Arrivederci Arrivabene

[F1 MERCENARY]

FIRST OFF: Mattiacci actually fired Alonso because Alonso would not adhere to a hard date as to when he was to let the boss man know his future plans and he did not want him doing anything but drive for Ferrari. Therefore, Alonso actually got the boot and did not simply leave of his own accord. Mattiacci was laying down the law and put EVERYONE on notice the past shenanigans are no longer acceptable. his way or the highway and Alonso caught the left lane on the autobahn. If you want to know more about the Vettel Alonso Ferrari deal transpired, there are several articles that outline the details quite well.

I don't think this is true. Alonso had already decided to leave - all Mattiacci (and Horner, when he revealed Vettel was going to Ferrari) did was screw up Alonso's planned exit.

What you think and what actually happened are two different things.

"Hence Alonso’s meeting with Mattiacci between the Singapore and Japan races. But going into that meeting there was a vital piece of information Alonso and his manager did not possess, but Mattiacci did: Sebastian Vettel – who had a long-term informal agreement that he would give Ferrari first call on his services should he leave Red Bull – had a clause in his Red Bull contract that would allow him to leave a year earlier than its full term (which was until the end of 2015) if he was below third in the championship before a specified cut-off date. That contractual window was about to close shortly after the Japanese Grand Prix. Alonso and Briatore incorrectly assumed that Vettel was committed to Red Bull until the end of 2015."

"Instead Mattiacci contacted Vettel and told him that if he was ready to sign, so was Ferrari. Red Bull announced at Suzuka that Vettel was leaving and Red Bull’s Christian Horner revealed that “Ferrari had made Sebastian a very generous offer”. It was only at this point that Alonso finally had all the pieces of the jigsaw – and further words were exchanged between him and the team boss."

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opin ... real-story

[Zoue]

Well, in fairness, it certainly seems like an excuse when you so grossly mischaracterize the actual events. Ferrari qualified 1-2 at Monza and Vettel spun and damaged his car on the first lap. So you take that and try to suggest that Mercedes were faster...Hamilton being faster than Kimi is pretty much a given unless Ferrari have half a second on Merc.

Grossly mischaracterize? Usual crap from you I see.

Just over a tenth separated the top three, at a track where the tow made a big difference. Vettel was just over a hundredth of a second faster than Hamilton, so there was clearly not much between the cars in quaifying, unless you take the stance that any time Hamilton is beaten it must be down to the car.

But in any event, I thought it was obvious I was talking about the race. In the race, Hamilton was all over Kimi. Bottas undoubtedly helped things but the Mercs looked like they handled the tyres better. The only real debate is over how much faster Vettel may have been than Kimi - and I'd agree the odds are on him being the quicker of the two - and whether he would have been faster than Hamilton. But that's guesswork, not fact.

Come now Zoue. Is that tone really necessary? The fact is that Ferrari had a 1-2 in qualifying at a track where Hamilton has dominated for years and where he put in a flawless lap. Bottas was also way behind in qualifying and nowhere in the race. Does that seem like a case of Mercedes having the best car to you?

Raikkonen is a lot slower than Hamilton (especially when it comes to race pace) and he was on the back foot strategically due to Vettel being out of the mix. The car was not to blame for Vettel's result that day. It was his own mistake that cost him a shot at the win.

I notice you going into different threads to try to suggest that Ferrari as a team somehow blew the championship. The fact is that Vettel threw away tons of points. First by messing up at Bakku, then we have his first lap crash in France, then there was the huge mistake in Germany, then of course we have another massive error at Monza, then another crash in Japan and another one in the US and yet another error in Brazil's qualifying session. No matter how you try to spin things; Vettel made WAY too many significant mistakes to win the championship DESPITE the fact that the car was very clearly up to the task.

if you don't want the tone don't set the bar. No need for gross mischaracterization, for example. You could simply disagree.

Hamilton has dominated most places for years. Who else has had the opportunity to since 2014? And Kimi also drove a pretty flawless qualifying lap for a change but still only managed to get pole by a tenth, even with the tow. Qualifying was close, that's all.

I'm not blaming the car for anything. No idea where you're getting that from.

I'm not trying to suggest anything. Vettel did blow his chance and made too many mistakes. Not sure how that's relevant to the discussion on what Vettel might have felt was the situation with the cars, given that he has gone on record to say he didn't think the Ferrari was the quicker car over the season, and how that may have caused him to overdrive (and maybe take too many risks). How that translates into an excuse is anybody's guess.

I certainly didn't set any bar of calling things crap. Not that it surprises me that you refuse to even take responsibility for your own behavior.

With regards to Vettel's comments; I think he's a bit on the defensive with all of the criticism that he has received. There's nothing whatsoever to suggest that he didn't have the car to be champion in 2018. Not that I don't sympathize. I can't imagine what it's like to face that much public scrutiny but the fact is that blaming the car for his season is absolutely making excuses (and poor excuses no less).

But nobody is blaming his car for his season

[Remmirath]

I'm cautiously optimistic that this is, at least, not a bad move. Time will tell if it's a good one. Binotto appears to be at least highly competent in what he's been doing so far, but running the entire team may prove to be a different matter. I do think that having a team principle with a lot of technical know-how is best, so that's likely to be an improvement.

[Exediron]

FIRST OFF: Mattiacci actually fired Alonso because Alonso would not adhere to a hard date as to when he was to let the boss man know his future plans and he did not want him doing anything but drive for Ferrari. Therefore, Alonso actually got the boot and did not simply leave of his own accord. Mattiacci was laying down the law and put EVERYONE on notice the past shenanigans are no longer acceptable. his way or the highway and Alonso caught the left lane on the autobahn. If you want to know more about the Vettel Alonso Ferrari deal transpired, there are several articles that outline the details quite well.

I don't think this is true. Alonso had already decided to leave - all Mattiacci (and Horner, when he revealed Vettel was going to Ferrari) did was screw up Alonso's planned exit.

What you think and what actually happened are two different things.

"Hence Alonso’s meeting with Mattiacci between the Singapore and Japan races. But going into that meeting there was a vital piece of information Alonso and his manager did not possess, but Mattiacci did: Sebastian Vettel – who had a long-term informal agreement that he would give Ferrari first call on his services should he leave Red Bull – had a clause in his Red Bull contract that would allow him to leave a year earlier than its full term (which was until the end of 2015) if he was below third in the championship before a specified cut-off date. That contractual window was about to close shortly after the Japanese Grand Prix. Alonso and Briatore incorrectly assumed that Vettel was committed to Red Bull until the end of 2015."

"Instead Mattiacci contacted Vettel and told him that if he was ready to sign, so was Ferrari. Red Bull announced at Suzuka that Vettel was leaving and Red Bull’s Christian Horner revealed that “Ferrari had made Sebastian a very generous offer”. It was only at this point that Alonso finally had all the pieces of the jigsaw – and further words were exchanged between him and the team boss."

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opin ... real-story

That article doesn't support your position that Mattiacci fired Alonso. He tried to get Alonso to agree to a deal until 2016, and when Alonso wouldn't do that he agreed to honor the previous deal between di Montezemelo and Alonso letting the contract be terminated at the end of 2014.

"Mattiacci – a man used to having control over his employees, not forming partnerships with them or being dictated to by them – did not find any of these demands acceptable. Rather than giving yourself get-out clauses, he suggested, I’d like to see more commitment, not less. By this he meant extending beyond ’16. Fernando – who has given incredible commitment to a less than fully competitive Ferrari for five years – did not like the suggestion of him being less than fully committed. He reacted angrily. Mattiacci said that if he did not wish to continue either on his current contract or an extension of it, Ferrari would now honour the agreement made by Montezemelo, i.e. Fernando was free to leave, without either side owing the other. Briatore suggested Alonso sign the memorandum of understanding for the release, believing Mattiacci would then back down. He didn’t."

