planetf1.com

mikeyg123 wrote:I don't really see how all this is relevant? He was told to maintain position and he ignored that order.

Just like Vettel did in Malaysia just 18 months later.

I'm not saying I necessarily blame Webber for it or think he did much wrong. I'm just saying it happened so we don't have speculate about Webber's reaction to team orders.

Or the way posters received that reaction.

Exediron wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:I cannot spoon feed you mds. Google is your friend.

If you don't believe me then that's your problem.

When did this toxic BS forum etiquette become acceptable? You're not the only one I've seen it from. If you have a point to prove, you provide the examples: you don't just toss out some names and tell other people to Google it. That's troll crap. If you aren't willing to go to the effort of actually posting your sources, you're just baiting the other side, not participating. No one is going to do your work for you just because you smugly tell them Google is their friend.

I’ll put my hand up and accept I’ve used the above line before. Since I’ve started posting, I’ve got a feel for this forum, and have a better idea of its “Culture”, for lack of a better word.

I did struggle at first with the requests for source, and at the time felt as though every discussion was a legal proceeding. I tend to read a newspaper article here, hear a quote on tv there, read something online, and draw my own conclusions in the middle of this Venn diagram.

Example: When I made a comment about Zanardi claiming to have inferior equipment compared to R. Schumacher. That was based on articles I read in 1999, interviews with him, bits of his book, and yeah bias because I am a huge Zanardi fan. So when I made that comment, then was asked to provide a link to this AutoAction Magazine article from 20 years ago, it was frustrating. I felt like I couldn’t have an opinion on anything, without having a complete dossier of links and sources. So I made those comments. For me, I felt the opposite. I felt the posters asking for links and sources were trolling, because I was being baited. I’d come back saying I didn’t have it, or can’t find it, then suddently my opinions on the topic were irrelevant and didn’t matter.

That said, I feel like I now have a lay of the PF1 land, and I post with more care on this forum. I consciously avoid discussions where my opinions require source material, and I just stick to random things like Alonso = Thanos and who would I want in my F1 team

Brad....

When someone makes a claim as "fact", sometimes outrageous, it is hardly "trolling" for others to ask for links or sources. It is perfectly reasonable. If you don't have them, then don't be offended if others doubt the claim. I think where people get in the most trouble in That respect is when the present opinions/dreams/fantasy/outright lies as fact.

That is different than discussing opinions, we all have them and they can be quite interesting, educational, informative... And sometimes quite funny.

bradtheboywonder wrote:Example: When I made a comment about Zanardi claiming to have inferior equipment compared to R. Schumacher. That was based on articles I read in 1999, interviews with him, bits of his book, and yeah bias because I am a huge Zanardi fan. So when I made that comment, then was asked to provide a link to this AutoAction Magazine article from 20 years ago, it was frustrating. I felt like I couldn’t have an opinion on anything, without having a complete dossier of links and sources. So I made those comments. For me, I felt the opposite. I felt the posters asking for links and sources were trolling, because I was being baited. I’d come back saying I didn’t have it, or can’t find it, then suddently my opinions on the topic were irrelevant and didn’t matter.

Fair enough, and thanks for giving a viewpoint from the other side.

I feel what you're talking about is different, personally. You gave some information and did provide a source, you just couldn't link to it. What I was complaining about davidheath461 doing is making a broad and generally unfounded claim, then asking other people to do his leg work finding proof for it. In the case of claiming that Vettel slated his team after China 2012 specifically and giving a quote (which turned out to be incorrect, but that's another matter...) I wouldn't consider that poor etiquette necessarily. Just saying basically 'Vettel often slates his team, go Google it for examples' is different for me, in that it's not really participating in the discussion at all.

Bottom line, I think if you have a point to make you should bring it forward yourself. Saying that you think Zanardi had inferior equipment because of articles you read, interviews, and that it was in his book, is one thing: saying 'Zanardi had inferior equipment, go Google it' would be another. One isn't even trying to be helpful.

Blake and Exediron

Completely agree with you both, and I have come to learn that during my time here on the forum. My post was trying to explain my thoughts and feelings at the time.

