planetf1.com

mikeyg123 wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:Newey wasn't TD at Williams.

That's the only thing you get from my post? Semantics. Newey was a far more powerful man in the Williams setup than Allison was at Ferrari.

Not that it matters.

Rubbish.

Why do you think Newey left?

Because he wanted financial shares in the team as part of his pay packet and Williams were unwilling to give them to him?

"One of the reasons I left Williams was that I was not sufficiently involved in the major decision-making about those other key aspects that affect the overall performance - drivers, engine and tyres. I have that involvement now at McLaren."

http://grandprix.com/features/peter-wri ... -best.html

davidheath461 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:Newey wasn't TD at Williams.

That's the only thing you get from my post? Semantics. Newey was a far more powerful man in the Williams setup than Allison was at Ferrari.

Not that it matters.

Rubbish.

Why do you think Newey left?

Because he wanted financial shares in the team as part of his pay packet and Williams were unwilling to give them to him?

"One of the reasons I left Williams was that I was not sufficiently involved in the major decision-making about those other key aspects that affect the overall performance - drivers, engine and tyres. I have that involvement now at McLaren."

http://grandprix.com/features/peter-wri ... -best.html

So that kind of proves my point.... Newey wanting Hill to stay was irrelevant.

It completely disproves your point.

Newey at Williams (Chief Designer) had no say on drivers.

Newey at Mclaren (Technical Director) did have a say on drivers.

Allison at Ferrari (Technical Director) also had a say on drivers, but he couldn't convince Alonso to stay.

davidheath461 wrote:It completely disproves your point.

Newey at Williams (Chief Designer) had no say on drivers.

Newey at Mclaren (Technical Director) did have a say on drivers.

Allison at Ferrari (Technical Director) also had a say on drivers, but he couldn't convince Alonso to stay.

I really don't see how in anyway it proves what say Allison had on driver choices.

Someone made this point on another forum:

In 2010, Ferrari hired Alonso despite the fact that they had two drivers under contract at the time. Raikkonen failed to live up to their expectations so they replaced him.

In 2017, Ferrari extended Vettel’s contract until the end of 2020 despite the fact that Alonso was on the market at the time. They also could have snatched one of the Red Bull drivers if they really wanted to.

Ferrari’s engineers have a lot of telemetry data on both Alonso and Vettel. If Alonso was significantly better than Vettel (as some people claim), then Ferrari would have realized this a long time ago.

The fact that Ferrari are happy with Vettel as their #1 driver and have made no real attempt to replace him suggests that he’s no slower than Alonso.

KingVoid wrote:Someone made this point on another forum:

In 2010, Ferrari hired Alonso despite the fact that they had two drivers under contract at the time. Raikkonen failed to live up to their expectations so they replaced him.

In 2017, Ferrari extended Vettel’s contract until the end of 2020 despite the fact that Alonso was on the market at the time. They also could have snatched one of the Red Bull drivers if they really wanted to.

Ferrari’s engineers have a lot of telemetry data on both Alonso and Vettel. If Alonso was significantly better than Vettel (as some people claim), then Ferrari would have realized this a long time ago.

The fact that Ferrari are happy with Vettel as their #1 driver and have made no real attempt to replace him suggests that he’s no slower than Alonso.

Or that there's some other reason Alonso isn't an option.

But it's a very different situation. Vettel may or may not be a little slower than Alonso - I think he is, but it wouldn't be much - but he's certainly in the same general league. Their situation back in 2009 was that they had come to realize they didn't have a truly top driver, and it was costing them championships (the most recent one). Meanwhile, one of the few truly top drivers (Alonso) was available and amenable to joining. Vettel is at most a tenth or two slower than Alonso - not enough for it to make any sense to fire him and bring Alonso back at great cost and public embarrassment, and that's even assuming Marchionne wants Alonso back and Alonso wants to come back.

At the end of the day, the fact that Ferrari are happy with Vettel as their #1 driver and have made no real attempt to replace him only shows that they don't think replacing him is necessary to win the championship. He's a top driver, and that means if they give him the best car he'll take the title home. He might lose it to Hamilton or Alonso in an equal car - or he might not - but no top team actually plans on producing an equal car. They plan for the best. Kimi got fired because he was supposed to be able to win the title in the best car, and he failed to do that in 2008 (in fact, he didn't even come second).

It’s not just Alonso though. Ferrari could have signed Ricciardo or Verstappen back in 2017 if they really tried. The fact that they didn’t even make a serious attempt suggests that they are happy with Vettel.