That is not Mattiacci firing Alonso. That's Alonso leaving because he didn't want to commit to a longer deal.

[sandman1347]

Come now Zoue. Is that tone really necessary? The fact is that Ferrari had a 1-2 in qualifying at a track where Hamilton has dominated for years and where he put in a flawless lap. Bottas was also way behind in qualifying and nowhere in the race. Does that seem like a case of Mercedes having the best car to you?

Raikkonen is a lot slower than Hamilton (especially when it comes to race pace) and he was on the back foot strategically due to Vettel being out of the mix. The car was not to blame for Vettel's result that day. It was his own mistake that cost him a shot at the win.

I notice you going into different threads to try to suggest that Ferrari as a team somehow blew the championship. The fact is that Vettel threw away tons of points. First by messing up at Bakku, then we have his first lap crash in France, then there was the huge mistake in Germany, then of course we have another massive error at Monza, then another crash in Japan and another one in the US and yet another error in Brazil's qualifying session. No matter how you try to spin things; Vettel made WAY too many significant mistakes to win the championship DESPITE the fact that the car was very clearly up to the task.

if you don't want the tone don't set the bar. No need for gross mischaracterization, for example. You could simply disagree.

Hamilton has dominated most places for years. Who else has had the opportunity to since 2014? And Kimi also drove a pretty flawless qualifying lap for a change but still only managed to get pole by a tenth, even with the tow. Qualifying was close, that's all.

I'm not blaming the car for anything. No idea where you're getting that from.

I'm not trying to suggest anything. Vettel did blow his chance and made too many mistakes. Not sure how that's relevant to the discussion on what Vettel might have felt was the situation with the cars, given that he has gone on record to say he didn't think the Ferrari was the quicker car over the season, and how that may have caused him to overdrive (and maybe take too many risks). How that translates into an excuse is anybody's guess.

I certainly didn't set any bar of calling things crap. Not that it surprises me that you refuse to even take responsibility for your own behavior.

With regards to Vettel's comments; I think he's a bit on the defensive with all of the criticism that he has received. There's nothing whatsoever to suggest that he didn't have the car to be champion in 2018. Not that I don't sympathize. I can't imagine what it's like to face that much public scrutiny but the fact is that blaming the car for his season is absolutely making excuses (and poor excuses no less).

But nobody is blaming his car for his season

Other than him

[F1 MERCENARY]

FIRST OFF: Mattiacci actually fired Alonso because Alonso would not adhere to a hard date as to when he was to let the boss man know his future plans and he did not want him doing anything but drive for Ferrari. Therefore, Alonso actually got the boot and did not simply leave of his own accord. Mattiacci was laying down the law and put EVERYONE on notice the past shenanigans are no longer acceptable. his way or the highway and Alonso caught the left lane on the autobahn. If you want to know more about the Vettel Alonso Ferrari deal transpired, there are several articles that outline the details quite well.

I don't think this is true. Alonso had already decided to leave - all Mattiacci (and Horner, when he revealed Vettel was going to Ferrari) did was screw up Alonso's planned exit.

What you think and what actually happened are two different things.

"Hence Alonso’s meeting with Mattiacci between the Singapore and Japan races. But going into that meeting there was a vital piece of information Alonso and his manager did not possess, but Mattiacci did: Sebastian Vettel – who had a long-term informal agreement that he would give Ferrari first call on his services should he leave Red Bull – had a clause in his Red Bull contract that would allow him to leave a year earlier than its full term (which was until the end of 2015) if he was below third in the championship before a specified cut-off date. That contractual window was about to close shortly after the Japanese Grand Prix. Alonso and Briatore incorrectly assumed that Vettel was committed to Red Bull until the end of 2015."

"Instead Mattiacci contacted Vettel and told him that if he was ready to sign, so was Ferrari. Red Bull announced at Suzuka that Vettel was leaving and Red Bull’s Christian Horner revealed that “Ferrari had made Sebastian a very generous offer”. It was only at this point that Alonso finally had all the pieces of the jigsaw – and further words were exchanged between him and the team boss."

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opin ... real-story

That article doesn't support your position that Mattiacci fired Alonso. He tried to get Alonso to agree to a deal until 2016, and when Alonso wouldn't do that he agreed to honor the previous deal between di Montezemelo and Alonso letting the contract be terminated at the end of 2014.

"Mattiacci – a man used to having control over his employees, not forming partnerships with them or being dictated to by them – did not find any of these demands acceptable. Rather than giving yourself get-out clauses, he suggested, I’d like to see more commitment, not less. By this he meant extending beyond ’16. Fernando – who has given incredible commitment to a less than fully competitive Ferrari for five years – did not like the suggestion of him being less than fully committed. He reacted angrily. Mattiacci said that if he did not wish to continue either on his current contract or an extension of it, Ferrari would now honour the agreement made by Montezemelo, i.e. Fernando was free to leave, without either side owing the other. Briatore suggested Alonso sign the memorandum of understanding for the release, believing Mattiacci would then back down. He didn’t."

That is not Mattiacci firing Alonso. That's Alonso leaving because he didn't want to commit to a longer deal.

The article and others regarding this subject explain it further.

What you apparently don't know is that Alonso THOUGHT he had all the info he needed to be able to control the situation and had no idea that Mattiacci had already spoken with Vettel. Therefore Alonso was blindsided because he had no clue he was being replaced. And before you once again jump to refute this, Alonso & Briatore filed a lawsuit because according to Alonso's contract, Ferrari wasn't allowed to speak with other drivers while he was under contract. Alonso argued with Mattiacci THINKING he was finally going to get his way and Mattiacci simply announce the signing of Vettel. Briatore was trying to work out a deal that would send Hamilton to Ferrari and Alonso taking Hamilton's seat at Mercedes but Wolff was happy with his driver lineup and shot it down and Alonos found himself the odd man out. It was only then that he signed for McLaren. He did not leave Ferrari the way he tried to make it seem.

[Zoue]

Come now Zoue. Is that tone really necessary? The fact is that Ferrari had a 1-2 in qualifying at a track where Hamilton has dominated for years and where he put in a flawless lap. Bottas was also way behind in qualifying and nowhere in the race. Does that seem like a case of Mercedes having the best car to you?

Raikkonen is a lot slower than Hamilton (especially when it comes to race pace) and he was on the back foot strategically due to Vettel being out of the mix. The car was not to blame for Vettel's result that day. It was his own mistake that cost him a shot at the win.

I notice you going into different threads to try to suggest that Ferrari as a team somehow blew the championship. The fact is that Vettel threw away tons of points. First by messing up at Bakku, then we have his first lap crash in France, then there was the huge mistake in Germany, then of course we have another massive error at Monza, then another crash in Japan and another one in the US and yet another error in Brazil's qualifying session. No matter how you try to spin things; Vettel made WAY too many significant mistakes to win the championship DESPITE the fact that the car was very clearly up to the task.

if you don't want the tone don't set the bar. No need for gross mischaracterization, for example. You could simply disagree.

Hamilton has dominated most places for years. Who else has had the opportunity to since 2014? And Kimi also drove a pretty flawless qualifying lap for a change but still only managed to get pole by a tenth, even with the tow. Qualifying was close, that's all.

I'm not blaming the car for anything. No idea where you're getting that from.

I'm not trying to suggest anything. Vettel did blow his chance and made too many mistakes. Not sure how that's relevant to the discussion on what Vettel might have felt was the situation with the cars, given that he has gone on record to say he didn't think the Ferrari was the quicker car over the season, and how that may have caused him to overdrive (and maybe take too many risks). How that translates into an excuse is anybody's guess.

I certainly didn't set any bar of calling things crap. Not that it surprises me that you refuse to even take responsibility for your own behavior.

With regards to Vettel's comments; I think he's a bit on the defensive with all of the criticism that he has received. There's nothing whatsoever to suggest that he didn't have the car to be champion in 2018. Not that I don't sympathize. I can't imagine what it's like to face that much public scrutiny but the fact is that blaming the car for his season is absolutely making excuses (and poor excuses no less).

