior car don't you think? I said they were there in 91, sorry if it was ambiguous and it looked like I said he beat them in 91.

In 92 he did finish infront of Senna, but when you consider the fact Senna only finished 50% of the races that season, and only just beat him. But that doesn't take anything away from the fact Schumacher had a great first full season in F1.

So, he beat WDCs in his first full F1 season, sweet isn't it?

In 93 he finished miles behind Prost and Senna, and even Hill beat him. But of course his car wasn't a match to those two. Still an impressive season though! And he beat his team-mate comfortably, though that was Patrese lol.

Well Patrese was also on great driver and MS beat him in the same car in his only 2nd F1 season. Not too shabby for a start is it?

I'm not saying Schumacher wasn't impressive.

I hope so! :D

But the fact that 95% of his success was achieved while Senna Mansell Pross Piquet Lauda weren't racing in F1 say's a lot...

Well it's hardly MS's fault that those guys chose to retire or had misfortunes.

We might never know but maybe Hakkinen was as good as Prost or Senna, after all he showed much promise when a rookie against Senna (I think).

Also KR and JPM and other drivers MS raced against might well be of the same caliber as AS, AP, NM and other WDCs. We tend to believe that retired or gone drivers were better without having the slightest possibility to compare them.
We should always compare drivers only against those they raced against and only for the few years they did it in the same time.

It's not a hard concept to understand, and it's nothing which needs denying, as it's a fact. It's not as if we're trying to say Schumacher isn't a great - he is!! But it's fact he had less competition from great drivers.

See above.

F1boat

13th April 2007, 13:43

Or just MS made great drivers look average?

ArrowsFA1

13th April 2007, 13:52

To try and claim Schumacher's era was as strong as that in the 80's and early 90's is pointless.
It's not a discussion for this forum.

555-04Q2

13th April 2007, 14:28

I think Fernando Alonso is the next Michael Schumacher.

Shalafi

13th April 2007, 15:10

I think Fernando Alonso is the next Michael Schumacher.

Well, that next Schumacher will soon get beat by a rookie...

Firstgear

13th April 2007, 15:27

Yup. Looks like DH vs. JV all over again.

Ranger

13th April 2007, 16:09

Well, that next Schumacher will soon get beat by a rookie...

Might I add that being the next Schumacher means also means that he will have a lot of detractors (case in point).

Ranger

13th April 2007, 16:12

Yup. Looks like DH vs. JV all over again.

Sort of. But Alonso was a 2 x World Champion and 25 years old whilst Hill was 36 without a title. Though I'm not under the impression that Alonso will be fired after this year.

555-04Q2

13th April 2007, 16:38

Well, that next Schumacher will soon get beat by a rookie...

Lewis is brilliant but Alonso should finish well ahead of him by the end of the season. Never say never though...

race aficionado

15th April 2007, 03:02

old news probably . . .
but if true, it does answer my question.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,3-2007170277,00.html

“I have been working as hard as I have ever done. From December until now I’ve tried to be with the engineers, tried to understand as much as I can about the car, the approach to the races with McLaren.

“I think we made big changes to the car as well, with some areas where we were under-performing.

“Between us, we improved the car a little bit. But the real gain is the job the designers did with the new car.”

:s mokin:

race aficionado

15th April 2007, 15:41

ioan

15th April 2007, 15:46

I wonder what happened to Fernando.
NH passed him fair and square and LH was in the top mixing it up and scoring the points.

Car just wasn't as good as he wanted it to be I guess . . . . .

:s mokin:

Well we finally found the answer to your thread, he is for real, so real that a rookie took the same car to 2nd while he only managed 5th getting passed on the track by NH in the process.

He simply couldn't find what Hamilton found this weekend.
But than again there were some quotes by Renault personnel that FA will not be up there this week end as he was never that good in Bahrain, and they surely know him well.

F1boat

15th April 2007, 15:49

He had a bad day, like Massa in Sepang. A LH is not real rookie, after so much testing and GP 2 championship.

truefan72

15th April 2007, 16:25

He had a bad day, like Massa in Sepang. A LH is not real rookie, after so much testing and GP 2 championship.

Whaaaaaaaaaaat?

wait a minute, did you just say that...

F1boat, that is too much now.

