planetf1.com

Zoue wrote:

Rockie wrote:

mds wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:I can see pokerman's point. If Alonso stayed at Ferrari just one more season then he would have seen that Ferrari had the 2nd best car, whilst he would probably not be so enthusiastic about Mclaren Honda after their disastrous 2015.

True, but then what? Very distant second best in 2015, then in 2016 Mercedes pulled even more ahead with respect to Ferrari and RBR caught and overtook them.

I don't know... Maybe he would have stayed, for lack of anything that seemed like a viable option (although the appeal of Renault coming back might have drawn him for 2017 then). Maybe
But the point being made was that he was patient for five full seasons, which is probably at the far end of what you could reasonably ask from a driver I think.

But being at Mclaren was better?

Had he stayed at Ferrari they will still be worse off.

Last season proves that, yes the Honda engine wasn't all that but Mclaren had a deficient chassis and Alonso can not say he didn't know this but kept bashing Honda and hence we heard the we have the best chassis on the grid only Honda holding them back.

It's a fact that the Honda engine was bad, as admitted by Honda themselves. No evidence that the chassis was deficient.

No evidence it was good either, being almost 2 seconds slower using the same engine as redbull in a year no major regulation changes were made tells a lot.

mds wrote:

Rockie wrote:

mds wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:I can see pokerman's point. If Alonso stayed at Ferrari just one more season then he would have seen that Ferrari had the 2nd best car, whilst he would probably not be so enthusiastic about Mclaren Honda after their disastrous 2015.

True, but then what? Very distant second best in 2015, then in 2016 Mercedes pulled even more ahead with respect to Ferrari and RBR caught and overtook them.

I don't know... Maybe he would have stayed, for lack of anything that seemed like a viable option (although the appeal of Renault coming back might have drawn him for 2017 then). Maybe
But the point being made was that he was patient for five full seasons, which is probably at the far end of what you could reasonably ask from a driver I think.

But being at Mclaren was better?

Hindsight is such a lovely thing.

No need for hindsight Mclaren has been bad since '13.

Alonso had no other choice hence why he ended up there.

Rockie, Alonso did have other choices. One in particular... He could have stayed with Ferrari.

Blake wrote:Rockie, Alonso did have other choices. One in particular... He could have stayed with Ferrari.

Nah he couldn't Ferrari had already signed Vettel.

Rockie wrote:

Blake wrote:Rockie, Alonso did have other choices. One in particular... He could have stayed with Ferrari.

Nah he couldn't Ferrari had already signed Vettel.

He was given the chance.

Alonso falling out with McLaren in 2007 was probably a bigger mistake than him leaving Ferrari. If Alonso had just stayed one more year at McLaren he would have had a great shot at the 2008 WDC. Hamilton made more mistakes in 2008 than he did in 2007, as did the two Ferrari drivers.

Rockie wrote:But being at Mclaren was better?

Had he stayed at Ferrari they will still be worse off.

Last season proves that, yes the Honda engine wasn't all that but Mclaren had a deficient chassis and Alonso can not say he didn't know this but kept bashing Honda and hence we heard the we have the best chassis on the grid only Honda holding them back.

He stated he didn't want to be the second best, he wanted to challenge for the championship. That's why he moved to McLaren-Honda which had a golden history in the 80s and early 90s. Had he stayed at Ferrari, 2015 and especially 2016 would have proved that his statement was 100% correct. Only in 2017 did Ferrari start to have a chance to challenge for the title, that means he had to wait for 3 more years, while the new McLaren-Honda partnership offered some new hope in 2015. We have to understand his thoughts when he said Ferrari gave him no hope.

Rockie wrote:No need for hindsight Mclaren has been bad since '13.

Alonso had no other choice hence why he ended up there.

I think it's not because he had no other choice, but the new McLaren-Honda partnership was his priority, of course because of the past history. Who would predict back then if the partnership would become that bad? For me it's the right choice if the basis is that he really was tired of being the second best forever. At that time, in 2014, everybody knew Ferrari would never be better than second best, and actually everybody was correct, the field was dominated by Mercedez for 3 years to come.

But I agree that his choice to return to Renault in 2008 is a big mistake. The fact is that McLaren were fighting with Ferrari for the championships while Reanult were nowhere close. He left McLaren only because of emotional reason, that's a big mistake.

KingVoid wrote:Alonso falling out with McLaren in 2007 was probably a bigger mistake than him leaving Ferrari. If Alonso had just stayed one more year at McLaren he would have had a great shot at the 2008 WDC. Hamilton made more mistakes in 2008 than he did in 2007, as did the two Ferrari drivers.