But nobody is blaming his car for his season

Other than him

Is he? Where did he blame his car for his season?

[sandman1347]

if you don't want the tone don't set the bar. No need for gross mischaracterization, for example. You could simply disagree.

Hamilton has dominated most places for years. Who else has had the opportunity to since 2014? And Kimi also drove a pretty flawless qualifying lap for a change but still only managed to get pole by a tenth, even with the tow. Qualifying was close, that's all.

I'm not blaming the car for anything. No idea where you're getting that from.

I'm not trying to suggest anything. Vettel did blow his chance and made too many mistakes. Not sure how that's relevant to the discussion on what Vettel might have felt was the situation with the cars, given that he has gone on record to say he didn't think the Ferrari was the quicker car over the season, and how that may have caused him to overdrive (and maybe take too many risks). How that translates into an excuse is anybody's guess.

I certainly didn't set any bar of calling things crap. Not that it surprises me that you refuse to even take responsibility for your own behavior.

With regards to Vettel's comments; I think he's a bit on the defensive with all of the criticism that he has received. There's nothing whatsoever to suggest that he didn't have the car to be champion in 2018. Not that I don't sympathize. I can't imagine what it's like to face that much public scrutiny but the fact is that blaming the car for his season is absolutely making excuses (and poor excuses no less).

But nobody is blaming his car for his season

Other than him

Is he? Where did he blame his car for his season?

Him trying to suggest the car wasn't quick enough is blaming the car. The car was certainly more than quick enough to win a championship and HIS car was totally bullet-proof (although Kimi had some failures on his).

[Zoue]

I certainly didn't set any bar of calling things crap. Not that it surprises me that you refuse to even take responsibility for your own behavior.

With regards to Vettel's comments; I think he's a bit on the defensive with all of the criticism that he has received. There's nothing whatsoever to suggest that he didn't have the car to be champion in 2018. Not that I don't sympathize. I can't imagine what it's like to face that much public scrutiny but the fact is that blaming the car for his season is absolutely making excuses (and poor excuses no less).

But nobody is blaming his car for his season

Other than him

Is he? Where did he blame his car for his season?

Him trying to suggest the car wasn't quick enough is blaming the car. The car was certainly more than quick enough to win a championship and HIS car was totally bullet-proof (although Kimi had some failures on his).

that's not what he said, though. He was contesting the claim that the Ferrari was the quickest, or even dominant. He's not making excuses that it wasn't quick enough to compete, just that Ferrari didn't have an advantage.

But again, the relevance to the discussion is if he felt the car wasn't the quickest then that may have encouraged him to overdrive and/or take risks. Doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong since it's giving a possible explanation for the driving errors and in that scenario it only matters how Vettel perceived it. And then excuses don't come into it

[F1 MERCENARY]

That's not what he said, though. He was contesting the claim that the Ferrari was the quickest, or even dominant. He's not making excuses that it wasn't quick enough to compete, just that Ferrari didn't have an advantage.

But again, the relevance to the discussion is if he felt the car wasn't the quickest then that may have encouraged him to overdrive and/or take risks. Doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong since it's giving a possible explanation for the driving errors and in that scenario it only matters how Vettel perceived it. And then excuses don't come into it

[sandman1347]

Is he? Where did he blame his car for his season?

Him trying to suggest the car wasn't quick enough is blaming the car. The car was certainly more than quick enough to win a championship and HIS car was totally bullet-proof (although Kimi had some failures on his).

that's not what he said, though. He was contesting the claim that the Ferrari was the quickest, or even dominant. He's not making excuses that it wasn't quick enough to compete, just that Ferrari didn't have an advantage.

But again, the relevance to the discussion is if he felt the car wasn't the quickest then that may have encouraged him to overdrive and/or take risks. Doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong since it's giving a possible explanation for the driving errors and in that scenario it only matters how Vettel perceived it. And then excuses don't come into it

Claiming that the car wasn't the fastest (when it was) and then blaming this supposed lack of speed for his mistakes is, in my opinion, a form of making excuses. If you don't see it that way, so be it. For me it's as clear as day. Blaming the car in a year where you had the best car is pretty clear cut for me.

[Zoue]

Is he? Where did he blame his car for his season?

Him trying to suggest the car wasn't quick enough is blaming the car. The car was certainly more than quick enough to win a championship and HIS car was totally bullet-proof (although Kimi had some failures on his).

that's not what he said, though. He was contesting the claim that the Ferrari was the quickest, or even dominant. He's not making excuses that it wasn't quick enough to compete, just that Ferrari didn't have an advantage.

But again, the relevance to the discussion is if he felt the car wasn't the quickest then that may have encouraged him to overdrive and/or take risks. Doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong since it's giving a possible explanation for the driving errors and in that scenario it only matters how Vettel perceived it. And then excuses don't come into it

Claiming that the car wasn't the fastest (when it was) and then blaming this supposed lack of speed for his mistakes is, in my opinion, a form of making excuses. If you don't see it that way, so be it. For me it's as clear as day. Blaming the car in a year where you had the best car is pretty clear cut for me.

It's your opinion he had the best car. It's his that he didn't. And despite it being explained you're entirely missing the point that in a discussion involving reasons for (poor) performance it's his opinion that's the important one. And it's not an excuse because the motivation doesn't excuse the fact that mistakes were made. You're confusing reasons with excuses but since the reasons don't actually absolve any blame excuses don't even come into it

[Blake]

Is he? Where did he blame his car for his season?

Him trying to suggest the car wasn't quick enough is blaming the car. The car was certainly more than quick enough to win a championship and HIS car was totally bullet-proof (although Kimi had some failures on his).

that's not what he said, though. He was contesting the claim that the Ferrari was the quickest, or even dominant. He's not making excuses that it wasn't quick enough to compete, just that Ferrari didn't have an advantage.

But again, the relevance to the discussion is if he felt the car wasn't the quickest then that may have encouraged him to overdrive and/or take risks. Doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong since it's giving a possible explanation for the driving errors and in that scenario it only matters how Vettel perceived it. And then excuses don't come into it

Claiming that the car wasn't the fastest (when it was) and then blaming this supposed lack of speed for his mistakes is, in my opinion, a form of making excuses. If you don't see it that way, so be it. For me it's as clear as day. Blaming the car in a year where you had the best car is pretty clear cut for me.

Ah, the "best car" thing again. Please remember that it is your opinion that the Ferrari was the best car last year, not irrefutable fact. Was the Ferrari competitive..certainly, was the Ferrari the best car for race at times...certainly, was it the unquestioned "best car", much less the dominate car...not at all. It has been Frequently debated in this forum with with no indisputable conclusions. just stating it as fact does not necessarily make it true, no matter how many times one says it.

[BMWSauber84]

I just wonder how this will affect Ferrari's annual threat to quit F1. Will it be come sooner or later as a result of the changes?

[Jezza13]

I just wonder how this will affect Ferrari's annual threat to quit F1. Will it be come sooner or later as a result of the changes?

Will it come before or after RB's annual threat?

They're kind like the Waldorf & Stadler of F1 aren't they? Always whinging about the show but they continue roll up year after year.

[pc27b]

I just wonder how this will affect Ferrari's annual threat to quit F1. Will it be come sooner or later as a result of the changes?

Will it come before or after RB's annual threat?

They're kind like the Waldorf & Stadler of F1 aren't they? Always whinging about the show but they continue roll up year after year.

i too think the quit threats are a bit much, but i don't think red bull will be a team owner when the new regulations come about in 2021

back on topic though......there was so much smoke coming from the ferrari camp with/about arrivabene, that i think this was a good move.

[sandman1347]

Is he? Where did he blame his car for his season?