I highly doubt Vettel is 2 tenths slower than Alonso. 2 tenths is a very big difference in Formula 1. If he was that much slower than Alonso, Ferrari would have replaced him by now.

I doubt the difference is bigger than a few hundreds.

KingVoid wrote:It’s not just Alonso though. Ferrari could have signed Ricciardo or Verstappen back in 2017 if they really tried. The fact that they didn’t even make a serious attempt suggests that they are happy with Vettel.

I highly doubt Vettel is 2 tenths slower than Alonso. 2 tenths is a very big difference in Formula 1. If he was that much slower than Alonso, Ferrari would have replaced him by now.

I doubt the difference is bigger than a few hundreds.

Two tenths on average isn't that massive really. Especially when drivers are rarely allowed to drive flat out.

2 tenths is very big if we are talking about the difference between top drivers. Hamilton was only 1 tenth faster than Rosberg on average and he was regarded as the clearly better driver.

KingVoid wrote:The fact that they didn’t even make a serious attempt suggests that they are happy with Vettel.

Agree with that. I just don't think it necessarily means Vettel is just as fast as Alonso, merely close enough for them to be content.

KingVoid wrote:2 tenths is very big if we are talking about the difference between top drivers. Hamilton was only 1 tenth faster than Rosberg on average and he was regarded as the clearly better driver.

I said 'Vettel is at most a tenth or two slower than Alonso'. I think the difference is probably pretty similar to Rosberg and Hamilton, honestly, but we'll probably never know.

But to run with that comparison, do you think Mercedes would have ditched Rosberg if he had been their #1 driver and had someone slower alongside him? No, because he would have been fast enough. With the best car, Rosberg or his teammate would definitely win the world championship. That's all you need.

Of course Mercedes would have still won all the championships if Rosberg was their lead driver from 2014-2016. If you have such a big car advantage you don’t need a top driver.

But that kind of car advantage is incredibly difficult to create. It’s much easier to just hire a driver that is 1-2 tenths quicker.

I doubt Vettel is anything but a few hundreds slower than Alonso. Anything more and he would be out the door at Ferrari.

Well, I find it difficult to believe in the conjecture that Ferrari tries to hire the fastest drivers available. I mean tgey keep re-hiring Räikkönen after all.

As long as Marchionne heads Ferrari there will be no way back for Alonso, even if he was a second quicker.
And a change in top management - which may be on the horizon or not - will likely mean that Hamilton or Ricciardo may enter the frame rather than Alonso (age). I am pretty sure that Vettel is safe (also from in-team competition) as long as - and only as long as - Marchionne remains at the head.

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:Well, I find it difficult to believe in the conjecture that Ferrari tries to hire the fastest drivers available. I mean tgey keep re-hiring Räikkönen after all.

As long as Marchionne heads Ferrari there will be no way back for Alonso, even if he was a second quicker.
And a change in top management - which may be on the horizon or not - will likely mean that Hamilton or Ricciardo may enter the frame rather than Alonso (age). I am pretty sure that Vettel is safe (also from in-team competition) as long as - and only as long as - Marchionne remains at the head.

With Kimi Ferrari are clearly looking for a number 2, just as Mercedes are with Bottas. You can’t draw conclusions for how they choose their number one drivers from that

KingVoid wrote:Of course Mercedes would have still won all the championships if Rosberg was their lead driver from 2014-2016. If you have such a big car advantage you don’t need a top driver.

But that kind of car advantage is incredibly difficult to create. It’s much easier to just hire a driver that is 1-2 tenths quicker.

I doubt Vettel is anything but a few hundreds slower than Alonso. Anything more and he would be out the door at Ferrari.

Younger,no baggage and proven multiple times he can get the job done if you give him the best car. I wouldn't kick him out if he was 2ths slower but had all that on his side and I like Alonso.

Not that speed is some sort of constant and repeatable thing the driver can achieve whatever the conditions and equipment, it's not that simple. Seb could be 3ths slower around Silverstone in the dry but 3ths quicker in the wet around Spa. They could be closer the better the car is and further away if the car had issues.

There's so many variables, just in the last half of 2016 there were plenty of stories about Ferrari engineers "lamenting" about Alonso's departure, this was during a period the car slipped to 3rd best and Seb was having a meltdown in Mexico. Contrast that to 2017 and the best Ferrari since 2008 and everyone's happy and more than happy with Seb and he gets a new contract.