I'm not sure it can be classed as a mistake as I don't think he had any option other than to leave McLaren. He snd Ron were at war by all accounts.

Rockie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Rockie wrote:

mds wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:I can see pokerman's point. If Alonso stayed at Ferrari just one more season then he would have seen that Ferrari had the 2nd best car, whilst he would probably not be so enthusiastic about Mclaren Honda after their disastrous 2015.

True, but then what? Very distant second best in 2015, then in 2016 Mercedes pulled even more ahead with respect to Ferrari and RBR caught and overtook them.

I don't know... Maybe he would have stayed, for lack of anything that seemed like a viable option (although the appeal of Renault coming back might have drawn him for 2017 then). Maybe
But the point being made was that he was patient for five full seasons, which is probably at the far end of what you could reasonably ask from a driver I think.

But being at Mclaren was better?

Had he stayed at Ferrari they will still be worse off.

Last season proves that, yes the Honda engine wasn't all that but Mclaren had a deficient chassis and Alonso can not say he didn't know this but kept bashing Honda and hence we heard the we have the best chassis on the grid only Honda holding them back.

It's a fact that the Honda engine was bad, as admitted by Honda themselves. No evidence that the chassis was deficient.

No evidence it was good either, being almost 2 seconds slower using the same engine as redbull in a year no major regulation changes were made tells a lot.

only if you don't understand the changes they had to make to accommodate the larger Renault PU, which by all accounts were substantial. Lotus49 has already listed them but they include the rear suspension, bargeboards, sidepods, floor etc. One account I read on another forum states they even had to move the front suspension forward, too. All that affects the centre of gravity, aero and handling of the car and is pretty major.

We'll never know how good last year's car was. But this year's car is quite different

Rockie wrote:

mds wrote:

Rockie wrote:

mds wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:I can see pokerman's point. If Alonso stayed at Ferrari just one more season then he would have seen that Ferrari had the 2nd best car, whilst he would probably not be so enthusiastic about Mclaren Honda after their disastrous 2015.

True, but then what? Very distant second best in 2015, then in 2016 Mercedes pulled even more ahead with respect to Ferrari and RBR caught and overtook them.

I don't know... Maybe he would have stayed, for lack of anything that seemed like a viable option (although the appeal of Renault coming back might have drawn him for 2017 then). Maybe
But the point being made was that he was patient for five full seasons, which is probably at the far end of what you could reasonably ask from a driver I think.

But being at Mclaren was better?

Hindsight is such a lovely thing.

No need for hindsight Mclaren has been bad since '13.

Because never before in F1 history have we seen a team come to the fore after a few lesser years?
I mean what have we witnessed Ferrari doing from 2014/15/16 to 2017?

KingVoid wrote:Vettel now has 11 wins for Ferrari, which equals Alonso's tally.

Vettel has achieved this in 66 races. Alonso drove 96 races for Ferrari.

In Alonso's defense, the 2018 Ferrari is a much better car than anything Ferrari gave him.

This is my post of March 03, 2015

Pullrod wrote: You asked before for elements to support my points, and I gave you sensible things and events to think about and I even used the "obscure software" metaphor.
If a driver were often "first" without the God Alonso driving alongside him, he could come "second"(didn't happen) or "third" when Alonso becomes his team mate, no?

I repeat that he is the best at looking after his own interests and working the media.
During the period 2007-2009 Massa and Raikkonen has won 9 times each, so a total of 18 wins for Ferrari, while Alonso has accumulated 11 wins in 5 years with them.

Raikkonen and Vettel will perform better than Alonso + Massa/Raikkonen in Ferrari, But then we will hear "what Alonso could have done with this car, etc..".
His brand is certainly powerful and his stock overvalued but that's my opinion.

Lotus49 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mds wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

Warheart01 wrote:Is Vettel the driver who is the most spoiled with dominant cars through his career?
I think yes, and I think that can really stick in someones throat, like Alonsos, and alot of fans, like mine.
First RB and now a new era with Ferrari dominance.

Yes, this post is a bit of a joke.

Of the current drivers Hamilton has had the most number of dominant cars, not Vettel.

I think it must hurt Alonso knowing he probably could have and certainly should have stayed at Ferrari. The fact that it's the driver he lost 2 close championships to (in years he put in his best performances) who replaced him and reaped the rewards can only make it sting more.

To Alonso's defense, you can only maintain morale and belief for a limited time. Alonso has been there for 5 full seasons, some years were better than others but 2014 was a proper disaster. 4-5 years into the cooperation, that's a long time to find you're nowhere again.
Even then, it would have taken until 2017 to be competitive, so he would have had to uphold faith in Ferrari for 8 seasons. I think a lot of drivers would have lost faith.