Him trying to suggest the car wasn't quick enough is blaming the car. The car was certainly more than quick enough to win a championship and HIS car was totally bullet-proof (although Kimi had some failures on his).

that's not what he said, though. He was contesting the claim that the Ferrari was the quickest, or even dominant. He's not making excuses that it wasn't quick enough to compete, just that Ferrari didn't have an advantage.

But again, the relevance to the discussion is if he felt the car wasn't the quickest then that may have encouraged him to overdrive and/or take risks. Doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong since it's giving a possible explanation for the driving errors and in that scenario it only matters how Vettel perceived it. And then excuses don't come into it

Claiming that the car wasn't the fastest (when it was) and then blaming this supposed lack of speed for his mistakes is, in my opinion, a form of making excuses. If you don't see it that way, so be it. For me it's as clear as day. Blaming the car in a year where you had the best car is pretty clear cut for me.

It's your opinion he had the best car. It's his that he didn't. And despite it being explained you're entirely missing the point that in a discussion involving reasons for (poor) performance it's his opinion that's the important one. And it's not an excuse because the motivation doesn't excuse the fact that mistakes were made. You're confusing reasons with excuses but since the reasons don't actually absolve any blame excuses don't even come into it

No, actually I'm not confusing anything. Him trying to characterize the season as one where he had to push like crazy just to keep up is making excuses IMO. He's trying to spin his mistakes as the result of over-driving to keep up with a superior machine. For me personally, that's BS. It wasn't that type of season by any stretch of the imagination. He had the top car on the season IMO and even if you disagree, he at worst had the equal best car by any reasonable assessment. Trying to add that slant to his errors is purely something he's doing to defend himself.

[Zoue]

Him trying to suggest the car wasn't quick enough is blaming the car. The car was certainly more than quick enough to win a championship and HIS car was totally bullet-proof (although Kimi had some failures on his).

that's not what he said, though. He was contesting the claim that the Ferrari was the quickest, or even dominant. He's not making excuses that it wasn't quick enough to compete, just that Ferrari didn't have an advantage.

But again, the relevance to the discussion is if he felt the car wasn't the quickest then that may have encouraged him to overdrive and/or take risks. Doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong since it's giving a possible explanation for the driving errors and in that scenario it only matters how Vettel perceived it. And then excuses don't come into it

Claiming that the car wasn't the fastest (when it was) and then blaming this supposed lack of speed for his mistakes is, in my opinion, a form of making excuses. If you don't see it that way, so be it. For me it's as clear as day. Blaming the car in a year where you had the best car is pretty clear cut for me.

It's your opinion he had the best car. It's his that he didn't. And despite it being explained you're entirely missing the point that in a discussion involving reasons for (poor) performance it's his opinion that's the important one. And it's not an excuse because the motivation doesn't excuse the fact that mistakes were made. You're confusing reasons with excuses but since the reasons don't actually absolve any blame excuses don't even come into it

No, actually I'm not confusing anything. Him trying to characterize the season as one where he had to push like crazy just to keep up is making excuses IMO. He's trying to spin his mistakes as the result of over-driving to keep up with a superior machine. For me personally, that's BS. It wasn't that type of season by any stretch of the imagination. He had the top car on the season IMO and even if you disagree, he at worst had the equal best car by any reasonable assessment. Trying to add that slant to his errors is purely something he's doing to defend himself.

not really, because you're turning it into a blame thing, when really that's completely irrelevant. You keep bringing up excuses which I suppose would be more relevant if we were discussing how good a season he had, but we're not. We're talking about where it went wrong for Ferrari and even if - for the sake of argument - Vettel's deluding himself it still offers a valid reason into why he may have taken some of the risks he did

[sandman1347]

Claiming that the car wasn't the fastest (when it was) and then blaming this supposed lack of speed for his mistakes is, in my opinion, a form of making excuses. If you don't see it that way, so be it. For me it's as clear as day. Blaming the car in a year where you had the best car is pretty clear cut for me.

It's your opinion he had the best car. It's his that he didn't. And despite it being explained you're entirely missing the point that in a discussion involving reasons for (poor) performance it's his opinion that's the important one. And it's not an excuse because the motivation doesn't excuse the fact that mistakes were made. You're confusing reasons with excuses but since the reasons don't actually absolve any blame excuses don't even come into it

No, actually I'm not confusing anything. Him trying to characterize the season as one where he had to push like crazy just to keep up is making excuses IMO. He's trying to spin his mistakes as the result of over-driving to keep up with a superior machine. For me personally, that's BS. It wasn't that type of season by any stretch of the imagination. He had the top car on the season IMO and even if you disagree, he at worst had the equal best car by any reasonable assessment. Trying to add that slant to his errors is purely something he's doing to defend himself.

not really, because you're turning it into a blame thing, when really that's completely irrelevant. You keep bringing up excuses which I suppose would be more relevant if we were discussing how good a season he had, but we're not. We're talking about where it went wrong for Ferrari and even if - for the sake of argument - Vettel's deluding himself it still offers a valid reason into why he may have taken some of the risks he did

No I don't think so. It wasn't about taking risks; it was about making mistakes. His crash into Bottas in France was just a mistake. He wasn't taking any special risks; he just got it wrong in the braking zone. Likewise in Germany, he just made a mistake while all by himself in the lead on the track. IN Baku, he was ahead of Hamilton during the restart but made a mistake into the braking zone. In Monza, he was ahead of Hamilton at the start and just screwed up. I don't see mistakes being made as he scrambled to keep up. Most of these errors are being made from a commanding position on track. I don't see this as valid reasoning at all. For me, it's just making excuses.

[Zoue]

Claiming that the car wasn't the fastest (when it was) and then blaming this supposed lack of speed for his mistakes is, in my opinion, a form of making excuses. If you don't see it that way, so be it. For me it's as clear as day. Blaming the car in a year where you had the best car is pretty clear cut for me.

It's your opinion he had the best car. It's his that he didn't. And despite it being explained you're entirely missing the point that in a discussion involving reasons for (poor) performance it's his opinion that's the important one. And it's not an excuse because the motivation doesn't excuse the fact that mistakes were made. You're confusing reasons with excuses but since the reasons don't actually absolve any blame excuses don't even come into it

No, actually I'm not confusing anything. Him trying to characterize the season as one where he had to push like crazy just to keep up is making excuses IMO. He's trying to spin his mistakes as the result of over-driving to keep up with a superior machine. For me personally, that's BS. It wasn't that type of season by any stretch of the imagination. He had the top car on the season IMO and even if you disagree, he at worst had the equal best car by any reasonable assessment. Trying to add that slant to his errors is purely something he's doing to defend himself.

not really, because you're turning it into a blame thing, when really that's completely irrelevant. You keep bringing up excuses which I suppose would be more relevant if we were discussing how good a season he had, but we're not. We're talking about where it went wrong for Ferrari and even if - for the sake of argument - Vettel's deluding himself it still offers a valid reason into why he may have taken some of the risks he did

No I don't think so. It wasn't about taking risks; it was about making mistakes. His crash into Bottas in France was just a mistake. He wasn't taking any special risks; he just got it wrong in the braking zone. Likewise in Germany, he just made a mistake while all by himself in the lead on the track. IN Baku, he was ahead of Hamilton during the restart but made a mistake into the braking zone. In Monza, he was ahead of Hamilton at the start and just screwed up. I don't see mistakes being made as he scrambled to keep up. Most of these errors are being made from a commanding position on track. I don't see this as valid reasoning at all. For me, it's just making excuses.

you talked about gross misrepresentation earlier but what you've just written contains examples that paint a somewhat less than accurate picture. At Monza, for example, it's a little misleading to simply say he was ahead of Hamilton - Hamilton overtook him around the outside into the second chicane and Vettel ran wide and hit him. They were fighting for position at the time and it could be a straightforward error or it could have been down to Vettel being desperate not to let Hamilton past as he felt he wouldn't be able to take the place back again. Not saying that's a cert but it's certainly possible and not something you can dismiss out of hand.

