Fernando Alonso - I applaud you

[Xasthur]

9.5 out of 10 in every area isn't half bad But i'd rate his qualifying skills as a 9.8 if Hamilton is to be taken as a marker at 10/10. Second fastest driver on the grid for sure

[250mm]

Mind you, part of the skill of driving an F1 was being able to drive on the limits of physical ability. Clearly this is not required any more due to the tyre situation, therefore fewer drivers are making mistakes, which is improving their (driving) consistency. The results are more than ever due to each team lucking in to a set up on race day which will preserve the tyres or make them at least more predictable.
Therefore it may be true that Alonso is driving well, but if he's driving well within his physical limits then it's harder to see the importance of whether he's driving "well" or not.

Clearly the Ferrari can't be as bad as they said it was because the results don't bear that out. It may have been more difficult to drive, but since the drivers are no longer using all their capacity to drive on the limit, they have more time to apply their senses to driving smoothly or controlling a "difficult" car in a way which degrades the tyres less. If this is what you mean by "driving well" then so be it.

BBC 5 Live's Jaime Alguersuari on Fernando Alonso:

“The drivers are more important this year. When everything is so close, the drivers make the difference. That's why you see Fernando Alonso leading the championship. His car was 1.5 seconds a lap slower than the best in Australia, a second slower in Malaysia and China. It has never been on pole position, and he is leading the championship after six races! He hasn't got the best car, but he has shown that at the moment he is the best driver out there.”

Well, I disagree that "everything is close". In qualifying over a single lap the gap between the top 10-12 is much less than last year. But put them in a race, then massive differences start appearing with the various strategies, or effects of the car / driver on the tyres over 20 laps etc. And it's not always the same cars in the same relative positions for each race either. Barcelona, Williams win. Monaco, they're nowhere (yes yes, I know, it's Monaco and there were penalties), but the same applies to Lotus.. and McLaren. Red Bull seem to be the most consistent during a race (and not the fastest) and (Alonso's) Ferrari next. THis is why RBR is leading the WCC and the WDC.

If Alonso's car was consistently 1 second slower than the best, but the best car was always the same car, then he obviously wouldn't be leading the championship. And you can't say that all the other drivers are inconsistent - the car is what makes them inconsistent.

So I disagree with Alguesuari. Alonso's car allows him to get more consistent results than his competitors and I don't believe the driver makes all the difference - otherwise why would everyone be constantly bemoaning the tyres for dominating each and every lap of every race so far this year?

So you believe that the Ferrari is the most consistent car out there after Red Bull? That's laughable

Also why is it that Alonso isn't picking up penalties, isn't clipping HRTs and isn't getting stuck behind Caterhams? And nearly every time something goes wrong for his competitors, he is the one waiting to benefit? It doesn't take much of a stretch to figure out why...

...this particular driver is making the difference

Someone's in serious denial here, and it's not Mcdo.


So Alguesuari doesn't know what he talking about and you do ? rubbish. So Alonso's car is easy to drive, not physical at all, rubbish.

If Alonso goes on to bag the trophy this season it will be the best deserved WDC since Senna's last one...

[JMILAT]

But these are just Alonso's words where he is being rather modest. These do not prove in any way that he is not the fastest.

...........

I think i'll take his word for it.

You have a very weak arguement then. Like I said the on track facts do not suggest drivers like Vettel, Hamilton and even Raikkonen are necessarily faster than Alonso. There is not much evidence at all for that being the case.

[King1982]

i haven't been a fan of Alonso since the early days at Renault, but i would have a hard time disputing the fact that he's arguably the best driver out there. he's definitely top class in the way he drives a car, but i too think that the Ferrari's shortcomings on the year were largely blown out of proportion. this is not the worst Ferrari we've seen in years by far. 2009 anyone? if he had a more competitive teammate i don't think the gap would be so great there either, and i hate saying that because i like Massa.

the Ferrari looked rough in Australia, and i think his ability to push the car to its' limits there is the reason he currently leads the Championship and may well win it. he's first class, but he's not in a bad car.

Agreed coming from a hamilton fan. He is a very complete driver.