Actually if he had stayed but 1 more year, 2015 wasn't a bad year.

He clearly means a car that can fight for the title and that was 2017 so it would've indeed been 8. And his last year of the contract would've been 2016 where Ferrari got passed by Red Bull in the second half so it would be a here we go again type feeling so it's pretty tough to keep the faith in those conditions to even see year 8.

Seb saw enough in Red Bull after 1 bad year. Lewis had enough in a year he actually had the quickest car but strategy and reliability was bad. Alonso's expected to wait 8.

Well in 2015 he would have been winning races and been able to see how bad the McLaren Honda package was so why would he leave the second best car to go to a worse car?

Also you seem to be losing sight that Vettel joined the team that Alonso saw as no hopers, Vettel must have seen something in the team that Alonso didn't?

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mds wrote:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

Warheart01 wrote:Is Vettel the driver who is the most spoiled with dominant cars through his career?
I think yes, and I think that can really stick in someones throat, like Alonsos, and alot of fans, like mine.
First RB and now a new era with Ferrari dominance.

Yes, this post is a bit of a joke.

Of the current drivers Hamilton has had the most number of dominant cars, not Vettel.

I think it must hurt Alonso knowing he probably could have and certainly should have stayed at Ferrari. The fact that it's the driver he lost 2 close championships to (in years he put in his best performances) who replaced him and reaped the rewards can only make it sting more.

To Alonso's defense, you can only maintain morale and belief for a limited time. Alonso has been there for 5 full seasons, some years were better than others but 2014 was a proper disaster. 4-5 years into the cooperation, that's a long time to find you're nowhere again.
Even then, it would have taken until 2017 to be competitive, so he would have had to uphold faith in Ferrari for 8 seasons. I think a lot of drivers would have lost faith.

Actually if he had stayed but 1 more year, 2015 wasn't a bad year.

You can't blame Alonso for not being willing to wait 8 years for a car on equal terms with the best. Neither Vettel or Hamilton would wait that long either.

I repeat again though in respect to Vettel he replaced Alonso and walked into that situation.

mds wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:I can see pokerman's point. If Alonso stayed at Ferrari just one more season then he would have seen that Ferrari had the 2nd best car, whilst he would probably not be so enthusiastic about Mclaren Honda after their disastrous 2015.

True, but then what? Very distant second best in 2015, then in 2016 Mercedes pulled even more ahead with respect to Ferrari and RBR caught and overtook them.

I don't know... Maybe he would have stayed, for lack of anything that seemed like a viable option (although the appeal of Renault coming back might have drawn him for 2017 then). Maybe
But the point being made was that he was patient for five full seasons, which is probably at the far end of what you could reasonably ask from a driver I think.

Well he's still at McLaren and that's been a disaster in comparison to what he experienced at Ferrari, just one more year and he would have seen Ferrari turning the corner.

pokerman wrote:

mds wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:I can see pokerman's point. If Alonso stayed at Ferrari just one more season then he would have seen that Ferrari had the 2nd best car, whilst he would probably not be so enthusiastic about Mclaren Honda after their disastrous 2015.

True, but then what? Very distant second best in 2015, then in 2016 Mercedes pulled even more ahead with respect to Ferrari and RBR caught and overtook them.

I don't know... Maybe he would have stayed, for lack of anything that seemed like a viable option (although the appeal of Renault coming back might have drawn him for 2017 then). Maybe
But the point being made was that he was patient for five full seasons, which is probably at the far end of what you could reasonably ask from a driver I think.

Well he's still at McLaren and that's been a disaster in comparison to what he experienced at Ferrari, just one more year and he would have seen Ferrari turning the corner.

that's with hindsight, though. Clearly he felt nothing was going to improve soon

Zoue wrote:

Rockie wrote:

mds wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:I can see pokerman's point. If Alonso stayed at Ferrari just one more season then he would have seen that Ferrari had the 2nd best car, whilst he would probably not be so enthusiastic about Mclaren Honda after their disastrous 2015.

True, but then what? Very distant second best in 2015, then in 2016 Mercedes pulled even more ahead with respect to Ferrari and RBR caught and overtook them.

I don't know... Maybe he would have stayed, for lack of anything that seemed like a viable option (although the appeal of Renault coming back might have drawn him for 2017 then). Maybe
But the point being made was that he was patient for five full seasons, which is probably at the far end of what you could reasonably ask from a driver I think.

But being at Mclaren was better?

Had he stayed at Ferrari they will still be worse off.

Last season proves that, yes the Honda engine wasn't all that but Mclaren had a deficient chassis and Alonso can not say he didn't know this but kept bashing Honda and hence we heard the we have the best chassis on the grid only Honda holding them back.