If they planned to build the 3rd best car I'd ditch him if he was 1 or 2ths slower yeah, I personally think Alonso would get more out of it in those conditions. But if I'm planning on building the best then all in all there isn't enough difference in performance even it's 2ths to swap a driver entering his prime for a 36yr old driver than dumped you.

Lotus49 wrote:

KingVoid wrote:Of course Mercedes would have still won all the championships if Rosberg was their lead driver from 2014-2016. If you have such a big car advantage you don’t need a top driver.

But that kind of car advantage is incredibly difficult to create. It’s much easier to just hire a driver that is 1-2 tenths quicker.

I doubt Vettel is anything but a few hundreds slower than Alonso. Anything more and he would be out the door at Ferrari.

Younger,no baggage and proven multiple times he can get the job done if you give him the best car. I wouldn't kick him out if he was 2ths slower but had all that on his side and I like Alonso.

Not that speed is some sort of constant and repeatable thing the driver can achieve whatever the conditions and equipment, it's not that simple. Seb could be 3ths slower around Silverstone in the dry but 3ths quicker in the wet around Spa. They could be closer the better the car is and further away if the car had issues.

There's so many variables, just in the last half of 2016 there were plenty of stories about Ferrari engineers "lamenting" about Alonso's departure, this was during a period the car slipped to 3rd best and Seb was having a meltdown in Mexico. Contrast that to 2017 and the best Ferrari since 2008 and everyone's happy and more than happy with Seb and he gets a new contract.

If they planned to build the 3rd best car I'd ditch him if he was 1 or 2ths slower yeah, I personally think Alonso would get more out of it in those conditions. But if I'm planning on building the best then all in all there isn't enough difference in performance even it's 2ths to swap a driver entering his prime for a 36yr old driver than dumped you.

While I agree in principle with most of what you write here, I'd have to say that I'd imagine even top teams will likely make their driver decisions on the basis of what they can do in a car that's not outright the best, as opposed to when the car is the star. Anybody could have won in the Mercedes between 2014-2016, but not everyone could have done it in 2017, for example. And it's times like 2017 that a driver really earns his money. It wouldn't have taken all that much last year for the pendulum to have swung Ferrari's way.

Of course there are outliers like the years mentioned, when Mercedes probably felt they could relax in their driver choices as they had a comfortable gap to the rest, but no-one really knows what's going to happen over the next few years, so they have to look at drivers who can make a difference in, say, the second best car.

Of those I still think Alonso is the best, but Vettel isn't too far off, so Ferrari are doubtless comfortable with their choice. And, as you say, they are not likely to replace Vettel for a driver near the end of his career who might only bring a small performance increase to the table

You are really underselling just what a big difference 2 tenths makes. In Formula 1 teams chase every last thousandth of a second with little winglets, 2 tenths is night and day.

If Alonso had 2 tenths on Vettel he would have won about 12 races in 2017 and easily won the WDC. That is the kind of difference such a speed advantage makes.

The difference is no more than a few hundreds. Any bigger and Ferrari would have signed either Dan or Max by now.

KingVoid wrote:You are really underselling just what a big difference 2 tenths makes. In Formula 1 teams chase every last thousandth of a second with little winglets, 2 tenths is night and day.

If Alonso had 2 tenths on Vettel he would have won about 12 races in 2017 and easily won the WDC. That is the kind of difference such a speed advantage makes.

The difference is no more than a few hundreds. Any bigger and Ferrari would have signed either Dan or Max by now.

Well not really, because the car is rarely being pushed to the maximum. I would say there's about a second between the fastest and slowest guys. Possibly more. With that in mind I don't find it hard to believe that it's possible for Alonso to have a couple of tenths on Vettel. Even flat out that would only equate to 10-12 seconds if they raced flat put the entire race, didn't have a safety car and never got slowed by any traffic. In reality you're never going to get a clear race like that so the advantage is never really going to be as much as even 10 seconds.

mikeyg123 wrote:

KingVoid wrote:You are really underselling just what a big difference 2 tenths makes. In Formula 1 teams chase every last thousandth of a second with little winglets, 2 tenths is night and day.

If Alonso had 2 tenths on Vettel he would have won about 12 races in 2017 and easily won the WDC. That is the kind of difference such a speed advantage makes.

The difference is no more than a few hundreds. Any bigger and Ferrari would have signed either Dan or Max by now.