[ashley313]

Just wanted to say that a good friend picked up his first Ferrari yesterday, an F430 Scuderia. We went out to play and while I was behind the wheel the only time he was concerned was when I said "okay, now I'm going to be Fernando" and Brundle-commentated my own drive around the tow truck in front of me. I "caught him napping" AND "sold him a dummy" with a fake right and then a move around the outside to the left. The nice thing about that car is it makes you feel as talented as Mr. Alonso (I did Kimi and Michael driving impressions too, but they were less exciting, and it wasn't until I attempted a Sebastian-esque safety car restart that I almost got arrested. )

[Greg92]

Alonso's results so far:

5 - 1 - 9 - 7- 2 - 3

In 6 races he has been three times on the podium and three times off of it (and twice considerably off as a matter of fact). Not exactly Mr. Consistency IMO.

BTW, do you want to see something eerie?

Kimi's results so far:

7 - 5 - 14- 2 - 3 - 9

They have identical results so far but one. If Kimi had won in China instead of finishing 14th they'd be dead tied right now. And you can't blame Kimi for the China mishap so in the end it basically boils down to who's better, Lotus or Ferrari and simultaneously, who's doing a better job, Alonso or Kimi? While I can see the opinion tilt in favor of Lotus as a better car I would also add that the Ferrari crew has been much better than the Lotus one both in strategy and execution. Furthermore, let's not forget we're talking about Kimi who has been out of Formula 1 for two years after being kicked out of Ferrari by Alonso, and more importantly let's not forget the Kimi-Massa-Alonso triangle.

While talking of results, here's another close competitor.

Rosberg's results so far:

12 - 13- 1 - 5 - 7 - 2

He only has 4 results identical to Alonso in 6 races so not as close as Kimi but he could have easily finished 9th in Australia if he didn't get a puncture in the very last lap after brushing with Perez which would make them identical twins in 5 out of 6 races. Not to mention that he was 4th in Malaysia after the stops but had to pit again for inters because his car wasn't agreeing with them and had he finished there they'd be ridiculously close results-wise. In this case though, I can't see how the opinion can tilt in favor of Mercedes over Ferrari as the better car.

Again, I have nothing bad against Alonso's driving this season but let's not make him superhuman. Judging by the numbers and performances there are at least two drivers IMO that are doing as good a job as Alonso and even though often we hear compliments about them they're never ranked as high as Alonso "officially". Another driver that is doing an excellent job this season has been hugely let down by his team more often than not. So with 4 drivers doing a pretty similar job this season, would any of them be considered special?

[rawsushi]

Alonso's results so far:

5 - 1 - 9 - 7- 2 - 3

In 6 races he has been three times on the podium and three times off of it (and twice considerably off as a matter of fact). Not exactly Mr. Consistency IMO.

BTW, do you want to see something eerie?

Kimi's results so far:

7 - 5 - 14- 2 - 3 - 9

They have identical results so far but one. If Kimi had won in China instead of finishing 14th they'd be dead tied right now. And you can't blame Kimi for the China mishap so in the end it basically boils down to who's better, Lotus or Ferrari and simultaneously, who's doing a better job, Alonso or Kimi? While I can see the opinion tilt in favor of Lotus as a better car I would also add that the Ferrari crew has been much better than the Lotus one both in strategy and execution. Furthermore, let's not forget we're talking about Kimi who has been out of Formula 1 for two years after being kicked out of Ferrari by Alonso, and more importantly let's not forget the Kimi-Massa-Alonso triangle.

While talking of results, here's another close competitor.

Rosberg's results so far:

12 - 13- 1 - 5 - 7 - 2

He only has 4 results identical to Alonso in 6 races so not as close as Kimi but he could have easily finished 9th in Australia if he didn't get a puncture in the very last lap after brushing with Perez which would make them identical twins in 5 out of 6 races. Not to mention that he was 4th in Malaysia after the stops but had to pit again for inters because his car wasn't agreeing with them and had he finished there they'd be ridiculously close results-wise. In this case though, I can't see how the opinion can tilt in favor of Mercedes over Ferrari as the better car.

Again, I have nothing bad against Alonso's driving this season but let's not make him superhuman. Judging by the numbers and performances there are at least two drivers IMO that are doing as good a job as Alonso and even though often we hear compliments about them they're never ranked as high as Alonso "officially". Another driver that is doing an excellent job this season has been hugely let down by his team more often than not. So with 4 drivers doing a pretty similar job this season, would any of them be considered special?

A similar argument can be applied to Pedro De La Rosa and how he's consistently trashing his team mate Karthikeyan in the races. So maybe he's the best driver on the grid?