It's a fact that the Honda engine was bad, as admitted by Honda themselves. No evidence that the chassis was deficient.

It's a fact that McLaren were loading the car with downforce so they could say look how good our car is in the corners and making the straight line speed of the Honda engine appear worse than it was, as soon as Honda put the engine in the STR the straight line speed improved dramatically.

mds wrote:

Rockie wrote:

mds wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:I can see pokerman's point. If Alonso stayed at Ferrari just one more season then he would have seen that Ferrari had the 2nd best car, whilst he would probably not be so enthusiastic about Mclaren Honda after their disastrous 2015.

True, but then what? Very distant second best in 2015, then in 2016 Mercedes pulled even more ahead with respect to Ferrari and RBR caught and overtook them.

I don't know... Maybe he would have stayed, for lack of anything that seemed like a viable option (although the appeal of Renault coming back might have drawn him for 2017 then). Maybe
But the point being made was that he was patient for five full seasons, which is probably at the far end of what you could reasonably ask from a driver I think.

But being at Mclaren was better?

Hindsight is such a lovely thing.

But I said if only he had stayed 1 more year.

KingVoid wrote:Alonso falling out with McLaren in 2007 was probably a bigger mistake than him leaving Ferrari. If Alonso had just stayed one more year at McLaren he would have had a great shot at the 2008 WDC. Hamilton made more mistakes in 2008 than he did in 2007, as did the two Ferrari drivers.

Yep but Alonso wasn't given preferential treatment so he left.

Zoue wrote:

Rockie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Rockie wrote:

mds wrote: True, but then what? Very distant second best in 2015, then in 2016 Mercedes pulled even more ahead with respect to Ferrari and RBR caught and overtook them.

I don't know... Maybe he would have stayed, for lack of anything that seemed like a viable option (although the appeal of Renault coming back might have drawn him for 2017 then). Maybe
But the point being made was that he was patient for five full seasons, which is probably at the far end of what you could reasonably ask from a driver I think.

But being at Mclaren was better?

Had he stayed at Ferrari they will still be worse off.

Last season proves that, yes the Honda engine wasn't all that but Mclaren had a deficient chassis and Alonso can not say he didn't know this but kept bashing Honda and hence we heard the we have the best chassis on the grid only Honda holding them back.

It's a fact that the Honda engine was bad, as admitted by Honda themselves. No evidence that the chassis was deficient.

No evidence it was good either, being almost 2 seconds slower using the same engine as redbull in a year no major regulation changes were made tells a lot.

only if you don't understand the changes they had to make to accommodate the larger Renault PU, which by all accounts were substantial. Lotus49 has already listed them but they include the rear suspension, bargeboards, sidepods, floor etc. One account I read on another forum states they even had to move the front suspension forward, too. All that affects the centre of gravity, aero and handling of the car and is pretty major.

We'll never know how good last year's car was. But this year's car is quite different

But this just swings back to the fact of how the McLaren was not allowed to be compromised by the Honda engine, the car came first, the engine second.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Rockie wrote:

mds wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:I can see pokerman's point. If Alonso stayed at Ferrari just one more season then he would have seen that Ferrari had the 2nd best car, whilst he would probably not be so enthusiastic about Mclaren Honda after their disastrous 2015.

True, but then what? Very distant second best in 2015, then in 2016 Mercedes pulled even more ahead with respect to Ferrari and RBR caught and overtook them.

I don't know... Maybe he would have stayed, for lack of anything that seemed like a viable option (although the appeal of Renault coming back might have drawn him for 2017 then). Maybe
But the point being made was that he was patient for five full seasons, which is probably at the far end of what you could reasonably ask from a driver I think.

But being at Mclaren was better?

Had he stayed at Ferrari they will still be worse off.

Last season proves that, yes the Honda engine wasn't all that but Mclaren had a deficient chassis and Alonso can not say he didn't know this but kept bashing Honda and hence we heard the we have the best chassis on the grid only Honda holding them back.

It's a fact that the Honda engine was bad, as admitted by Honda themselves. No evidence that the chassis was deficient.

It's a fact that McLaren were loading the car with downforce so they could say look how good our car is in the corners and making the straight line speed of the Honda engine appear worse than it was, as soon as Honda put the engine in the STR the straight line speed improved dramatically.

So nothing to do with any work Honda put in over the winter, then? It's purely Honda taking the engine out of the McLaren and putting it into the STR that made the difference? Were they so confident they had a winner that they ended up playing golf all winter, not needing to do any development?

I'd be curious to see just how factual this fact is. Do you have a source?