Give the Rookie his due please.

So in your eyes a Rookie is someone with no racing experience who jumsp in a carthen LOL give me a break, WTF

Ferrari fever has affected your brain.

F1boat

15th April 2007, 16:27

He is no more rookie than JV was in 1996. Terrific driver, but inexperienced he is not. A multiple champion in various series, for such F1 is just the biggest challenge, not something totally new.

BeansBeansBeans

15th April 2007, 16:27

He had a bad day, like Massa in Sepang. A LH is not real rookie, after so much testing and GP 2 championship.

It is Hamilton's first season in the series, and therefore he is a rookie.

truefan72

15th April 2007, 16:29

It is Hamilton's first season in the series, and therefore he is a rookie.

thank you

ArrowsFA1

15th April 2007, 17:57

He simply couldn't find what Hamilton found this weekend.
Very true. A somewhat lackluster performance by Fernando. Being beaten by his team-mate and Heidfeld can't help his mood heading for Spain. You begin to wonder whether he's being affected by Hamilton's performances, and the attention being put on them by (seemingly) everyone.

Garry Walker

15th April 2007, 18:02

I think Fernando Alonso is the next Michael Schumacher.

hahahahahaha

When did Schumacher get beaten by a Rookie in the equal car. Actually, when did Schumacher ever get beaten in the equal car by anyone at all?

Lets face it - Hamilton took Alonso today by the balls and beat him with ease. How can one not enjoy that?

ArrowsFA1

15th April 2007, 18:07

There's enjoying it, and then there's using it in the Garry Walker way :rolleyes:

Garry Walker

15th April 2007, 18:08

There's enjoying it, and then there's using it in the Garry Walker way :rolleyes:

Sorry?

RD.Dutch

15th April 2007, 18:17

hahahahahaha

Actually, when did Schumacher ever get beaten in the equal car by anyone at all?

Barrichello
Massa

not a season, but a couple of races

Shalafi

15th April 2007, 18:23

Hamilton just proved my point what I stated earlier. FA is not so great that many people think. Losing to a rookie and having a same amount of points after 3 races without any technical problems is a little embarrassing for 2-time WDC that many think is best driver. Even if Hamilton is an exceptional rookie. He will beat Alonso in standings this year because he will only get better.

ArrowsFA1

15th April 2007, 18:23

Sorry?
No problem :D

While you enjoy Alonso (a 2xWDC already) being beaten by a rookie today, somehow you think that Massa, who was so comprehensively out-thought and out-driven by a rookie last weekend, will win the title.

Interesting :dozey:

Garry Walker

15th April 2007, 18:29

Barrichello
Massa

not a season, but a couple of races

Name me one race where RB on pure pace beat Schumi, besides austria 2002 where they were equal?

As for Massa - he never beat MS at all on pure pace throughout a race.

No problem :D

While you enjoy Alonso (a 2xWDC already) being beaten by a rookie today, somehow you think that Massa, who was so comprehensively out-thought and out-driven by a rookie last weekend, will win the title.

Interesting :dozey:

Massa was beaten by a superior car at Malaysia and also by an act of desperation by him.
Today Alonso was beaten by an equal car, driven by a rookie teammate.

truefan72

16th April 2007, 01:18

Name me one race where RB on pure pace beat Schumi, besides austria 2002 where they were equal?.

I beleive that with all the team orders imposed on Barrichelo that the number might never bee known, but watchiing most of those races I have to say that at least 10 races where he could have beat Schumi .

Massa was beaten by a superior car at Malaysia and also by an act of desperation by him.
Today Alonso was beaten by an equal car, driven by a rookie teammate.

WTF, didn't he have the podium and Raikkonen the 2nd spot, didn't kimi with a rev limited car manage to catch up to LH at the end?

jso1985

16th April 2007, 01:34

Name me one race where RB on pure pace beat Schumi, besides austria 2002 where they were equal?

Britain 2003!, Rubens greatest race IMO
and China 2004, Rubens kicked everyone's butt while Schumacher could't even find a way to take turn 1 without spinning

plus Rubens was never allowed to actually race him, I remember Herbert also managed to beat Schumacher a few times.

Not that I'm trying to defend him but the Tv commentators were talking that Alonso had to change the brakes after practice so he wasn't confortable with his brake set-up, does anyone knows more about it?