Well not really, because the car is rarely being pushed to the maximum. I would say there's about a second between the fastest and slowest guys. Possibly more. With that in mind I don't find it hard to believe that it's possible for Alonso to have a couple of tenths on Vettel. Even flat out that would only equate to 10-12 seconds if they raced flat put the entire race, didn't have a safety car and never got slowed by any traffic. In reality you're never going to get a clear race like that so the advantage is never really going to be as much as even 10 seconds.

Doesn't need to be all race, though. 2 tenths would have been enough to change the qualifying landscape last year and track position is a massive advantage.

KingVoid wrote:2 tenths is very big if we are talking about the difference between top drivers. Hamilton was only 1 tenth faster than Rosberg on average and he was regarded as the clearly better driver.

I distinctly recall reading that Lauda said Rosberg was 3 tenths slower when he recruited Hamilton. So either Rosberg improved by 2 tenths, Lauda was exaggerating (as he sometimes does), or there is a distinct difference between "faster" and "better".

I have always wondered how teams can get it so spectacularly wrong in their assessment of drivers they might sign. Or perhaps I should say how they can so spectacularly fail to produce the car their signed driver needs. In that respect I think it is hard to find a better example than Räikkönen. So far, only McLaren have been able to give him the car he needs, both Ferrari and Lotus missed by a bit. Which raises the question which of the two drivers being discussed, Vettel and Alonso, were best served by the scuderia. If they understood Alonso better, then that might change our perception of which of them is the better/faster driver.

Isn't it striking that both Räikkönen and Vettel were best served car-wise by Adrian Newey? That simply must mean a whole lot.

Fiki wrote:

KingVoid wrote:2 tenths is very big if we are talking about the difference between top drivers. Hamilton was only 1 tenth faster than Rosberg on average and he was regarded as the clearly better driver.

I distinctly recall reading that Lauda said Rosberg was 3 tenths slower when he recruited Hamilton. So either Rosberg improved by 2 tenths, Lauda was exaggerating (as he sometimes does), or there is a distinct difference between "faster" and "better".

I have always wondered how teams can get it so spectacularly wrong in their assessment of drivers they might sign. Or perhaps I should say how they can so spectacularly fail to produce the car their signed driver needs. In that respect I think it is hard to find a better example than Räikkönen. So far, only McLaren have been able to give him the car he needs, both Ferrari and Lotus missed by a bit. Which raises the question which of the two drivers being discussed, Vettel and Alonso, were best served by the scuderia. If they understood Alonso better, then that might change our perception of which of them is the better/faster driver.

Isn't it striking that both Räikkönen and Vettel were best served car-wise by Adrian Newey? That simply must mean a whole lot.

Kimi is a strange one, tbh. I agree with you up to a point that the team should be striving to make a car that suits a particular driver, especially if they know that said driver struggles to perform without it (and even more especially when they have worked with said driver before, like Kimi). And McLaren showed just how productive that can be when they gave Kimi what he wanted and he shone for them. I believe it was Fry who mentioned that one season they had 9 different front ends between JPM and Kimi, in order that the drivers could get the best out of the cars.

But I also think it's much, much harder for teams to do that now, and that's down to one thing: Pirelli. The tyres they have now are so hyper-sensitive and so dependent upon staying within a very narrow window that designers have very little opportunity to stray from that path in order to accommodate drivers. The Michelins were much more forgiving in that regard and I do think that this is exacerbated by Kimi being simply unable to manage them effectively without compromising his own driving style. I think this is possibly best illustrated by his current qualifying form, where he looks to be much closer to Vettel than in the races, largely because he struggles to keep the tyres operating over the longer term.

So in the current era drivers who have a wider operating window, or simply got lucky that their style complements the tyres, have a far greater chance of success than Kimi will, because he has to have everything just right to perform. Which means that drivers like Alonso and Vettel will invariably do better, particularly Alonso who appears to be able to cope with just about every condition thrown at him. He reminds me a bit of Schumacher in that regard as he could often driver cars quickly that his team mates struggled mightily with

Zoue wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

KingVoid wrote:You are really underselling just what a big difference 2 tenths makes. In Formula 1 teams chase every last thousandth of a second with little winglets, 2 tenths is night and day.

If Alonso had 2 tenths on Vettel he would have won about 12 races in 2017 and easily won the WDC. That is the kind of difference such a speed advantage makes.

The difference is no more than a few hundreds. Any bigger and Ferrari would have signed either Dan or Max by now.