So far we've had Honda admitting they didn't know that a larger exhaust would give them a power boost, and now you're claiming that they wouldn't have been able to identify that their power was being compromised by a chassis which crippled them? Better let Red Bull know just what clueless cowboys they are considering to take onboard pretty damn quick. They appear to be navigating by the best guess method if you are correct

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Rockie wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Rockie wrote: But being at Mclaren was better?

Had he stayed at Ferrari they will still be worse off.

Last season proves that, yes the Honda engine wasn't all that but Mclaren had a deficient chassis and Alonso can not say he didn't know this but kept bashing Honda and hence we heard the we have the best chassis on the grid only Honda holding them back.

It's a fact that the Honda engine was bad, as admitted by Honda themselves. No evidence that the chassis was deficient.

No evidence it was good either, being almost 2 seconds slower using the same engine as redbull in a year no major regulation changes were made tells a lot.

only if you don't understand the changes they had to make to accommodate the larger Renault PU, which by all accounts were substantial. Lotus49 has already listed them but they include the rear suspension, bargeboards, sidepods, floor etc. One account I read on another forum states they even had to move the front suspension forward, too. All that affects the centre of gravity, aero and handling of the car and is pretty major.

We'll never know how good last year's car was. But this year's car is quite different

But this just swings back to the fact of how the McLaren was not allowed to be compromised by the Honda engine, the car came first, the engine second.

How does it swing back to that? They had to make changes for the Renault, that's all it points to.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mds wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:I can see pokerman's point. If Alonso stayed at Ferrari just one more season then he would have seen that Ferrari had the 2nd best car, whilst he would probably not be so enthusiastic about Mclaren Honda after their disastrous 2015.

True, but then what? Very distant second best in 2015, then in 2016 Mercedes pulled even more ahead with respect to Ferrari and RBR caught and overtook them.

I don't know... Maybe he would have stayed, for lack of anything that seemed like a viable option (although the appeal of Renault coming back might have drawn him for 2017 then). Maybe
But the point being made was that he was patient for five full seasons, which is probably at the far end of what you could reasonably ask from a driver I think.

Well he's still at McLaren and that's been a disaster in comparison to what he experienced at Ferrari, just one more year and he would have seen Ferrari turning the corner.

that's with hindsight, though. Clearly he felt nothing was going to improve soon

However he was proven wrong immediately the next season.

pokerman wrote:

mds wrote:

Rockie wrote:

mds wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:I can see pokerman's point. If Alonso stayed at Ferrari just one more season then he would have seen that Ferrari had the 2nd best car, whilst he would probably not be so enthusiastic about Mclaren Honda after their disastrous 2015.

True, but then what? Very distant second best in 2015, then in 2016 Mercedes pulled even more ahead with respect to Ferrari and RBR caught and overtook them.

I don't know... Maybe he would have stayed, for lack of anything that seemed like a viable option (although the appeal of Renault coming back might have drawn him for 2017 then). Maybe
But the point being made was that he was patient for five full seasons, which is probably at the far end of what you could reasonably ask from a driver I think.

But being at Mclaren was better?

Hindsight is such a lovely thing.

But I said if only he had stayed 1 more year.

But how many years do you expect one to wait? "just one more year". And after that "yeah just one more year!". And then? One more? How many?

He stayed five seasons, which is a large period of a driver career. And even staying 2 seasons longer he would find himself with a car vastly worse than the Mercedes, and having fallen back behind Red Bull. Think he might very well have chosen for the Renault project that was about to really kick off in 2017 then.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mds wrote:

davidheath461 wrote:I can see pokerman's point. If Alonso stayed at Ferrari just one more season then he would have seen that Ferrari had the 2nd best car, whilst he would probably not be so enthusiastic about Mclaren Honda after their disastrous 2015.

True, but then what? Very distant second best in 2015, then in 2016 Mercedes pulled even more ahead with respect to Ferrari and RBR caught and overtook them.

I don't know... Maybe he would have stayed, for lack of anything that seemed like a viable option (although the appeal of Renault coming back might have drawn him for 2017 then). Maybe
But the point being made was that he was patient for five full seasons, which is probably at the far end of what you could reasonably ask from a driver I think.

Well he's still at McLaren and that's been a disaster in comparison to what he experienced at Ferrari, just one more year and he would have seen Ferrari turning the corner.

that's with hindsight, though. Clearly he felt nothing was going to improve soon

However he was proven wrong immediately the next season.

Hindsight again, though?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Rockie wrote:

mds wrote: True, but then what? Very distant second best in 2015, then in 2016 Mercedes pulled even more ahead with respect to Ferrari and RBR caught and overtook them.