I’m not trying to defend the poster, I disagree with the comments as well, it was more in response to the comment that telling a poster to do the leg work was becoming a common theme among posters. It might not have been directed at me, but I felt as a poster who used that line recently, I wanted to clear the air and explain why I did.

So in conclusion, if your fact has no support, then you must abort

Fair enough, Brad

https://streamable.com/yfr75

The hate is obvious..

-ZeroGravityToilet- wrote:

bourbon19 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

jiminwatford wrote:Alonso vs Vettel. Although they have been in the F1 pack along side each other for a long time i don't think there has been a lot of comparitive info

Sebastian was in the top car 2010 - 2013, Fernando wasn't

Put Fernando in a top car and i believe he will match Seb in qualifying and the race

I know there been 13 pages of 'debate' but put Fernando in an equal car and i think it it will be nip and tuck

Looking back at the original post on page 1, these two two could be the immaculate rivalry ala Senna and Prost

It actually would be nothing like the Senna and Prost rivalry as the 2 of them had very little in common, much different strengths to one another and you are sort of forgetting Hamilton for one.

In 2010 and 2012, Alonso and Vettel did have more or less equal cars over the course of the season (taking reliability and bad luck into account). Last race was the absolute decider, with Alonso heavily favored in both. So I think we did have an example of both in cars capable of winning the season at the same time - twice. It is nip and tuck - and I agree other drivers would be right there too (but the thread is Alonso/Seb).

They did NOT have 'more or less equal cars' as you state. That they ended up having almost the same amount of points says nothing of the way they employed to get them. RBR was quite a lot better than the Ferrari, as pointed at by WCC standings and second drivers positions and results.

[Sorry so late in replying - I have had a crazy work/uni schedule of late.]

How are you distinguishing their getting the points?

As I recall, from a mechanical standpoint, in both years, the RBR was faster, but unreliable. The Ferrari slower, but more reliable. In order to finish first, you must first finish, so that balanced things to some extent. You will remember in 2012, Alonso was ahead by 40 points at the half due to the excessive failures of the RBR.

From a mental standpoint, in both years, Alonso had a teammate that worked with him. Vettel had a teammate that worked against him, in the team and in the media. That was in addition to the Alonso-Hamilton v. Vettel thing that went on in 2012.

I do not see that Alonso's fortunes were completely based on Vettel's failures or anything of that nature, so I would still say that on the whole, in terms of delivering performance (speed + reliability), the cars were more or less equal. The circumstances (mental aspects) were a bit tougher for Vettel.

pokerman wrote:

bourbon19 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

jiminwatford wrote:Alonso vs Vettel. Although they have been in the F1 pack along side each other for a long time i don't think there has been a lot of comparitive info

Sebastian was in the top car 2010 - 2013, Fernando wasn't

Put Fernando in a top car and i believe he will match Seb in qualifying and the race

I know there been 13 pages of 'debate' but put Fernando in an equal car and i think it it will be nip and tuck

Looking back at the original post on page 1, these two two could be the immaculate rivalry ala Senna and Prost

It actually would be nothing like the Senna and Prost rivalry as the 2 of them had very little in common, much different strengths to one another and you are sort of forgetting Hamilton for one.

In 2010 and 2012, Alonso and Vettel did have more or less equal cars over the course of the season (taking reliability and bad luck into account). Last race was the absolute decider, with Alonso heavily favored in both. So I think we did have an example of both in cars capable of winning the season at the same time - twice. It is nip and tuck - and I agree other drivers would be right there too (but the thread is Alonso/Seb).

Reliability and bad luck rather than reliability and bad driving?

Vettel had much the faster car and was not pole positions used as a measure of Vettel being the faster driver which is were I stepped in?

I think the Senna/Prost rivalry was based around them being the out and out best drivers plus they were in the same cars.

You simply cannot drive so badly as to be accused of "bad driving" and win a championship. So I am not sure what you mean by that. Surely both drivers made mistakes. I'd agree Vettel was younger and likely made more errors, but not so many as to lose more points than he did from reliability issues and negative luck combined.