Well not really, because the car is rarely being pushed to the maximum. I would say there's about a second between the fastest and slowest guys. Possibly more. With that in mind I don't find it hard to believe that it's possible for Alonso to have a couple of tenths on Vettel. Even flat out that would only equate to 10-12 seconds if they raced flat put the entire race, didn't have a safety car and never got slowed by any traffic. In reality you're never going to get a clear race like that so the advantage is never really going to be as much as even 10 seconds.

Doesn't need to be all race, though. 2 tenths would have been enough to change the qualifying landscape last year and track position is a massive advantage.

Ah, I was more talking about through a race.

The two drivers being discussed above there is a constant between them which separates them, it's what has seen one triumph and the other fail.

Vettel: rather than drive around a problem and look great and be thought of as out driving the car, would rather iron out what the problems are and get the car to the sweet spot, thus it later pays serious dividends.

This was one of MSC's great trait none of his team mates found it hard to drive the car, they could not just drive it as fast as he could.

Alonso: would rather he look like he was out driving the car and point to his team mate not doing so good instead of getting the car to a point were it is at his sweet spot and drive able.

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:

KingVoid wrote:2 tenths is very big if we are talking about the difference between top drivers. Hamilton was only 1 tenth faster than Rosberg on average and he was regarded as the clearly better driver.

I distinctly recall reading that Lauda said Rosberg was 3 tenths slower when he recruited Hamilton. So either Rosberg improved by 2 tenths, Lauda was exaggerating (as he sometimes does), or there is a distinct difference between "faster" and "better".

I have always wondered how teams can get it so spectacularly wrong in their assessment of drivers they might sign. Or perhaps I should say how they can so spectacularly fail to produce the car their signed driver needs. In that respect I think it is hard to find a better example than Räikkönen. So far, only McLaren have been able to give him the car he needs, both Ferrari and Lotus missed by a bit. Which raises the question which of the two drivers being discussed, Vettel and Alonso, were best served by the scuderia. If they understood Alonso better, then that might change our perception of which of them is the better/faster driver.

Isn't it striking that both Räikkönen and Vettel were best served car-wise by Adrian Newey? That simply must mean a whole lot.

Kimi is a strange one, tbh. I agree with you up to a point that the team should be striving to make a car that suits a particular driver, especially if they know that said driver struggles to perform without it (and even more especially when they have worked with said driver before, like Kimi). And McLaren showed just how productive that can be when they gave Kimi what he wanted and he shone for them. I believe it was Fry who mentioned that one season they had 9 different front ends between JPM and Kimi, in order that the drivers could get the best out of the cars.

But I also think it's much, much harder for teams to do that now, and that's down to one thing: Pirelli. The tyres they have now are so hyper-sensitive and so dependent upon staying within a very narrow window that designers have very little opportunity to stray from that path in order to accommodate drivers. The Michelins were much more forgiving in that regard and I do think that this is exacerbated by Kimi being simply unable to manage them effectively without compromising his own driving style. I think this is possibly best illustrated by his current qualifying form, where he looks to be much closer to Vettel than in the races, largely because he struggles to keep the tyres operating over the longer term.

So in the current era drivers who have a wider operating window, or simply got lucky that their style complements the tyres, have a far greater chance of success than Kimi will, because he has to have everything just right to perform. Which means that drivers like Alonso and Vettel will invariably do better, particularly Alonso who appears to be able to cope with just about every condition thrown at him. He reminds me a bit of Schumacher in that regard as he could often driver cars quickly that his team mates struggled mightily with

Yes, but it was difficult to draw any conclusions from it, as none of his team-mates ever got the chance to have the car they needed, or test themselves into contention.
And these days, with testing almost reduced to nothing, I expect the teams' problems in selecting drivers to be even worse than it was then.

Digressing somewhat, I was seriously surprised by a comment in that old Newey article. He said that Mansell and Prost didn't need a racing engineer. I was aware Prost set up his cars even to the point of sacrificing qualifying, but Mansell! I'm not sure how to now interpret Mansell's remark about Prost trying to get the car to do it all. Unless it simply means that the set-up qualities of Prost were simply far better than his. But still Newey made his observation. Fascinating!

KingVoid wrote:Someone made this point on another forum:

In 2010, Ferrari hired Alonso despite the fact that they had two drivers under contract at the time. Raikkonen failed to live up to their expectations so they replaced him.

In 2017, Ferrari extended Vettel’s contract until the end of 2020 despite the fact that Alonso was on the market at the time. They also could have snatched one of the Red Bull drivers if they really wanted to.

Ferrari’s engineers have a lot of telemetry data on both Alonso and Vettel. If Alonso was significantly better than Vettel (as some people claim), then Ferrari would have realized this a long time ago.