I don't know... Maybe he would have stayed, for lack of anything that seemed like a viable option (although the appeal of Renault coming back might have drawn him for 2017 then). Maybe
But the point being made was that he was patient for five full seasons, which is probably at the far end of what you could reasonably ask from a driver I think.

But being at Mclaren was better?

Had he stayed at Ferrari they will still be worse off.

Last season proves that, yes the Honda engine wasn't all that but Mclaren had a deficient chassis and Alonso can not say he didn't know this but kept bashing Honda and hence we heard the we have the best chassis on the grid only Honda holding them back.

It's a fact that the Honda engine was bad, as admitted by Honda themselves. No evidence that the chassis was deficient.

It's a fact that McLaren were loading the car with downforce so they could say look how good our car is in the corners and making the straight line speed of the Honda engine appear worse than it was, as soon as Honda put the engine in the STR the straight line speed improved dramatically.

So nothing to do with any work Honda put in over the winter, then? It's purely Honda taking the engine out of the McLaren and putting it into the STR that made the difference? Were they so confident they had a winner that they ended up playing golf all winter, not needing to do any development?

I'd be curious to see just how factual this fact is. Do you have a source?

So far we've had Honda admitting they didn't know that a larger exhaust would give them a power boost, and now you're claiming that they wouldn't have been able to identify that their power was being compromised by a chassis which crippled them? Better let Red Bull know just what clueless cowboys they are considering to take onboard pretty damn quick. They appear to be navigating by the best guess method if you are correct

The proof is in the pudding, 3 months into the season and the engine that McLaren ditched is going to be taken onboard by Red Bull whilst McLaren have sacked one of their designers, the failure was not a one way street.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Rockie wrote:

Zoue wrote: It's a fact that the Honda engine was bad, as admitted by Honda themselves. No evidence that the chassis was deficient.

No evidence it was good either, being almost 2 seconds slower using the same engine as redbull in a year no major regulation changes were made tells a lot.

only if you don't understand the changes they had to make to accommodate the larger Renault PU, which by all accounts were substantial. Lotus49 has already listed them but they include the rear suspension, bargeboards, sidepods, floor etc. One account I read on another forum states they even had to move the front suspension forward, too. All that affects the centre of gravity, aero and handling of the car and is pretty major.

We'll never know how good last year's car was. But this year's car is quite different

But this just swings back to the fact of how the McLaren was not allowed to be compromised by the Honda engine, the car came first, the engine second.

How does it swing back to that? They had to make changes for the Renault, that's all it points to.

They've had to compromise the car for the Renault engine in comparison to the Honda engine, Red Bull don't seem to have any problems with the installation of the Renault engine in terms of chassis performance.

mds wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mds wrote:

Rockie wrote:

mds wrote: True, but then what? Very distant second best in 2015, then in 2016 Mercedes pulled even more ahead with respect to Ferrari and RBR caught and overtook them.

I don't know... Maybe he would have stayed, for lack of anything that seemed like a viable option (although the appeal of Renault coming back might have drawn him for 2017 then). Maybe
But the point being made was that he was patient for five full seasons, which is probably at the far end of what you could reasonably ask from a driver I think.

But being at Mclaren was better?

Hindsight is such a lovely thing.

But I said if only he had stayed 1 more year.

But how many years do you expect one to wait? "just one more year". And after that "yeah just one more year!". And then? One more? How many?

He stayed five seasons, which is a large period of a driver career. And even staying 2 seasons longer he would find himself with a car vastly worse than the Mercedes, and having fallen back behind Red Bull. Think he might very well have chosen for the Renault project that was about to really kick off in 2017 then.

I think you still have to put it on Alonso for making poor decisions, Ferrari were so dire that Vettel signed for them.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mds wrote: True, but then what? Very distant second best in 2015, then in 2016 Mercedes pulled even more ahead with respect to Ferrari and RBR caught and overtook them.

I don't know... Maybe he would have stayed, for lack of anything that seemed like a viable option (although the appeal of Renault coming back might have drawn him for 2017 then). Maybe
But the point being made was that he was patient for five full seasons, which is probably at the far end of what you could reasonably ask from a driver I think.

Well he's still at McLaren and that's been a disaster in comparison to what he experienced at Ferrari, just one more year and he would have seen Ferrari turning the corner.

that's with hindsight, though. Clearly he felt nothing was going to improve soon

However he was proven wrong immediately the next season.

Hindsight again, though?

Well James Allison told him that the car would be so much better in 2015 but he couldn't convince him.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Rockie wrote: No evidence it was good either, being almost 2 seconds slower using the same engine as redbull in a year no major regulation changes were made tells a lot.

only if you don't understand the changes they had to make to accommodate the larger Renault PU, which by all accounts were substantial. Lotus49 has already listed them but they include the rear suspension, bargeboards, sidepods, floor etc. One account I read on another forum states they even had to move the front suspension forward, too. All that affects the centre of gravity, aero and handling of the car and is pretty major.