It would be a gross mis-characterization to say Alonso had much less speed, far worse reliability and significantly worse luck, yet still remained within points of Vettel and nearly won. That is simply not what occurred. In fact, in 2012 he was up by 40 points at the half. In 2010, 5 different drivers were leading at one time or another and all were still in it till the 2nd to last race, and 3 until the last race.

I agree the RBR was generally the fastest, but so very often the most unreliable as well. Imo, overall, in delivery of performance (speed + reliability), the cars were more or less equal. Luck is what it is.

bradtheboywonder wrote:Blake and Exediron

Completely agree with you both, and I have come to learn that during my time here on the forum. My post was trying to explain my thoughts and feelings at the time.

I’m not trying to defend the poster, I disagree with the comments as well, it was more in response to the comment that telling a poster to do the leg work was becoming a common theme among posters. It might not have been directed at me, but I felt as a poster who used that line recently, I wanted to clear the air and explain why I did.

So in conclusion, if your fact has no support, then you must abort

I completely understand your view mate, but in these past few years it has been almost unbearable at times. Sometimes even providing proof isn't even enough; only recently we had people reading the same bloody article and coming up with two different interpretations. Making stuff up on the go!

A few years ago there was a poster who got upset and started ranting about Schumacher crashing Sato out of the race. Being a Schumacher fan I was naturally curious; I did not remember any race that Schumacher had taken Sato out on purpose.

She then proceeded to produce her evidence; a F1 simulation game video that someone uploaded on youtube of the said move........ It was beyond hilarious. I can't remember the poster's name, but she left the very same day after that.

All I'm saying is that it's not people being difficult when asking for proof. The onus falls always with the claimant to prove their case. Otherwise anyone would come up with any unbacked cr*p and claim it as the honest truth.

Siao7 wrote:All I'm saying is that it's not people being difficult when asking for proof. The onus falls always with the claimant to prove their case. Otherwise anyone would come up with any unbacked cr*p and claim it as the honest truth.

Yeah, that's just the world we live in, sadly. You can't take the word of an anonymous person on the internet at face value unless you enjoy being made to look stupid.

There's some posters who have been here long enough that I do trust without having a source, but that takes time.

http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/239 ... lonsospeak

Fernando Alonso, the quote machine that keeps on giving.

I touched with Vettel. I hope he has damage. Stupid move.

Seriously - "I hope he has damage"?
All the while it was his mistake and a good move by Vettel.

schumilegend wrote:http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/239 ... lonsospeak

Where is the facepalm smiley when you need one

mds wrote:Seriously - "I hope he has damage"?
All the while it was his mistake and a good move by Vettel.

It was at the prompting of his engineer asking if he had damage. Still, considering Vettel didn't do anything, not a great moment for Alonso.

bradtheboywonder wrote:Blake and Exediron

Completely agree with you both, and I have come to learn that during my time here on the forum. My post was trying to explain my thoughts and feelings at the time.

I’m not trying to defend the poster, I disagree with the comments as well, it was more in response to the comment that telling a poster to do the leg work was becoming a common theme among posters. It might not have been directed at me, but I felt as a poster who used that line recently, I wanted to clear the air and explain why I did.

So in conclusion, if your fact has no support, then you must abort

I wouldn't say abort because you may not be able to cite a source. To me, if you make that clear in your comments by saying something like "I vaguely remember but i can't find a link for it anywhere" then that'd be fine because there may be others who can support that point or help you by providing that link you're after.

It's when people just plainly refuse to provide evidence either because they have none and their claim is erroneous to begin with, or they can't be bothered to look for one or are just being antagonistic, that causes problems.

Another reason to provide a link is to not only support you're argument, which is standard debating procedure and etiquette, but it also provides an opportunity for others to review their position in the discussion. This has happened to me on numerous occasions. I've taken position A in a debate but the person in position B has provided evidence which has given me cause to re-think my stance and on occasions conceded that my point of view was indeed the incorrect one based on the evidence available.

Providing evidence to support your argument not only allows an opportunity for the debate to progress in an intelligent and informed manner but should also, if the participants are smart, allow them to consider not only the others positions in the discussion,but also their own.