Until you actually get in the car and drive it and know how bad it is, it's all subjective talk. You're entitled to your own opinion, and really no point discussing further along these lines. The only people who know how good or bad the car is are the folks in the paddock. On that note, I wonder what they're saying about Alonso's performance though...

[Greg92]

Alonso's results so far:

5 - 1 - 9 - 7- 2 - 3

In 6 races he has been three times on the podium and three times off of it (and twice considerably off as a matter of fact). Not exactly Mr. Consistency IMO.

BTW, do you want to see something eerie?

Kimi's results so far:

7 - 5 - 14- 2 - 3 - 9

They have identical results so far but one. If Kimi had won in China instead of finishing 14th they'd be dead tied right now. And you can't blame Kimi for the China mishap so in the end it basically boils down to who's better, Lotus or Ferrari and simultaneously, who's doing a better job, Alonso or Kimi? While I can see the opinion tilt in favor of Lotus as a better car I would also add that the Ferrari crew has been much better than the Lotus one both in strategy and execution. Furthermore, let's not forget we're talking about Kimi who has been out of Formula 1 for two years after being kicked out of Ferrari by Alonso, and more importantly let's not forget the Kimi-Massa-Alonso triangle.

While talking of results, here's another close competitor.

Rosberg's results so far:

12 - 13- 1 - 5 - 7 - 2

He only has 4 results identical to Alonso in 6 races so not as close as Kimi but he could have easily finished 9th in Australia if he didn't get a puncture in the very last lap after brushing with Perez which would make them identical twins in 5 out of 6 races. Not to mention that he was 4th in Malaysia after the stops but had to pit again for inters because his car wasn't agreeing with them and had he finished there they'd be ridiculously close results-wise. In this case though, I can't see how the opinion can tilt in favor of Mercedes over Ferrari as the better car.

Again, I have nothing bad against Alonso's driving this season but let's not make him superhuman. Judging by the numbers and performances there are at least two drivers IMO that are doing as good a job as Alonso and even though often we hear compliments about them they're never ranked as high as Alonso "officially". Another driver that is doing an excellent job this season has been hugely let down by his team more often than not. So with 4 drivers doing a pretty similar job this season, would any of them be considered special?

A similar argument can be applied to Pedro De La Rosa and how he's consistently trashing his team mate Karthikeyan in the races. So maybe he's the best driver on the grid?

Until you actually get in the car and drive it and know how bad it is, it's all subjective talk. You're entitled to your own opinion, and really no point discussing further along these lines. The only people who know how good or bad the car is are the folks in the paddock. On that note, I wonder what they're saying about Alonso's performance though...

That's absurd, twice over actually.

First, I said nothing about teammates, merely showed with facts instead of speculation what three different drivers have achieved in three different cars so your PdlR argument is absurd and unfitting here.

Second, how do the people in the paddock know how good or bad the car is? Every single team right now has no idea how good or bad their own car is but somehow you claim they know very well how good or bad every car is? I hate repeating myself but that's absurd!

However, let me guess, these mysterious people in the paddock obviously think that Ferrari is at least worse than McLaren, Red Bull, Lotus and Mercedes, right?

[rawsushi]

Yes, it's absurd, and that's precisely my point. None of us really knows how good or bad each car is. So really is there any point continuing to argue along these lines?

You can have the last word on this to be honest. It's all subjective and pointless to continue along these lines.

[mcdo]

Alonso's results so far:

5 - 1 - 9 - 7- 2 - 3

Kimi's results so far:

7 - 5 - 14- 2 - 3 - 9

So in 6 races, Alonso has beaten Kimi in 5 of them. How that can appear to be comparable to anybody on this planet is beyond me.

[Lotus38]

Alonso's results so far:

5 - 1 - 9 - 7- 2 - 3

Kimi's results so far:

7 - 5 - 14- 2 - 3 - 9

So in 6 races, Alonso has beaten Kimi in 5 of them. How that can appear to be comparable to anybody on this planet is beyond me.

It's called alternate planes of reality

[Greg92]

Alonso's results so far:

5 - 1 - 9 - 7- 2 - 3

Kimi's results so far:

7 - 5 - 14- 2 - 3 - 9

So in 6 races, Alonso has beaten Kimi in 5 of them. How that can appear to be comparable to anybody on this planet is beyond me.

It might be beyond you but that's not much significant is it?