We'll never know how good last year's car was. But this year's car is quite different

But this just swings back to the fact of how the McLaren was not allowed to be compromised by the Honda engine, the car came first, the engine second.

How does it swing back to that? They had to make changes for the Renault, that's all it points to.

They've had to compromise the car for the Renault engine in comparison to the Honda engine, Red Bull don't seem to have any problems with the installation of the Renault engine in terms of chassis performance.

The Renault is a larger unit than the Honda, which has a lower profile thanks to its split turbo design. So it makes sense that McLaren need to make changes, whereas TR don't. Even small changes may have a large impact as they have to move other things around to accommodate it.

Think about it. The claim is that the TR gives Honda more space. How would it do that if the Honda PU were bigger than the Renault one?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:Well he's still at McLaren and that's been a disaster in comparison to what he experienced at Ferrari, just one more year and he would have seen Ferrari turning the corner.

that's with hindsight, though. Clearly he felt nothing was going to improve soon

However he was proven wrong immediately the next season.

Hindsight again, though?

Well James Allison told him that the car would be so much better in 2015 but he couldn't convince him.

Because he'd had 5 years where he may have felt nothing improved?

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote: Well he's still at McLaren and that's been a disaster in comparison to what he experienced at Ferrari, just one more year and he would have seen Ferrari turning the corner.

that's with hindsight, though. Clearly he felt nothing was going to improve soon

However he was proven wrong immediately the next season.

Hindsight again, though?

Well James Allison told him that the car would be so much better in 2015 but he couldn't convince him.

Well, it was better, but still miles off, and then the next year it was too. Not exactly "yay"-worthy, not exactly the kind of performance Alonso would stay for.

And let's admit that Ferrari being that good in 2017 was rather unexpected by most.

I think you still have to put it on Alonso for making poor decisions, Ferrari were so dire that Vettel signed for them.

He's made a good number of decisions that backfired, some that looked bad at the time he made them even. But his decision on leaving Ferrari was fully understandable at the time and only with hindsight can you make that a bad decision.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: only if you don't understand the changes they had to make to accommodate the larger Renault PU, which by all accounts were substantial. Lotus49 has already listed them but they include the rear suspension, bargeboards, sidepods, floor etc. One account I read on another forum states they even had to move the front suspension forward, too. All that affects the centre of gravity, aero and handling of the car and is pretty major.

We'll never know how good last year's car was. But this year's car is quite different

But this just swings back to the fact of how the McLaren was not allowed to be compromised by the Honda engine, the car came first, the engine second.

How does it swing back to that? They had to make changes for the Renault, that's all it points to.

They've had to compromise the car for the Renault engine in comparison to the Honda engine, Red Bull don't seem to have any problems with the installation of the Renault engine in terms of chassis performance.

The Renault is a larger unit than the Honda, which has a lower profile thanks to its split turbo design. So it makes sense that McLaren need to make changes, whereas TR don't. Even small changes may have a large impact as they have to move other things around to accommodate it.

Think about it. The claim is that the TR gives Honda more space. How would it do that if the Honda PU were bigger than the Renault one?

The larger Renault engine doesn't seem to compromise the Red Bull chassis performance, neither did it in 2014, if the problem for McLaren was insufficient time to design the car then why sack the chief designer if it was not his fault?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: that's with hindsight, though. Clearly he felt nothing was going to improve soon

However he was proven wrong immediately the next season.

Hindsight again, though?

Well James Allison told him that the car would be so much better in 2015 but he couldn't convince him.

Because he'd had 5 years where he may have felt nothing improved?

James Allison wasn't there for 5 years, he had recently been brought in to turn things around.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Rockie wrote: But being at Mclaren was better?

Had he stayed at Ferrari they will still be worse off.

Last season proves that, yes the Honda engine wasn't all that but Mclaren had a deficient chassis and Alonso can not say he didn't know this but kept bashing Honda and hence we heard the we have the best chassis on the grid only Honda holding them back.

It's a fact that the Honda engine was bad, as admitted by Honda themselves. No evidence that the chassis was deficient.

It's a fact that McLaren were loading the car with downforce so they could say look how good our car is in the corners and making the straight line speed of the Honda engine appear worse than it was, as soon as Honda put the engine in the STR the straight line speed improved dramatically.

So nothing to do with any work Honda put in over the winter, then? It's purely Honda taking the engine out of the McLaren and putting it into the STR that made the difference? Were they so confident they had a winner that they ended up playing golf all winter, not needing to do any development?