Jezza13 wrote:Providing evidence to support your argument not only allows an opportunity for the debate to progress in an intelligent and informed manner but should also, if the participants are smart, allow them to consider not only the others positions in the discussion,but also their own.

If only it usually worked that way...

Jezza13 wrote:

bradtheboywonder wrote:Blake and Exediron

Completely agree with you both, and I have come to learn that during my time here on the forum. My post was trying to explain my thoughts and feelings at the time.

I’m not trying to defend the poster, I disagree with the comments as well, it was more in response to the comment that telling a poster to do the leg work was becoming a common theme among posters. It might not have been directed at me, but I felt as a poster who used that line recently, I wanted to clear the air and explain why I did.

So in conclusion, if your fact has no support, then you must abort

I wouldn't say abort because you may not be able to cite a source. To me, if you make that clear in your comments by saying something like "I vaguely remember but i can't find a link for it anywhere" then that'd be fine because there may be others who can support that point or help you by providing that link you're after.

It's when people just plainly refuse to provide evidence either because they have none and their claim is erroneous to begin with, or they can't be bothered to look for one or are just being antagonistic, that causes problems.

Another reason to provide a link is to not only support you're argument, which is standard debating procedure and etiquette, but it also provides an opportunity for others to review their position in the discussion. This has happened to me on numerous occasions. I've taken position A in a debate but the person in position B has provided evidence which has given me cause to re-think my stance and on occasions conceded that my point of view was indeed the incorrect one based on the evidence available.

Providing evidence to support your argument not only allows an opportunity for the debate to progress in an intelligent and informed manner but should also, if the participants are smart, allow them to consider not only the others positions in the discussion,but also their own.

Agree with the above. I'd add that evidence is sometimes helpful to check that the position a poster has taken is correct. I've come across examples where the poster has completely misinterpreted what they are quoting, or at the least that the evidence is ambiguous or supports alternative viewpoints

mds wrote:Fernando Alonso, the quote machine that keeps on giving.

I touched with Vettel. I hope he has damage. Stupid move.

Seriously - "I hope he has damage"?
All the while it was his mistake and a good move by Vettel.

Standard Alonso.

Jezza13 wrote:

bradtheboywonder wrote:Blake and Exediron

Completely agree with you both, and I have come to learn that during my time here on the forum. My post was trying to explain my thoughts and feelings at the time.

I’m not trying to defend the poster, I disagree with the comments as well, it was more in response to the comment that telling a poster to do the leg work was becoming a common theme among posters. It might not have been directed at me, but I felt as a poster who used that line recently, I wanted to clear the air and explain why I did.

So in conclusion, if your fact has no support, then you must abort

I wouldn't say abort because you may not be able to cite a source. To me, if you make that clear in your comments by saying something like "I vaguely remember but i can't find a link for it anywhere" then that'd be fine because there may be others who can support that point or help you by providing that link you're after.

It's when people just plainly refuse to provide evidence either because they have none and their claim is erroneous to begin with, or they can't be bothered to look for one or are just being antagonistic, that causes problems.

Another reason to provide a link is to not only support you're argument, which is standard debating procedure and etiquette, but it also provides an opportunity for others to review their position in the discussion. This has happened to me on numerous occasions. I've taken position A in a debate but the person in position B has provided evidence which has given me cause to re-think my stance and on occasions conceded that my point of view was indeed the incorrect one based on the evidence available.

Providing evidence to support your argument not only allows an opportunity for the debate to progress in an intelligent and informed manner but should also, if the participants are smart, allow them to consider not only the others positions in the discussion,but also their own.

Well said Jezza13

Will Buxton interviews Sebastian Vettel

https://streamable.com/da8tz

Skip to 7:30 for the part where he talks about Alonso

KingVoid wrote:Will Buxton interviews Sebastian Vettel

https://streamable.com/da8tz

Skip to 7:30 for the part where he talks about Alonso

I suspected as much, but it's good to hear!

KingVoid wrote:Will Buxton interviews Sebastian Vettel

https://streamable.com/da8tz

Skip to 7:30 for the part where he talks about Alonso

Deep resentment from Alonso?

pokerman wrote:

KingVoid wrote:Will Buxton interviews Sebastian Vettel

https://streamable.com/da8tz

Skip to 7:30 for the part where he talks about Alonso

Deep resentment from Alonso?