The fact that Ferrari are happy with Vettel as their #1 driver and have made no real attempt to replace him suggests that he’s no slower than Alonso.

I think many people believe that Alonso is the best driver in F1 however he is also highly political, Alonso comes with a lot of baggage like the team has to entirely centre around him which can have a negative effect on a team.

KingVoid wrote:It’s not just Alonso though. Ferrari could have signed Ricciardo or Verstappen back in 2017 if they really tried. The fact that they didn’t even make a serious attempt suggests that they are happy with Vettel.

I highly doubt Vettel is 2 tenths slower than Alonso. 2 tenths is a very big difference in Formula 1. If he was that much slower than Alonso, Ferrari would have replaced him by now.

I doubt the difference is bigger than a few hundreds.

I'm sure that both Ricciardo and Verstappen were under contract to Red Bull in fact it's only now that Ricciardo becomes a free agent for 2019.

mikeyg123 wrote:

KingVoid wrote:It’s not just Alonso though. Ferrari could have signed Ricciardo or Verstappen back in 2017 if they really tried. The fact that they didn’t even make a serious attempt suggests that they are happy with Vettel.

I highly doubt Vettel is 2 tenths slower than Alonso. 2 tenths is a very big difference in Formula 1. If he was that much slower than Alonso, Ferrari would have replaced him by now.

I doubt the difference is bigger than a few hundreds.

Two tenths on average isn't that massive really. Especially when drivers are rarely allowed to drive flat out.

2 tenths is actually a lot in F1 terms, 1 tenth is respectful but still means you are second best.

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:Well, I find it difficult to believe in the conjecture that Ferrari tries to hire the fastest drivers available. I mean tgey keep re-hiring Räikkönen after all.

As long as Marchionne heads Ferrari there will be no way back for Alonso, even if he was a second quicker.
And a change in top management - which may be on the horizon or not - will likely mean that Hamilton or Ricciardo may enter the frame rather than Alonso (age). I am pretty sure that Vettel is safe (also from in-team competition) as long as - and only as long as - Marchionne remains at the head.

Indeed I would say that Ferrari have a history of signing the fastest #2 drivers available which is perhaps a harder balancing act than merely signing the fastest driver available?

Rockie wrote:The two drivers being discussed above there is a constant between them which separates them, it's what has seen one triumph and the other fail.

Vettel: rather than drive around a problem and look great and be thought of as out driving the car, would rather iron out what the problems are and get the car to the sweet spot, thus it later pays serious dividends.

This was one of MSC's great trait none of his team mates found it hard to drive the car, they could not just drive it as fast as he could.

Alonso: would rather he look like he was out driving the car and point to his team mate not doing so good instead of getting the car to a point were it is at his sweet spot and drive able.

Third paragraph - I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic? Schumacher was famed for his ability to drive through a difficult car. Some of his team mates had an absolute nightmare with the handling.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Rockie wrote:The two drivers being discussed above there is a constant between them which separates them, it's what has seen one triumph and the other fail.

Vettel: rather than drive around a problem and look great and be thought of as out driving the car, would rather iron out what the problems are and get the car to the sweet spot, thus it later pays serious dividends.

This was one of MSC's great trait none of his team mates found it hard to drive the car, they could not just drive it as fast as he could.

Alonso: would rather he look like he was out driving the car and point to his team mate not doing so good instead of getting the car to a point were it is at his sweet spot and drive able.

Third paragraph - I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic? Schumacher was famed for his ability to drive through a difficult car. Some of his team mates had an absolute nightmare with the handling.

Plus it's also said that Schumacher wasn't a good test driver for the same reason.

Fiki wrote:

KingVoid wrote:2 tenths is very big if we are talking about the difference between top drivers. Hamilton was only 1 tenth faster than Rosberg on average and he was regarded as the clearly better driver.

I distinctly recall reading that Lauda said Rosberg was 3 tenths slower when he recruited Hamilton. So either Rosberg improved by 2 tenths, Lauda was exaggerating (as he sometimes does), or there is a distinct difference between "faster" and "better".

We have 70 clean qualifying sessions worth of data that tell us that Hamilton only has 1 tenth on Rosberg on average.

2 tenths is a very big margin. If Alonso had that kind of speed advantage, Vettel would basically look like Barrichello next to him.

KingVoid wrote:

Fiki wrote:

KingVoid wrote:2 tenths is very big if we are talking about the difference between top drivers. Hamilton was only 1 tenth faster than Rosberg on average and he was regarded as the clearly better driver.