They're easily comparable because they have 5 identical results. To make it simpler, if you rearrange them it would be:

Alonso: 1 - 2 - 3 - 5 - 7 - 9
Kimi : 14 - 2 - 3 - 5 - 7 - 9

So all that changes between them is one single result or in other words, if Kimi wins in Canada and Alonso finishes 14th they will be dead even in the standings with nothing to make a difference between them even though, Alonso would have beaten Kimi 5:2 in the races and even worse, if Alonso finished 15th or higher he would be classified behind Kimi. Sounds absurd? Not really because Alonso beat Hamilton 9:6 in 2007 in races they both finished but he was classified behind Hamilton in the end. If you understand 2007, 2012 can't be that far beyond you.

But if you want to go by that, then Webber is better having beaten Alonso in 4 out of 6 races and Rosberg and Vettel are as good being tied with him 3:3.

[mcdo]

Alonso's results so far:

5 - 1 - 9 - 7- 2 - 3

Kimi's results so far:

7 - 5 - 14- 2 - 3 - 9

So in 6 races, Alonso has beaten Kimi in 5 of them. How that can appear to be comparable to anybody on this planet is beyond me.

It might be beyond you but that's not much significant is it?

They're easily comparable because they have 5 identical results. To make it simpler, if you rearrange them it would be:

Alonso: 1 - 2 - 3 - 5 - 7 - 9
Kimi : 14 - 2 - 3 - 5 - 7 - 9

So all that changes between them is one single result or in other words, if Kimi wins in Canada and Alonso finishes 14th they will be dead even in the standings with nothing to make a difference between them even though, Alonso would have beaten Kimi 5:2 in the races and even worse, if Alonso finished 15th or higher he would be classified behind Kimi. Sounds absurd? Not really because Alonso beat Hamilton 9:6 in 2007 in races they both finished but he was classified behind Hamilton in the end. If you understand 2007, 2012 can't be that far beyond you.

But if you want to go by that, then Webber is better having beaten Alonso in 4 out of 6 races and Rosberg and Vettel are as good being tied with him 3:3.

Which may explain why they're all ahead of Kimi in the standings.

Anyway ifs and buts don't win titles.

(Also, I don't see Kimi winning in Canada. But I do have a sneaky suspicion Alonso will bin it. He's fond of those Montreal walls)

[Darkarium]

As much as I hate Alonso as a person and hate seeing him win, I have to admit that I agree with you OP. That Ferrari since 09 has been dog and Alonso has ouitperformed it too much. Realistically I think that Massa's pace is where most of the field would be in that car.

[HamsterHuey]

Alonso's results so far:

5 - 1 - 9 - 7- 2 - 3

In 6 races he has been three times on the podium and three times off of it (and twice considerably off as a matter of fact). Not exactly Mr. Consistency IMO.

BTW, do you want to see something eerie?

Kimi's results so far:

7 - 5 - 14- 2 - 3 - 9

They have identical results so far but one. If Kimi had won in China instead of finishing 14th they'd be dead tied right now. And you can't blame Kimi for the China mishap so in the end it basically boils down to who's better, Lotus or Ferrari and simultaneously, who's doing a better job, Alonso or Kimi? While I can see the opinion tilt in favor of Lotus as a better car I would also add that the Ferrari crew has been much better than the Lotus one both in strategy and execution. Furthermore, let's not forget we're talking about Kimi who has been out of Formula 1 for two years after being kicked out of Ferrari by Alonso, and more importantly let's not forget the Kimi-Massa-Alonso triangle.

While talking of results, here's another close competitor.

Rosberg's results so far:

12 - 13- 1 - 5 - 7 - 2

He only has 4 results identical to Alonso in 6 races so not as close as Kimi but he could have easily finished 9th in Australia if he didn't get a puncture in the very last lap after brushing with Perez which would make them identical twins in 5 out of 6 races. Not to mention that he was 4th in Malaysia after the stops but had to pit again for inters because his car wasn't agreeing with them and had he finished there they'd be ridiculously close results-wise. In this case though, I can't see how the opinion can tilt in favor of Mercedes over Ferrari as the better car.

Again, I have nothing bad against Alonso's driving this season but let's not make him superhuman. Judging by the numbers and performances there are at least two drivers IMO that are doing as good a job as Alonso and even though often we hear compliments about them they're never ranked as high as Alonso "officially". Another driver that is doing an excellent job this season has been hugely let down by his team more often than not. So with 4 drivers doing a pretty similar job this season, would any of them be considered special?