Maybe it is just as he says, they don't gel together. This does not mean resentment from someone, sometimes you just don't become friends with some people. Same applies to your workplace or mine.

bourbon19 wrote:

-ZeroGravityToilet- wrote:

bourbon19 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

jiminwatford wrote:Alonso vs Vettel. Although they have been in the F1 pack along side each other for a long time i don't think there has been a lot of comparitive info

Sebastian was in the top car 2010 - 2013, Fernando wasn't

Put Fernando in a top car and i believe he will match Seb in qualifying and the race

I know there been 13 pages of 'debate' but put Fernando in an equal car and i think it it will be nip and tuck

Looking back at the original post on page 1, these two two could be the immaculate rivalry ala Senna and Prost

It actually would be nothing like the Senna and Prost rivalry as the 2 of them had very little in common, much different strengths to one another and you are sort of forgetting Hamilton for one.

In 2010 and 2012, Alonso and Vettel did have more or less equal cars over the course of the season (taking reliability and bad luck into account). Last race was the absolute decider, with Alonso heavily favored in both. So I think we did have an example of both in cars capable of winning the season at the same time - twice. It is nip and tuck - and I agree other drivers would be right there too (but the thread is Alonso/Seb).

They did NOT have 'more or less equal cars' as you state. That they ended up having almost the same amount of points says nothing of the way they employed to get them. RBR was quite a lot better than the Ferrari, as pointed at by WCC standings and second drivers positions and results.

[Sorry so late in replying - I have had a crazy work/uni schedule of late.]

How are you distinguishing their getting the points?

As I recall, from a mechanical standpoint, in both years, the RBR was faster, but unreliable. The Ferrari slower, but more reliable. In order to finish first, you must first finish, so that balanced things to some extent. You will remember in 2012, Alonso was ahead by 40 points at the half due to the excessive failures of the RBR.

From a mental standpoint, in both years, Alonso had a teammate that worked with him. Vettel had a teammate that worked against him, in the team and in the media. That was in addition to the Alonso-Hamilton v. Vettel thing that went on in 2012.

I do not see that Alonso's fortunes were completely based on Vettel's failures or anything of that nature, so I would still say that on the whole, in terms of delivering performance (speed + reliability), the cars were more or less equal. The circumstances (mental aspects) were a bit tougher for Vettel.

pokerman wrote:

bourbon19 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

jiminwatford wrote:Alonso vs Vettel. Although they have been in the F1 pack along side each other for a long time i don't think there has been a lot of comparitive info

Sebastian was in the top car 2010 - 2013, Fernando wasn't

Put Fernando in a top car and i believe he will match Seb in qualifying and the race

I know there been 13 pages of 'debate' but put Fernando in an equal car and i think it it will be nip and tuck

Looking back at the original post on page 1, these two two could be the immaculate rivalry ala Senna and Prost

It actually would be nothing like the Senna and Prost rivalry as the 2 of them had very little in common, much different strengths to one another and you are sort of forgetting Hamilton for one.

In 2010 and 2012, Alonso and Vettel did have more or less equal cars over the course of the season (taking reliability and bad luck into account). Last race was the absolute decider, with Alonso heavily favored in both. So I think we did have an example of both in cars capable of winning the season at the same time - twice. It is nip and tuck - and I agree other drivers would be right there too (but the thread is Alonso/Seb).

Reliability and bad luck rather than reliability and bad driving?

Vettel had much the faster car and was not pole positions used as a measure of Vettel being the faster driver which is were I stepped in?

I think the Senna/Prost rivalry was based around them being the out and out best drivers plus they were in the same cars.

You simply cannot drive so badly as to be accused of "bad driving" and win a championship. So I am not sure what you mean by that. Surely both drivers made mistakes. I'd agree Vettel was younger and likely made more errors, but not so many as to lose more points than he did from reliability issues and negative luck combined.

It would be a gross mis-characterization to say Alonso had much less speed, far worse reliability and significantly worse luck, yet still remained within points of Vettel and nearly won. That is simply not what occurred. In fact, in 2012 he was up by 40 points at the half. In 2010, 5 different drivers were leading at one time or another and all were still in it till the 2nd to last race, and 3 until the last race.