I distinctly recall reading that Lauda said Rosberg was 3 tenths slower when he recruited Hamilton. So either Rosberg improved by 2 tenths, Lauda was exaggerating (as he sometimes does), or there is a distinct difference between "faster" and "better".

We have 70 clean qualifying sessions worth of data that tell us that Hamilton only has 1 tenth on Rosberg on average.

2 tenths is a very big margin. If Alonso had that kind of speed advantage, Vettel would basically look like Barrichello next to him.

Barrichello was more than two tenths shy of Schumacher.

We don't know how Vettel would look alongside Alonso. Maybe he would look like Barrichello. Maybe Alonso would.

KingVoid wrote:

Fiki wrote:

KingVoid wrote:2 tenths is very big if we are talking about the difference between top drivers. Hamilton was only 1 tenth faster than Rosberg on average and he was regarded as the clearly better driver.

I distinctly recall reading that Lauda said Rosberg was 3 tenths slower when he recruited Hamilton. So either Rosberg improved by 2 tenths, Lauda was exaggerating (as he sometimes does), or there is a distinct difference between "faster" and "better".

We have 70 clean qualifying sessions worth of data that tell us that Hamilton only has 1 tenth on Rosberg on average.

2 tenths is a very big margin. If Alonso had that kind of speed advantage, Vettel would basically look like Barrichello next to him.

1 tenth did indeed stick in my mind, but I have no idea whether that was the average or not.

2 tenths has only become a sizeable margin since F1 dumped the Sunday morning warm-up and put all cars in parc-fermé after qualifying. And since mission control took over thinking duties from drivers, obviously. In the old days, the job wasn't as good as done after qualifying.

There's a lot of misleading commentary in here at the moment. All this talk about 1 tenth or 2 tenths. First of all, the average gap between drivers is a terrible statistic because a single session can skew the numbers by a huge amount. The median gap would be a much better stat to use. Secondly, between teammates who share data, the average gap will rarely be huge. By the time they get to Q3, the slower guy has seen the faster guy's data and will gain time on him.

To me, the question of why didn't Ferrari sign Alonso is more down to the fact that they already had a partnership and it ran its course. They are also completely satisfied with Vettel at the moment so there was no impetus to go after Alonso. I do think that Alonso has a half of a step on Vettel as a driver but I think Vettel has Alonso beat when it comes to his impact on the team. Vettel has a generally very positive impact on his team and just brings the right energy to the table. It's not all about him, he appreciates the team and his words in public reflect that; giving them credit and just generally being positive. Alonso really loses out in this regard, as his presence on a team is often negative in terms of what he has to say about his team and his car. He's always talking himself up and talking his team down. This has been an observable fact for years now.

Rockie wrote:The two drivers being discussed above there is a constant between them which separates them, it's what has seen one triumph and the other fail.

Vettel: rather than drive around a problem and look great and be thought of as out driving the car, would rather iron out what the problems are and get the car to the sweet spot, thus it later pays serious dividends.

This was one of MSC's great trait none of his team mates found it hard to drive the car, they could not just drive it as fast as he could.

Alonso: would rather he look like he was out driving the car and point to his team mate not doing so good instead of getting the car to a point were it is at his sweet spot and drive able.

Vettel wasn't exactly more successful in ironing out the problems in his first four years at Ferrari than Alonso was.
Vettel did throw away significantly more potential race wins than Alonso, though.

sandman1347 wrote:There's a lot of misleading commentary in here at the moment. All this talk about 1 tenth or 2 tenths. First of all, the average gap between drivers is a terrible statistic because a single session can skew the numbers by a huge amount. The median gap would be a much better stat to use. Secondly, between teammates who share data, the average gap will rarely be huge. By the time they get to Q3, the slower guy has seen the faster guy's data and will gain time on him.

To me, the question of why didn't Ferrari sign Alonso is more down to the fact that they already had a partnership and it ran its course. They are also completely satisfied with Vettel at the moment so there was no impetus to go after Alonso. I do think that Alonso has a half of a step on Vettel as a driver but I think Vettel has Alonso beat when it comes to his impact on the team. Vettel has a generally very positive impact on his team and just brings the right energy to the table. It's not all about him, he appreciates the team and his words in public reflect that; giving them credit and just generally being positive. Alonso really loses out in this regard, as his presence on a team is often negative in terms of what he has to say about his team and his car. He's always talking himself up and talking his team down. This has been an observable fact for years now.