Anyway, you're free to interpret it as an excuse but it doesn't matter. You don't know for sure so you can't rule it out, that's the bottom line. And if Vettel does believe it then the explanation stands

[sandman1347]

No, actually I'm not confusing anything. Him trying to characterize the season as one where he had to push like crazy just to keep up is making excuses IMO. He's trying to spin his mistakes as the result of over-driving to keep up with a superior machine. For me personally, that's BS. It wasn't that type of season by any stretch of the imagination. He had the top car on the season IMO and even if you disagree, he at worst had the equal best car by any reasonable assessment. Trying to add that slant to his errors is purely something he's doing to defend himself.

not really, because you're turning it into a blame thing, when really that's completely irrelevant. You keep bringing up excuses which I suppose would be more relevant if we were discussing how good a season he had, but we're not. We're talking about where it went wrong for Ferrari and even if - for the sake of argument - Vettel's deluding himself it still offers a valid reason into why he may have taken some of the risks he did

No I don't think so. It wasn't about taking risks; it was about making mistakes. His crash into Bottas in France was just a mistake. He wasn't taking any special risks; he just got it wrong in the braking zone. Likewise in Germany, he just made a mistake while all by himself in the lead on the track. IN Baku, he was ahead of Hamilton during the restart but made a mistake into the braking zone. In Monza, he was ahead of Hamilton at the start and just screwed up. I don't see mistakes being made as he scrambled to keep up. Most of these errors are being made from a commanding position on track. I don't see this as valid reasoning at all. For me, it's just making excuses.

you talked about gross misrepresentation earlier but what you've just written contains examples that paint a somewhat less than accurate picture. At Monza, for example, it's a little misleading to simply say he was ahead of Hamilton - Hamilton overtook him around the outside into the second chicane and Vettel ran wide and hit him. They were fighting for position at the time and it could be a straightforward error or it could have been down to Vettel being desperate not to let Hamilton past as he felt he wouldn't be able to take the place back again. Not saying that's a cert but it's certainly possible and not something you can dismiss out of hand.

Anyway, you're free to interpret it as an excuse but it doesn't matter. You don't know for sure so you can't rule it out, that's the bottom line. And if Vettel does believe it then the explanation stands

Nope. That's not how it works. You can't simply make an assertion and then "it stands" simply because you claim to believe it. It must be supported empirically on some level on order for it to stand.

[Mod Titanium]

lets agree to disagree and let it go

[dizlexik]

It was Mattiacci who signed Vettel away from Red Bull, and he was the one who signed James Allison...

I think it's debatable how good either of these moves were. Vettel isn't an upgrade on Alonso, and the car didn't really start moving forward dramatically until Allison had left - and since it's continued to get better from 2017 into 2018, I don't think the upward curve can be ascribed to anything Allison did before leaving.

One could argue that Ferrari got faster once Vettel stepped in. James Allison is a commodity in F1 and that's why Mercedes snapped him up.
His departure was rather suspicious as it occurred after it was speculated Allison might replace Arrivabene as TP. Quite noteworthy IMPO.

Vettel is just as good as Alonso & Hamilton.

Things between them at this level is absurdly close and ANY of them can make mistakes. Let's not forget Hamilton spun himself out and made mistakes a few times in critical moments so let's not jump to criticize Vettel and even suggest the notion he's not an elite driver because that is preposterous. Alonso also made his share of mistakes so he wasn't this perfect machine many make him out to be. In the same car all 3 of them would be taking wins off one another with perhaps Hamilton edging them out.

Even Mario Andretti (the greatest race car driver of all time) said that Vettel is the right man for Ferrari and I value his opinion more than anyone's, and it just so happens that I feel the exact same way.

The fruits of Mattiacci's work paid off and that's all that counts. As for decisions Arrivabene made while "leading" the team, I'd love to hear them.
I honestly still have no idea what he brought to the team outside a rather awesome Italian accent and a stronger tie with their title sponsor.

Sorry I'm late, but you are overestimating Mattiaccis influence. Ferrari was still pretty terrible in 2015. Actually helping with signing Vettel was last thing that Marchionne wanted from Luca Di Montezemolo. They were the people who ultimately made the decisions at that time.

That is good illustration of how you join Ferrari. You don't go to TP.

Now, unknown to anyone outside the very top echelons of Ferrari, Vettel, who was by then a four-time world champion with Red Bull, had begun serious discussions about joining the team.

Di Montezemolo says: "He came to my home with a very nice box of Swiss chocolates, because he lives in Switzerland.

"It was before the start of the season, and to make the story short, he told me, 'Listen, if this season, as I suspect, I do not win the championship, I want to come to drive for Ferrari.'"

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/46238233

Also don't be fooled that Arrivabene ever made any strategic decisions in team. He was most likely fired because they made wrong calls during race weekends and didn't know how to deal with media. Ferrari bigger worry is that Marchionne is gone and he was the person who had long term vision for Ferrari.

[Zoue]

No, actually I'm not confusing anything. Him trying to characterize the season as one where he had to push like crazy just to keep up is making excuses IMO. He's trying to spin his mistakes as the result of over-driving to keep up with a superior machine. For me personally, that's BS. It wasn't that type of season by any stretch of the imagination. He had the top car on the season IMO and even if you disagree, he at worst had the equal best car by any reasonable assessment. Trying to add that slant to his errors is purely something he's doing to defend himself.

not really, because you're turning it into a blame thing, when really that's completely irrelevant. You keep bringing up excuses which I suppose would be more relevant if we were discussing how good a season he had, but we're not. We're talking about where it went wrong for Ferrari and even if - for the sake of argument - Vettel's deluding himself it still offers a valid reason into why he may have taken some of the risks he did

No I don't think so. It wasn't about taking risks; it was about making mistakes. His crash into Bottas in France was just a mistake. He wasn't taking any special risks; he just got it wrong in the braking zone. Likewise in Germany, he just made a mistake while all by himself in the lead on the track. IN Baku, he was ahead of Hamilton during the restart but made a mistake into the braking zone. In Monza, he was ahead of Hamilton at the start and just screwed up. I don't see mistakes being made as he scrambled to keep up. Most of these errors are being made from a commanding position on track. I don't see this as valid reasoning at all. For me, it's just making excuses.

you talked about gross misrepresentation earlier but what you've just written contains examples that paint a somewhat less than accurate picture. At Monza, for example, it's a little misleading to simply say he was ahead of Hamilton - Hamilton overtook him around the outside into the second chicane and Vettel ran wide and hit him. They were fighting for position at the time and it could be a straightforward error or it could have been down to Vettel being desperate not to let Hamilton past as he felt he wouldn't be able to take the place back again. Not saying that's a cert but it's certainly possible and not something you can dismiss out of hand.

Anyway, you're free to interpret it as an excuse but it doesn't matter. You don't know for sure so you can't rule it out, that's the bottom line. And if Vettel does believe it then the explanation stands

Nope. That's not how it works. You can't simply make an assertion and then "it stands" simply because you claim to believe it. It must be supported empirically on some level on order for it to stand.

It's supported by the fact that he said it. When talking about someone's perception, that's got to score higher than your prejudicial skepticism.

Anyway, happy to leave it there. You clearly don't understand the point being made and there's only so many times that can be pointed out.

[Fiki]

Di Montezemolo says: "He came to my home with a very nice box of Swiss chocolates, because he lives in Switzerland.

"It was before the start of the season, and to make the story short, he told me, 'Listen, if this season, as I suspect, I do not win the championship, I want to come to drive for Ferrari.'"[/i]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/46238233

Slightly off-topic, so just a little thank you to dizlexik. I never knew Vettel expected a tough 2014 even before it started. This is significant to me; as it may help to explain some of the problems Vettel had last year. His explanation of his car feeling different when alongside another, may be an honest report rather than just excuses. Both Webber and Ricciardo were able to take the upper hand when Vettel's car was not how he needed it to be at Red Bull, and last year's car may indeed have been the lesser, compared to the Mercedes. And indeed more towards what Räikkönen needs, however comparable their requirements may be.