I agree the RBR was generally the fastest, but so very often the most unreliable as well. Imo, overall, in delivery of performance (speed + reliability), the cars were more or less equal. Luck is what it is.

The pat in bold and the rest of the explanation pertaining to it is such a blatant attempt at rewriting history that it is not even funny.

Vettel produced a fair amount of his own 'unreliability' by crashing into others, including his own teammate. Alonso, on the other hand, was crashed into (Grosjean, how on earth are you still with a drive?)
Massa the lapdog? The crybaby that not even as late as Germany 2010 when he was completely out of the running made it impossible to arrange a reasonable change in position for the WDC? The same one that was surly for four years after that claiming he was right then and there psychologically derailed forever? That's a reasonable lapdog?
C'mon... That's a f***ng nightmare (-:

-ZeroGravityToilet- wrote: Massa the lapdog? The crybaby that not even as late as Germany 2010 when he was completely out of the running made it impossible to arrange a reasonable change in position for the WDC? The same one that was surly for four years after that claiming he was right then and there psychologically derailed forever? That's a reasonable lapdog?
C'mon... That's a f***ng nightmare (-:

Massa's attitude didn't hold him back from just obeying and generally just being there to be employed in whatever capacity was needed to benefit Alonso. So indeed, he wasn't just a reasonable lapdog, he was a perfect one.

I mean, the guy took a grid penalty just to promote Alonso one place up on the grid. How more obvious can it get?

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

KingVoid wrote:Will Buxton interviews Sebastian Vettel

https://streamable.com/da8tz

Skip to 7:30 for the part where he talks about Alonso

Deep resentment from Alonso?

Maybe it is just as he says, they don't gel together. This does not mean resentment from someone, sometimes you just don't become friends with some people. Same applies to your workplace or mine.

When tied in with things he's said about Vettel I think that leaves little doubt.

mds wrote:

-ZeroGravityToilet- wrote: Massa the lapdog? The crybaby that not even as late as Germany 2010 when he was completely out of the running made it impossible to arrange a reasonable change in position for the WDC? The same one that was surly for four years after that claiming he was right then and there psychologically derailed forever? That's a reasonable lapdog?
C'mon... That's a f***ng nightmare (-:

Massa's attitude didn't hold him back from just obeying and generally just being there to be employed in whatever capacity was needed to benefit Alonso. So indeed, he wasn't just a reasonable lapdog, he was a perfect one.

I mean, the guy took a grid penalty just to promote Alonso one place up on the grid. How more obvious can it get?

Yeah this is for me what pales Alonso for me, great driver but who expects teammates just to be there to facilitate him.

mds wrote:

-ZeroGravityToilet- wrote: Massa the lapdog? The crybaby that not even as late as Germany 2010 when he was completely out of the running made it impossible to arrange a reasonable change in position for the WDC? The same one that was surly for four years after that claiming he was right then and there psychologically derailed forever? That's a reasonable lapdog?
C'mon... That's a f***ng nightmare (-:

Massa's attitude didn't hold him back from just obeying and generally just being there to be employed in whatever capacity was needed to benefit Alonso. So indeed, he wasn't just a reasonable lapdog, he was a perfect one.

I mean, the guy took a grid penalty just to promote Alonso one place up on the grid. How more obvious can it get?

+1

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

KingVoid wrote:Will Buxton interviews Sebastian Vettel

https://streamable.com/da8tz

Skip to 7:30 for the part where he talks about Alonso

Deep resentment from Alonso?

Maybe it is just as he says, they don't gel together. This does not mean resentment from someone, sometimes you just don't become friends with some people. Same applies to your workplace or mine.

When tied in with things he's said about Vettel I think that leaves little doubt.

What has he said about Vettel? I don't remember in fairness. But Vettel thinks that there is nothing there, so who knows. Sometimes it is the headlines that create the fuss; in Webber's podcast he mentions that he is not as close to Alonso as the media made it out to be. It goes to show how much the media distorts their relationships sometimes for the headlines.