Not a fair comparison.

Vettel has got very competitive Ferrari's in comparison to what Alonso got. Therefore it's natural that Vettel will give credit to the team because they had been doing a good job. When Alonso was there, the management was different and they generally didn't do a good job. I think Alonso gives praise where it's due. Do you see him bashing Mclaren this year?

The least competitive Ferrari that Vettel got was 2016, and we saw him beginning to lose his rag during that season.

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Rockie wrote:The two drivers being discussed above there is a constant between them which separates them, it's what has seen one triumph and the other fail.

Vettel: rather than drive around a problem and look great and be thought of as out driving the car, would rather iron out what the problems are and get the car to the sweet spot, thus it later pays serious dividends.

This was one of MSC's great trait none of his team mates found it hard to drive the car, they could not just drive it as fast as he could.

Alonso: would rather he look like he was out driving the car and point to his team mate not doing so good instead of getting the car to a point were it is at his sweet spot and drive able.

Vettel wasn't exactly more successful in ironing out the problems in his first four years at Ferrari than Alonso was.
Vettel did throw away significantly more potential race wins than Alonso, though.

Rockie is talking out of his...

Alonso wants a fast car, like the rest of the drivers.

The fact that he can drive ill handling cars is a strength which not many have, and not sure why you would hold that against him.

And the idea that MSC's cars were easy to drive.... Berger crashed the B195 twice the first time he tried it because he found it so difficult to drive.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Rockie wrote:The two drivers being discussed above there is a constant between them which separates them, it's what has seen one triumph and the other fail.

Vettel: rather than drive around a problem and look great and be thought of as out driving the car, would rather iron out what the problems are and get the car to the sweet spot, thus it later pays serious dividends.

This was one of MSC's great trait none of his team mates found it hard to drive the car, they could not just drive it as fast as he could.

Alonso: would rather he look like he was out driving the car and point to his team mate not doing so good instead of getting the car to a point were it is at his sweet spot and drive able.

Third paragraph - I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic? Schumacher was famed for his ability to drive through a difficult car. Some of his team mates had an absolute nightmare with the handling.

None of Schumacher's team mates suffer the way Alonso's team mate suffer.

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Rockie wrote:The two drivers being discussed above there is a constant between them which separates them, it's what has seen one triumph and the other fail.

Vettel: rather than drive around a problem and look great and be thought of as out driving the car, would rather iron out what the problems are and get the car to the sweet spot, thus it later pays serious dividends.

This was one of MSC's great trait none of his team mates found it hard to drive the car, they could not just drive it as fast as he could.

Alonso: would rather he look like he was out driving the car and point to his team mate not doing so good instead of getting the car to a point were it is at his sweet spot and drive able.

Vettel wasn't exactly more successful in ironing out the problems in his first four years at Ferrari than Alonso was.
Vettel did throw away significantly more potential race wins than Alonso, though.

He wasn't? Really!

I suppose the Struggle with '16 to bring a better '17 is not an improvement or overlap to '18.

davidheath461 wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Rockie wrote:The two drivers being discussed above there is a constant between them which separates them, it's what has seen one triumph and the other fail.

Vettel: rather than drive around a problem and look great and be thought of as out driving the car, would rather iron out what the problems are and get the car to the sweet spot, thus it later pays serious dividends.

This was one of MSC's great trait none of his team mates found it hard to drive the car, they could not just drive it as fast as he could.

Alonso: would rather he look like he was out driving the car and point to his team mate not doing so good instead of getting the car to a point were it is at his sweet spot and drive able.

Vettel wasn't exactly more successful in ironing out the problems in his first four years at Ferrari than Alonso was.
Vettel did throw away significantly more potential race wins than Alonso, though.

Rockie is talking out of his...

Alonso wants a fast car, like the rest of the drivers.

The fact that he can drive ill handling cars is a strength which not many have, and not sure why you would hold that against him.

And the idea that MSC's cars were easy to drive.... Berger crashed the B195 twice the first time he tried it because he found it so difficult to drive.

Coming from the guy who said he does not want the fastest car, he just wants to be 2 tenths closer to the faster car and he will do the rest.

I still can't stop laughing at folks who drink the Alonso kool aid, now he wants the fastest car like everyone else.

Let this sink in a bit the last time Alonso won a WDC, Kimi had not won won a WDC then.

He and people who believe he's quicker than Vettel live in a universe of alternate facts, in a straight pole shootout he' not getting anywhere near him.