Evryone has bad days, Schumacher had some and Alonso certainly had one today, yet that doesn't mean he's as good as he is

Ranger

16th April 2007, 05:17

As for Massa - he never beat MS at all on pure pace throughout a race.

How about Sepang last year? Back of the grid to beat Schumacher.

Proves that all drivers (yes, even Schumacher) have their bad days, like Alonso today.

But you'll see that however you want so it fits your point of view.

How can one not enjoy that?

Can't seem to find a happy medium between arse-kissing and hapless criticism, can you? :rolleyes:

PSfan

16th April 2007, 07:33

I wonder if there was any truth to the SpeedTV live report that McLeran dropped something on Alonso's car, or that Alonso did in fact stop on track. Just reviewed by pvr of qualifying, and I'm 90% certain that it shows Alonso walking into pit lane.)

So perhaps, Alonso was forced to have a race similar to Kimi's last race where he had to baby his car. Also perhaps they where gentle on the engine to, just because that lump is gonna have to sit in a crate for 3 weeks until the next race.

F1boat

16th April 2007, 08:02

Hey, hey, everybody can have a bad day. Massa had one last weekend. Alonso this one. You are too quick to write him off.
Indy last year Fred had a bad day too, but in France he made a great race and finished second only to Michael. After Hockenheim he made great race in Hungary. Failures make Fred more dangerous.

Donney

16th April 2007, 11:39

It seems there is some truth about something falling on Alonso's car and having to rebuild it on Saturday night, but Alonso declared that should not be a problem.

PDLR said they changed his brakes prior to the race as Alonso felt the car vibrated heavily when braking.

Other than that Alonso said he didn't feel with comfortable the car after Friday and that they changed his original strategy. Apparently the strategy he used was the one Hamilton was going to use and viceversa.

It was a bad day undoubtedly.

raphael123

16th April 2007, 12:26

It would have been a bit difficult to beat WDCs in your first 6 races in an inferior car don't you think? I said they were there in 91, sorry if it was ambiguous and it looked like I said he beat them in 91.

Exactly. That why I was baffled by your statement that Schumacher apprently 'beat' the greats like Senna, Prost, Mansell and Prost.

So, he beat WDCs in his first full F1 season, sweet isn't it?

He beat Senna. But as I pointed out, Senna completed 50% of the races :)

Well Patrese was also on great driver and MS beat him in the same car in his only 2nd F1 season. Not too shabby for a start is it?

If you definition of a 'great' driver = Patrese, many drivers are 'great' drivers. I tend to try and use the word 'great' for describing a driver for the truly special drivers such as Senna, Prost, Schumacher, not Patrese, Berger etc :)

Well it's hardly MS's fault that those guys chose to retire or had misfortunes.

That's EXACTLY my point. I simply stated Schumacher never raced alongside the greats of the previous era, as they retired. You replied by disagreeing saying that was 'BS - he beat them in 91,92,93'. I've pointed out to you he achieved 95% of his success after 93! I'm not blaming Schumacher for that. Just pointing out the facts.

I'm glad you accepted them :)

We might never know but maybe Hakkinen was as good as Prost or Senna, after all he showed much promise when a rookie against Senna (I think).

Maybe. I think Mika's accident delayed the initial promise he showed. He was quite a late starter, I think having a competitive car, and coming up against a great like Schumacher definately helped him lift his game.

Also KR and JPM and other drivers MS raced against might well be of the same caliber as AS, AP, NM and other WDCs. We tend to believe that retired or gone drivers were better without having the slightest possibility to compare them.
We should always compare drivers only against those they raced against and only for the few years they did it in the same time.

I don't think ANYONE in their right mind would say JPM is as good as Prost, or Senna etc. And I say that as a JPM fan myself! Kimi is a different story, though he is taking his time to settle in it seems. However apart from Kimi, who Schumacher raced for a couple of years, and JPM too really (who maybe was as good as Mansell), from 94-2005, Schumacher had no one apart from Mika Hakkinen for 3 seasons. The other seasons his competitors were Hill, Villeneuve, Coulthard, and Rubens. Hardly 'greats', unless you still believe Patrese was a 'great', which then maybe you could make a case.