I'm a big Kimi fan, but just comparing results really doesn't serve much purpose. The Lotus has been a very strong car from the get go, whereas the Ferrari was just horrid, especially at the start of the season. And this isn't just based on Ferrari or Alonso's word for it, lots of experts and commentators who attended the pre-season tests and the first couple of races commented about how terrible the car seemed to look on track and when going through the corners.

So Alonso achieving those results despite a worse car is what is commendable, not the absolute results themselves. Kimi should really have much better results than Alonso given the car. I agree that Lotus has not been great with strategy, etc, but Kimi has looked great at times, and then a bit bad at other times. He also isn't dominating Grosjean even remotely as far as quali performance goes. Not to knock Kimi, but his and Grosjean's results reflect a bit of underperformance from the drivers.

[carlisimo]

...but he could have easily finished 9th in Australia if he didn't get a puncture in the very last lap after brushing with Perez which would make them identical twins in 5 out of 6 races.

That's what's great about Alonso. He gets into brushes less often than everyone else.

[Greg92]

So in 6 races, Alonso has beaten Kimi in 5 of them. How that can appear to be comparable to anybody on this planet is beyond me.

It might be beyond you but that's not much significant is it?

They're easily comparable because they have 5 identical results. To make it simpler, if you rearrange them it would be:

Alonso: 1 - 2 - 3 - 5 - 7 - 9
Kimi : 14 - 2 - 3 - 5 - 7 - 9

So all that changes between them is one single result or in other words, if Kimi wins in Canada and Alonso finishes 14th they will be dead even in the standings with nothing to make a difference between them even though, Alonso would have beaten Kimi 5:2 in the races and even worse, if Alonso finished 15th or higher he would be classified behind Kimi. Sounds absurd? Not really because Alonso beat Hamilton 9:6 in 2007 in races they both finished but he was classified behind Hamilton in the end. If you understand 2007, 2012 can't be that far beyond you.

But if you want to go by that, then Webber is better having beaten Alonso in 4 out of 6 races and Rosberg and Vettel are as good being tied with him 3:3.

Which may explain why they're all ahead of Kimi in the standings.

But that doesn't explain why they're all behind Alonso in the standings so obviously how many times you finish ahead of another driver doesn't mean as much as points scored do. As I said, Alonso finished ahead of Hamilton 66.6% of the times they both finished the race in 2007 but Hamilton was classified ahead, ironically because of a better finishing record.

Anyway ifs and buts don't win titles.

No they don't and neither does the track record between drivers. What wins titles are the points and points are based on the finishing position which again, except for one result, has been identical between Kimi and Alonso. And this is exactly what I was talking about before you started discussing how often Alonso has finished ahead of Kimi.

[HamsterHuey]

So in 6 races, Alonso has beaten Kimi in 5 of them. How that can appear to be comparable to anybody on this planet is beyond me.

It might be beyond you but that's not much significant is it?

They're easily comparable because they have 5 identical results. To make it simpler, if you rearrange them it would be:

Alonso: 1 - 2 - 3 - 5 - 7 - 9
Kimi : 14 - 2 - 3 - 5 - 7 - 9

So all that changes between them is one single result or in other words, if Kimi wins in Canada and Alonso finishes 14th they will be dead even in the standings with nothing to make a difference between them even though, Alonso would have beaten Kimi 5:2 in the races and even worse, if Alonso finished 15th or higher he would be classified behind Kimi. Sounds absurd? Not really because Alonso beat Hamilton 9:6 in 2007 in races they both finished but he was classified behind Hamilton in the end. If you understand 2007, 2012 can't be that far beyond you.

But if you want to go by that, then Webber is better having beaten Alonso in 4 out of 6 races and Rosberg and Vettel are as good being tied with him 3:3.

Which may explain why they're all ahead of Kimi in the standings.

But that doesn't explain why they're all behind Alonso in the standings so obviously how many times you finish ahead of another driver doesn't mean as much as points scored do. As I said, Alonso finished ahead of Hamilton 66.6% of the times they both finished the race in 2007 but Hamilton was classified ahead, ironically because of a better finishing record.

Anyway ifs and buts don't win titles.

No they don't and neither does the track record between drivers. What wins titles are the points and points are based on the finishing position which again, except for one result, has been identical between Kimi and Alonso. And this is exactly what I was talking about before you started discussing how often Alonso has finished ahead of Kimi.