Thanks for that titbit, dizlexik! Back to Arrivabene.

[Siao7]

Him trying to suggest the car wasn't quick enough is blaming the car. The car was certainly more than quick enough to win a championship and HIS car was totally bullet-proof (although Kimi had some failures on his).

that's not what he said, though. He was contesting the claim that the Ferrari was the quickest, or even dominant. He's not making excuses that it wasn't quick enough to compete, just that Ferrari didn't have an advantage.

But again, the relevance to the discussion is if he felt the car wasn't the quickest then that may have encouraged him to overdrive and/or take risks. Doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong since it's giving a possible explanation for the driving errors and in that scenario it only matters how Vettel perceived it. And then excuses don't come into it

Claiming that the car wasn't the fastest (when it was) and then blaming this supposed lack of speed for his mistakes is, in my opinion, a form of making excuses. If you don't see it that way, so be it. For me it's as clear as day. Blaming the car in a year where you had the best car is pretty clear cut for me.

It's your opinion he had the best car. It's his that he didn't. And despite it being explained you're entirely missing the point that in a discussion involving reasons for (poor) performance it's his opinion that's the important one. And it's not an excuse because the motivation doesn't excuse the fact that mistakes were made. You're confusing reasons with excuses but since the reasons don't actually absolve any blame excuses don't even come into it

No, actually I'm not confusing anything. Him trying to characterize the season as one where he had to push like crazy just to keep up is making excuses IMO. He's trying to spin his mistakes as the result of over-driving to keep up with a superior machine. For me personally, that's BS. It wasn't that type of season by any stretch of the imagination. He had the top car on the season IMO and even if you disagree, he at worst had the equal best car by any reasonable assessment. Trying to add that slant to his errors is purely something he's doing to defend himself.

Ayayay, yes, actually you are confusing a lot. So please help me understand, as I'm getting a bit lost here. What are you commenting on?

It was me that suggested that possibly some of his mistakes were due to pushing too much when the car development went backwards for them. And I said arguably, take it with a pinch of salt if you don't agree with it. I mentioned it as I was thinking places like France that Ferrari messed up the tyre strategy to Merc and RB in quali, so he ended up only 3rd, I think that was the race anyway. He should have been first in that Ferrari, but ended up 3rd and having to try overtaking, which he of course messed up. I never suggested that he was blameless in any of these mistakes.

From that you got that Vettel is making these excuses? Did you follow the thread or just came in here to lay blame to Vettel? The only thing that Vettel said (to my knowledge) is that he didn't think that over the whole year the Ferrari was the dominant car.

Here's what he said if you want a reminder:

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13982 ... -car-in-18

So yeah, I find that you indeed confused some things here

[Siao7]

Di Montezemolo says: "He came to my home with a very nice box of Swiss chocolates, because he lives in Switzerland.

"It was before the start of the season, and to make the story short, he told me, 'Listen, if this season, as I suspect, I do not win the championship, I want to come to drive for Ferrari.'"[/i]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/46238233

Slightly off-topic, so just a little thank you to dizlexik. I never knew Vettel expected a tough 2014 even before it started. This is significant to me; as it may help to explain some of the problems Vettel had last year. His explanation of his car feeling different when alongside another, may be an honest report rather than just excuses. Both Webber and Ricciardo were able to take the upper hand when Vettel's car was not how he needed it to be at Red Bull, and last year's car may indeed have been the lesser, compared to the Mercedes. And indeed more towards what Räikkönen needs, however comparable their requirements may be.

Thanks for that titbit, dizlexik! Back to Arrivabene.

I always wondered if this is why he fell behind Ricciardo, if he indeed wanted to trigger this clause or was he genuinely slower. Neither would surprise me to be honest, although I do not want to think that a driver would intentionally drive worse than his team mate for any reason.

[pokerman]

It means Vettel needed a car were he could start on pole and then lead without problems, he kind of alluded to that himself when he ventured that the Ferrari wasn't fast enough, a car that was at least the equal of the Mercedes was not fast enough.

he also disagreed with the idea that the Ferrari was the equal of the Mercedes, so if you're going to reference him you need to take the full context. He at least felt the Mercedes was the better car. Whether he's right or not is another story, but that was/is his position, which means when he says that from his perspective he was always playing catch up

The cars being at least equal is my opinion and that off the majority, I'm highlighting Vettel's version as being different and in that respect I'm wondering whenever he's winning a race he views himself as being in the fastest car or it's simply down to him?

Vettel only started to play catch up after he crashed in Germany and spun at Monza, there was nothing wrong with the car, he should have won both races.

Arrivabene may well have not lead Ferrari very well but he can't be blamed for Vettel's various mishaps neither can the development mishap that caused Ferrari to lose performance for 3 races but still overall left Ferrari with the better car more often than not and a more reliable car to boot, yet Vettel didn't come close to winning the title, so sorry if I have little patience whenever I see attempted excuses being made for Vettel.

Germany perhaps, but he was already well into catch-up territory by the time Monza came around. And I don't think you can possibly claim with any certainty that he should have won Monza, since we don't know if he would have been faster than Hamilton, who was faster than Kimi. The Mercs were better on their tyres there than the Ferraris were.

Anyway, we digress. The point is that if Vettel feels he was playing catch up, then he may well have felt he had to overdrive the car, which makes Siao7's point valid. As to you point about how he may view himself, I think that could be applied to more than one driver tbh.

It seems any explanation for events translates as an excuse in your mind? Whether or not he was over-driving, it still results in mistakes. So unclear how that may be viewed as an excuse

If he felt like he was playing catch up at Monza then that's only because he crashed in Germany, if he had won the race then it would have been Hamilton playing catch up, that was on Vettel not Ferrari.

[pokerman]

I'm cautiously optimistic that this is, at least, not a bad move. Time will tell if it's a good one. Binotto appears to be at least highly competent in what he's been doing so far, but running the entire team may prove to be a different matter. I do think that having a team principle with a lot of technical know-how is best, so that's likely to be an improvement.

From all the things I'm reading it seems like this is a positive step for Ferrari, Arrivabene was a negative influence.

[pokerman]

Come now Zoue. Is that tone really necessary? The fact is that Ferrari had a 1-2 in qualifying at a track where Hamilton has dominated for years and where he put in a flawless lap. Bottas was also way behind in qualifying and nowhere in the race. Does that seem like a case of Mercedes having the best car to you?

Raikkonen is a lot slower than Hamilton (especially when it comes to race pace) and he was on the back foot strategically due to Vettel being out of the mix. The car was not to blame for Vettel's result that day. It was his own mistake that cost him a shot at the win.

I notice you going into different threads to try to suggest that Ferrari as a team somehow blew the championship. The fact is that Vettel threw away tons of points. First by messing up at Bakku, then we have his first lap crash in France, then there was the huge mistake in Germany, then of course we have another massive error at Monza, then another crash in Japan and another one in the US and yet another error in Brazil's qualifying session. No matter how you try to spin things; Vettel made WAY too many significant mistakes to win the championship DESPITE the fact that the car was very clearly up to the task.

if you don't want the tone don't set the bar. No need for gross mischaracterization, for example. You could simply disagree.

Hamilton has dominated most places for years. Who else has had the opportunity to since 2014? And Kimi also drove a pretty flawless qualifying lap for a change but still only managed to get pole by a tenth, even with the tow. Qualifying was close, that's all.

I'm not blaming the car for anything. No idea where you're getting that from.