I'd be curious to see just how factual this fact is. Do you have a source?

So far we've had Honda admitting they didn't know that a larger exhaust would give them a power boost, and now you're claiming that they wouldn't have been able to identify that their power was being compromised by a chassis which crippled them? Better let Red Bull know just what clueless cowboys they are considering to take onboard pretty damn quick. They appear to be navigating by the best guess method if you are correct

The proof is in the pudding, 3 months into the season and the engine that McLaren ditched is going to be taken onboard by Red Bull whilst McLaren have sacked one of their designers, the failure was not a one way street.

You have a strange concept of proof. I note you didn't answer the question of whether the improvements were solely down to switching chassis, or whether winter development work may have had something to do with it? Honda have been trying to get it right for years and it stands to reason they would eventually make progress.

When the deal between Honda and TR was originally announced, it was pointed out that this would likely be a stepping stone towards a RB deal, where the junior team would do the development and the senior team would reap the rewards. So if it does happen then it's not proof of anything except that everyone could see it coming. As to McLaren sacking one of their designers, they've clearly not done a good job adapting the car, so it could be that. You have a tendency to read into things but it's best to wait for proof - proper proof - before jumping to conclusions

mds wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: that's with hindsight, though. Clearly he felt nothing was going to improve soon

However he was proven wrong immediately the next season.

Hindsight again, though?

Well James Allison told him that the car would be so much better in 2015 but he couldn't convince him.

Well, it was better, but still miles off, and then the next year it was too. Not exactly "yay"-worthy, not exactly the kind of performance Alonso would stay for.

And let's admit that Ferrari being that good in 2017 was rather unexpected by most.

I think you still have to put it on Alonso for making poor decisions, Ferrari were so dire that Vettel signed for them.

He's made a good number of decisions that backfired, some that looked bad at the time he made them even. But his decision on leaving Ferrari was fully understandable at the time and only with hindsight can you make that a bad decision.

They still turned the corner in 2015 and it was the second best car and won 3 races, with Alonso on board it might have won more races than that, look what he achieved in 2012, it certainly would have stabalised his situation at Ferrari.

I think the hindsight reasoning is a bit weak when Vettel decided to join Ferrari, I think we have to question poor foresight.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:However he was proven wrong immediately the next season.

Hindsight again, though?

Well James Allison told him that the car would be so much better in 2015 but he couldn't convince him.

Because he'd had 5 years where he may have felt nothing improved?

James Allison wasn't there for 5 years, he had recently been brought in to turn things around.

5 years of Ferrari management not delivering. Maybe he felt that JA couldn't change the culture there, who knows? At the time there were no guarantees

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:But this just swings back to the fact of how the McLaren was not allowed to be compromised by the Honda engine, the car came first, the engine second.

How does it swing back to that? They had to make changes for the Renault, that's all it points to.

They've had to compromise the car for the Renault engine in comparison to the Honda engine, Red Bull don't seem to have any problems with the installation of the Renault engine in terms of chassis performance.

The Renault is a larger unit than the Honda, which has a lower profile thanks to its split turbo design. So it makes sense that McLaren need to make changes, whereas TR don't. Even small changes may have a large impact as they have to move other things around to accommodate it.

Think about it. The claim is that the TR gives Honda more space. How would it do that if the Honda PU were bigger than the Renault one?

The larger Renault engine doesn't seem to compromise the Red Bull chassis performance, neither did it in 2014, if the problem for McLaren was insufficient time to design the car then why sack the chief designer if it was not his fault?

Is this a serious comment? Red Bull have had years working together with Renault so it would look extremely odd if they suddenly couldn't fit the engine. McLaren made the decision to move to Renault quite late and so had to make compromises, which Red Bull would not have had to do. This is surely basic?

Blake wrote:

Rockie wrote:

Blake wrote:Rockie, Alonso did have other choices. One in particular... He could have stayed with Ferrari.

Nah he couldn't Ferrari had already signed Vettel.

He was given the chance.

He tried to play hard ball and Ferrari called his bluff and he was left in no mans land in fact he was helped by Horner who was upset and announced Vettel had signed for Ferrari whilst Alonso went about saying the ball was in his court.

pokerman wrote: They still turned the corner in 2015 and it was the second best car and won 3 races, with Alonso on board it might have won more races than that, look what he achieved in 2012, it certainly would have stabalised his situation at Ferrari.

Don't agree at all. It was FAR off Mercedes, and in 2016 it was even further off.
Having the distant second best car would not have "stabilised Alonso's situation". Each passing year of Ferrari delivering a car not able to fight Mercedes would have added to his disappointment. Being surpassed by RBR in 2016 again would have surely been the last drop.