But I fail to see why absolute race positions are your only metric of comparison? If Alonso and Kimi were team mates, then sure, that would make sense. But considering that the Lotus has been a better car than the Ferrari this season, those results indicate that either a) Alonso has driven exceptionally well and consistently in a relatively bad car or b) Kimi and Grosjean have underperformed quite a bit considering the cars they have or c) A mix of a) and b) - Which is the way I view things this season.

[Asphalt_World]

I never understand this notion. I believe he is THE fastest out there. Maybe not over one lap or 5 kilometres (and even then he might still be), but certainly over 300 kilometres he's the fastest.

And thats what I mean about consistency.

We hear this a lot about Alonso not really being the fastest just the most complete. But I don't really see how some of the facts back it up.

Against Hamilton it was very close on raw pace. Now a lot of people assumed that Hamilton would get faster because he was a rookie. However if you look at the pace gap between Hamilton and Button in qualifying Hamilton has the edge but its very close on speed between them. Definetly nothing like everyone was expecting. Button certainly doesn't have a great qualifying record either. Vettel actually had done a superb job against Webber especially in 2011 however things have unravelled a little for him this year where he certainly has often looked slower than Webber. Indeed 2011 was the only year where he seemed to have quite a big advantage on Webber and it was certainly quite close at times in 2010. Based on this its hard to see how these guys are any faster than Alonso.

Here's a half decent fact quoted straight from Alonso himself

““I’m not the fastest driver in qualifying, on street circuits, in the rain or in pit stops, but I’m a 9.5 (out of 10) in all those areas and I know how to get the best from the materials at my disposal.”

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2012/05/a ... -networks/

or this one

"I might not be fastest, or the most technical but I am consistent."

http://en.espnf1.com/ferrari/motorsport ... /1205.html

^ I remember reading that in an interview with him or something, I don't remember exactly when it was said but I think it might of been in 2010.

But these are just Alonso's words where he is being rather modest. These do not prove in any way that he is not the fastest.

To be fair, I have faster entry speed into a corner than Alonso over a single lap.














The only problem is that I don't make it out the other side of the corner.

Therefore I begrudgingly admit Alonso is indeed faster than me and probably as fast as anyone in F1, if not faster.

[Strong Haircut]

I fail to see why Alonso is being called inconsistent. He is one of only two drivers to score points every race, and one of only two drivers to have three podiums. He also leads the WDC.

[Greg92]

I'm a big Kimi fan, but just comparing results really doesn't serve much purpose. The Lotus has been a very strong car from the get go, whereas the Ferrari was just horrid, especially at the start of the season. And this isn't just based on Ferrari or Alonso's word for it, lots of experts and commentators who attended the pre-season tests and the first couple of races commented about how terrible the car seemed to look on track and when going through the corners.

So Alonso achieving those results despite a worse car is what is commendable, not the absolute results themselves. Kimi should really have much better results than Alonso given the car. I agree that Lotus has not been great with strategy, etc, but Kimi has looked great at times, and then a bit bad at other times. He also isn't dominating Grosjean even remotely as far as quali performance goes. Not to knock Kimi, but his and Grosjean's results reflect a bit of underperformance from the drivers.

Where do you base your opinion on the cars?

Did you factor the tires?

Did you factor the pitwall?

Did you factor the teammates?

When you total them out, how do they compare?

The opinions of experts in the preseason don't mean much for many reasons but most importantly because after 6 races in the season the experts still don't know the ranking of the cars.

There are at least 2 races where the pitwall has screwed Kimi's race, in Australia when he was sent too late for a qualy lap and in China when he was left to linger in old tires until they cliffed. Monaco can be used as an argument either against the car being harder on tires than Ferrari or against the team for keeping him longer on the supersofts and dropping him out of the points as a consequence. OTOH, Ferrari have been perfect so far with their only win coming because of smart or lucky strategy, whatever you prefer to call it.

Both Alonso and Kimi have erratic drivers for teammates but how would you compare them between each other? It's very important because they factor in the overall perception of the car. Apparently one line of thinking is that Lotus is so good that even Grosjean can make it in Q3 every time while Ferrari is so bad that Massa barely made it in Q3 in Monaco for the first race. Why can't there be another explanation? Can't Grosjean be a very good qualifier and Massa a lousy one? Not saying what is, just asking.

So all in all, maybe Ferrari has not the best car between the two but they definitely make up for it in strategy and execution and they seem to have the upperhand on tires too.