I'm not trying to suggest anything. Vettel did blow his chance and made too many mistakes. Not sure how that's relevant to the discussion on what Vettel might have felt was the situation with the cars, given that he has gone on record to say he didn't think the Ferrari was the quicker car over the season, and how that may have caused him to overdrive (and maybe take too many risks). How that translates into an excuse is anybody's guess.

I certainly didn't set any bar of calling things crap. Not that it surprises me that you refuse to even take responsibility for your own behavior.

With regards to Vettel's comments; I think he's a bit on the defensive with all of the criticism that he has received. There's nothing whatsoever to suggest that he didn't have the car to be champion in 2018. Not that I don't sympathize. I can't imagine what it's like to face that much public scrutiny but the fact is that blaming the car for his season is absolutely making excuses (and poor excuses no less).

But nobody is blaming his car for his season

Other than him

Indeed which started all this dialogue in the first place.

[pokerman]

Is he? Where did he blame his car for his season?

Him trying to suggest the car wasn't quick enough is blaming the car. The car was certainly more than quick enough to win a championship and HIS car was totally bullet-proof (although Kimi had some failures on his).

that's not what he said, though. He was contesting the claim that the Ferrari was the quickest, or even dominant. He's not making excuses that it wasn't quick enough to compete, just that Ferrari didn't have an advantage.

But again, the relevance to the discussion is if he felt the car wasn't the quickest then that may have encouraged him to overdrive and/or take risks. Doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong since it's giving a possible explanation for the driving errors and in that scenario it only matters how Vettel perceived it. And then excuses don't come into it

Claiming that the car wasn't the fastest (when it was) and then blaming this supposed lack of speed for his mistakes is, in my opinion, a form of making excuses. If you don't see it that way, so be it. For me it's as clear as day. Blaming the car in a year where you had the best car is pretty clear cut for me.

Ah, the "best car" thing again. Please remember that it is your opinion that the Ferrari was the best car last year, not irrefutable fact. Was the Ferrari competitive..certainly, was the Ferrari the best car for race at times...certainly, was it the unquestioned "best car", much less the dominate car...not at all. It has been Frequently debated in this forum with with no indisputable conclusions. just stating it as fact does not necessarily make it true, no matter how many times one says it.

I believe what we are debating is Vettel's claims that the Mercedes was the best/fastest car.

he also disagreed with the idea that the Ferrari was the equal of the Mercedes, so if you're going to reference him you need to take the full context. He at least felt the Mercedes was the better car. Whether he's right or not is another story, but that was/is his position, which means when he says that from his perspective he was always playing catch up

[Zoue]

he also disagreed with the idea that the Ferrari was the equal of the Mercedes, so if you're going to reference him you need to take the full context. He at least felt the Mercedes was the better car. Whether he's right or not is another story, but that was/is his position, which means when he says that from his perspective he was always playing catch up

The cars being at least equal is my opinion and that off the majority, I'm highlighting Vettel's version as being different and in that respect I'm wondering whenever he's winning a race he views himself as being in the fastest car or it's simply down to him?

Vettel only started to play catch up after he crashed in Germany and spun at Monza, there was nothing wrong with the car, he should have won both races.

Arrivabene may well have not lead Ferrari very well but he can't be blamed for Vettel's various mishaps neither can the development mishap that caused Ferrari to lose performance for 3 races but still overall left Ferrari with the better car more often than not and a more reliable car to boot, yet Vettel didn't come close to winning the title, so sorry if I have little patience whenever I see attempted excuses being made for Vettel.

Germany perhaps, but he was already well into catch-up territory by the time Monza came around. And I don't think you can possibly claim with any certainty that he should have won Monza, since we don't know if he would have been faster than Hamilton, who was faster than Kimi. The Mercs were better on their tyres there than the Ferraris were.

Anyway, we digress. The point is that if Vettel feels he was playing catch up, then he may well have felt he had to overdrive the car, which makes Siao7's point valid. As to you point about how he may view himself, I think that could be applied to more than one driver tbh.

It seems any explanation for events translates as an excuse in your mind? Whether or not he was over-driving, it still results in mistakes. So unclear how that may be viewed as an excuse

If he felt like he was playing catch up at Monza then that's only because he crashed in Germany, if he had won the race then it would have been Hamilton playing catch up, that was on Vettel not Ferrari.

Nobody's claiming that all the blame is on Ferrari.

[Zoue]

Him trying to suggest the car wasn't quick enough is blaming the car. The car was certainly more than quick enough to win a championship and HIS car was totally bullet-proof (although Kimi had some failures on his).

that's not what he said, though. He was contesting the claim that the Ferrari was the quickest, or even dominant. He's not making excuses that it wasn't quick enough to compete, just that Ferrari didn't have an advantage.

But again, the relevance to the discussion is if he felt the car wasn't the quickest then that may have encouraged him to overdrive and/or take risks. Doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong since it's giving a possible explanation for the driving errors and in that scenario it only matters how Vettel perceived it. And then excuses don't come into it

Claiming that the car wasn't the fastest (when it was) and then blaming this supposed lack of speed for his mistakes is, in my opinion, a form of making excuses. If you don't see it that way, so be it. For me it's as clear as day. Blaming the car in a year where you had the best car is pretty clear cut for me.

Ah, the "best car" thing again. Please remember that it is your opinion that the Ferrari was the best car last year, not irrefutable fact. Was the Ferrari competitive..certainly, was the Ferrari the best car for race at times...certainly, was it the unquestioned "best car", much less the dominate car...not at all. It has been Frequently debated in this forum with with no indisputable conclusions. just stating it as fact does not necessarily make it true, no matter how many times one says it.

I believe what we are debating is Vettel's claims that the Mercedes was the best/fastest car.

he also disagreed with the idea that the Ferrari was the equal of the Mercedes, so if you're going to reference him you need to take the full context. He at least felt the Mercedes was the better car. Whether he's right or not is another story, but that was/is his position, which means when he says that from his perspective he was always playing catch up

We're talking about Vettel's state of mind (among other things) and in that the only relevance is what he thought. The very quote of mine you just posted makes it clear by saying whether he's right or not is another story..."

Anyway, we've been asked by the Mods to cease this line of reasoning, so probably best to draw a line under it.

[Siao7]

Back on track, https://www.motorsportweek.com/news/id/21213

This mentions that it was not Arrivabene who really put the media ban, rather it was Marchionne. It generally vilifies Marchionne and makes Arrivabene look a bit nicer. Not sure about this

[Zoue]

Back on track, https://www.motorsportweek.com/news/id/21213

This mentions that it was not Arrivabene who really put the media ban, rather it was Marchionne. It generally vilifies Marchionne and makes Arrivabene look a bit nicer. Not sure about this

link appears to be blocked for me.

I can believe it, tbh. Marchionne was by all accounts a pretty forceful character and I can't imagine something like this happening without at least his approval

[Siao7]

Back on track, https://www.motorsportweek.com/news/id/21213

This mentions that it was not Arrivabene who really put the media ban, rather it was Marchionne. It generally vilifies Marchionne and makes Arrivabene look a bit nicer. Not sure about this

link appears to be blocked for me.

I can believe it, tbh. Marchionne was by all accounts a pretty forceful character and I can't imagine something like this happening without at least his approval

It is from Joe Saward, I'll copy a little bit here:

The way I see it, Arrivabene has been removed from his role before he can really make much of an impact. That may sound absurd given that he was appointed to his position in November 2014, However, it is a bit more complicated than that. Arrivabene had to tread very carefully because there were constant political battles going on and then he was under the orders of Sergio Marchionne, a man who allowed him no real room for manoeuvre.

It was not Arrivabene who imposed what amounted to a ban on talking to the media (which is why they were upset) but rather Marchionne. After Marchionne's death in July, that policy was reversed although by then Arrivabene, not surprisingly, was very wary of the press as there were constantly reports that were simply not true. People in Formula 1 assumed that Arrivabene was an idiot, which is simply not true.

and

Having said that, I am impressed by what Binotto has done on the technical side since he was put in charge in the middle of 2016 when James Allison departed, chased out of the team by Marchionne because he was unwilling to focus on the team 110 percent after the death of his wife and the need to spend more time with his children. From a human point of view, I feel for Allison, but Marchionne did not seem to care. I hear that Arrivabene was much more of a human being and that perhaps without Marchionne things would have been different. But Marchionne did not let humanity get in the way of getting the job done. If Allison could not give 100 percent then he should not be where he was. It was as simple as that. In the circumstances, Allison was probably better off out of it…

[pokerman]

he also disagreed with the idea that the Ferrari was the equal of the Mercedes, so if you're going to reference him you need to take the full context. He at least felt the Mercedes was the better car. Whether he's right or not is another story, but that was/is his position, which means when he says that from his perspective he was always playing catch up

The cars being at least equal is my opinion and that off the majority, I'm highlighting Vettel's version as being different and in that respect I'm wondering whenever he's winning a race he views himself as being in the fastest car or it's simply down to him?

Vettel only started to play catch up after he crashed in Germany and spun at Monza, there was nothing wrong with the car, he should have won both races.

Arrivabene may well have not lead Ferrari very well but he can't be blamed for Vettel's various mishaps neither can the development mishap that caused Ferrari to lose performance for 3 races but still overall left Ferrari with the better car more often than not and a more reliable car to boot, yet Vettel didn't come close to winning the title, so sorry if I have little patience whenever I see attempted excuses being made for Vettel.

Germany perhaps, but he was already well into catch-up territory by the time Monza came around. And I don't think you can possibly claim with any certainty that he should have won Monza, since we don't know if he would have been faster than Hamilton, who was faster than Kimi. The Mercs were better on their tyres there than the Ferraris were.

Anyway, we digress. The point is that if Vettel feels he was playing catch up, then he may well have felt he had to overdrive the car, which makes Siao7's point valid. As to you point about how he may view himself, I think that could be applied to more than one driver tbh.

It seems any explanation for events translates as an excuse in your mind? Whether or not he was over-driving, it still results in mistakes. So unclear how that may be viewed as an excuse

If he felt like he was playing catch up at Monza then that's only because he crashed in Germany, if he had won the race then it would have been Hamilton playing catch up, that was on Vettel not Ferrari.

Nobody's claiming that all the blame is on Ferrari.

Just let's gloss over some of Vettel's glaring mistakes which were the main reason he was having to play catch up as you called it.

There seems to be a narrative of saying Vettel made mistakes because he was having to play catch up.

[pokerman]

that's not what he said, though. He was contesting the claim that the Ferrari was the quickest, or even dominant. He's not making excuses that it wasn't quick enough to compete, just that Ferrari didn't have an advantage.

But again, the relevance to the discussion is if he felt the car wasn't the quickest then that may have encouraged him to overdrive and/or take risks. Doesn't matter whether he's right or wrong since it's giving a possible explanation for the driving errors and in that scenario it only matters how Vettel perceived it. And then excuses don't come into it

Claiming that the car wasn't the fastest (when it was) and then blaming this supposed lack of speed for his mistakes is, in my opinion, a form of making excuses. If you don't see it that way, so be it. For me it's as clear as day. Blaming the car in a year where you had the best car is pretty clear cut for me.

Ah, the "best car" thing again. Please remember that it is your opinion that the Ferrari was the best car last year, not irrefutable fact. Was the Ferrari competitive..certainly, was the Ferrari the best car for race at times...certainly, was it the unquestioned "best car", much less the dominate car...not at all. It has been Frequently debated in this forum with with no indisputable conclusions. just stating it as fact does not necessarily make it true, no matter how many times one says it.

I believe what we are debating is Vettel's claims that the Mercedes was the best/fastest car.

he also disagreed with the idea that the Ferrari was the equal of the Mercedes, so if you're going to reference him you need to take the full context. He at least felt the Mercedes was the better car. Whether he's right or not is another story, but that was/is his position, which means when he says that from his perspective he was always playing catch up

We're talking about Vettel's state of mind (among other things) and in that the only relevance is what he thought. The very quote of mine you just posted makes it clear by saying whether he's right or not is another story..."

Anyway, we've been asked by the Mods to cease this line of reasoning, so probably best to draw a line under it.

I thought the mods were just trying to calm the heated debate you was having with sandman?

[Zoue]

The cars being at least equal is my opinion and that off the majority, I'm highlighting Vettel's version as being different and in that respect I'm wondering whenever he's winning a race he views himself as being in the fastest car or it's simply down to him?

Vettel only started to play catch up after he crashed in Germany and spun at Monza, there was nothing wrong with the car, he should have won both races.

Arrivabene may well have not lead Ferrari very well but he can't be blamed for Vettel's various mishaps neither can the development mishap that caused Ferrari to lose performance for 3 races but still overall left Ferrari with the better car more often than not and a more reliable car to boot, yet Vettel didn't come close to winning the title, so sorry if I have little patience whenever I see attempted excuses being made for Vettel.

Germany perhaps, but he was already well into catch-up territory by the time Monza came around. And I don't think you can possibly claim with any certainty that he should have won Monza, since we don't know if he would have been faster than Hamilton, who was faster than Kimi. The Mercs were better on their tyres there than the Ferraris were.

Anyway, we digress. The point is that if Vettel feels he was playing catch up, then he may well have felt he had to overdrive the car, which makes Siao7's point valid. As to you point about how he may view himself, I think that could be applied to more than one driver tbh.

It seems any explanation for events translates as an excuse in your mind? Whether or not he was over-driving, it still results in mistakes. So unclear how that may be viewed as an excuse

If he felt like he was playing catch up at Monza then that's only because he crashed in Germany, if he had won the race then it would have been Hamilton playing catch up, that was on Vettel not Ferrari.

Nobody's claiming that all the blame is on Ferrari.

Just let's gloss over some of Vettel's glaring mistakes which were the main reason he was having to play catch up as you called it.

There seems to be a narrative of saying Vettel made mistakes because he was having to play catch up.

who's glossing over? It always seems to be all or nothing with you and you appear unable or unwilling to accept that various factors may have contributed?

[Fiki]

The cars being at least equal is my opinion and that off the majority, I'm highlighting Vettel's version as being different and in that respect I'm wondering whenever he's winning a race he views himself as being in the fastest car or it's simply down to him?

Vettel only started to play catch up after he crashed in Germany and spun at Monza, there was nothing wrong with the car, he should have won both races.

Arrivabene may well have not lead Ferrari very well but he can't be blamed for Vettel's various mishaps neither can the development mishap that caused Ferrari to lose performance for 3 races but still overall left Ferrari with the better car more often than not and a more reliable car to boot, yet Vettel didn't come close to winning the title, so sorry if I have little patience whenever I see attempted excuses being made for Vettel.

Germany perhaps, but he was already well into catch-up territory by the time Monza came around. And I don't think you can possibly claim with any certainty that he should have won Monza, since we don't know if he would have been faster than Hamilton, who was faster than Kimi. The Mercs were better on their tyres there than the Ferraris were.

Anyway, we digress. The point is that if Vettel feels he was playing catch up, then he may well have felt he had to overdrive the car, which makes Siao7's point valid. As to you point about how he may view himself, I think that could be applied to more than one driver tbh.

It seems any explanation for events translates as an excuse in your mind? Whether or not he was over-driving, it still results in mistakes. So unclear how that may be viewed as an excuse

If he felt like he was playing catch up at Monza then that's only because he crashed in Germany, if he had won the race then it would have been Hamilton playing catch up, that was on Vettel not Ferrari.

Not only because of his crash, surely? Have you forgotten Hamilton was allowed to keep his win, despite breaking the rules? He decided on his own to skip the final corner when he realised they were losing the race, when coming into the pits. Why the stewards thought that only warranted a reprimand is puzzling to say the least.