I'm a fan of neither driver even though I consider Alonso better than Kimi overall. It's just that this season, while Alonso is doing a seemingly better job, I can't see enough to justify all the superhero attributes to Alonso. He is doing a great job but let's not overdo it.

[Greg92]

...but he could have easily finished 9th in Australia if he didn't get a puncture in the very last lap after brushing with Perez which would make them identical twins in 5 out of 6 races.

That's what's great about Alonso. He gets into brushes less often than everyone else.

Good, but isn't he supposed to?

[Greg92]

But I fail to see why absolute race positions are your only metric of comparison? If Alonso and Kimi were team mates, then sure, that would make sense. But considering that the Lotus has been a better car than the Ferrari this season, those results indicate that either a) Alonso has driven exceptionally well and consistently in a relatively bad car or b) Kimi and Grosjean have underperformed quite a bit considering the cars they have or c) A mix of a) and b) - Which is the way I view things this season.

How did you consider that Lotus has been a better car than Ferrari this season?

I keep hearing this statement quite often in the form of "in the preseason and in Australia Ferrari was a handful to drive" or "experts agree that Ferrari is not the best car there", etc. Well guess what, Mercedes was crap in Australia but you don't see me applauding Rosberg for winning in a crap car. If you don't trust me, well, I can let you know too that experts agree that Mercedes is not the best car there.

So, for anyone out there, how good is that Ferrari?

[HamsterHuey]

But I fail to see why absolute race positions are your only metric of comparison? If Alonso and Kimi were team mates, then sure, that would make sense. But considering that the Lotus has been a better car than the Ferrari this season, those results indicate that either a) Alonso has driven exceptionally well and consistently in a relatively bad car or b) Kimi and Grosjean have underperformed quite a bit considering the cars they have or c) A mix of a) and b) - Which is the way I view things this season.

How did you consider that Lotus has been a better car than Ferrari this season?

I keep hearing this statement quite often in the form of "in the preseason and in Australia Ferrari was a handful to drive" or "experts agree that Ferrari is not the best car there", etc. Well guess what, Mercedes was crap in Australia but you don't see me applauding Rosberg for winning in a crap car. If you don't trust me, well, I can let you know too that experts agree that Mercedes is not the best car there.

So, for anyone out there, how good is that Ferrari?

So the "expert" consensus from the paddock isn't good enough, neither is my own opinion based on what I have seen...so I guess there isn't any point debating this with you? To throw your logic right back at you, what are you basing your own opinion on? I don't see any absolute proof. Everything you've said is no different than what others on this thread with a different viewpoint on the matter have said. And pretty much all the F1 experts/journalists were quite unanimous in agreeing that the Ferrari at least at the start of the season was quite atrocious. But if you won't give any importance or weight to what they said and to what others with a different opinion to your say on this thread, what special access to facts and knowledge do you have that should make me come around to your point of view?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but the net conclusion to draw from your line of reasoning is that nothing can be said and no conclusion can be made unless we have all the absolute facts (which we will never have). But if you feel that way, it is ironic that you then express your opinion on the issue and expect others to come around to feeling the same way on the matter.

[ynot22]

But I fail to see why absolute race positions are your only metric of comparison? If Alonso and Kimi were team mates, then sure, that would make sense. But considering that the Lotus has been a better car than the Ferrari this season, those results indicate that either a) Alonso has driven exceptionally well and consistently in a relatively bad car or b) Kimi and Grosjean have underperformed quite a bit considering the cars they have or c) A mix of a) and b) - Which is the way I view things this season.

How did you consider that Lotus has been a better car than Ferrari this season?

I keep hearing this statement quite often in the form of "in the preseason and in Australia Ferrari was a handful to drive" or "experts agree that Ferrari is not the best car there", etc. Well guess what, Mercedes was crap in Australia but you don't see me applauding Rosberg for winning in a crap car. If you don't trust me, well, I can let you know too that experts agree that Mercedes is not the best car there.

So, for anyone out there, how good is that Ferrari?

Im sorry but your bias is simply undeniable. Everyone watching that Ferrari going around the track at the beginning of the season could see that it was a handful piece of rubbish. The drivers all saw it, the commentators saw it, and any unbiased knowledgable observer could even spot it on the screen. As to where the car is now in relation to its' competition, that is more open to interpretation, but the early Ferrari was obviously crap.

[Greg92]

But I fail to see why absolute race positions are your only metric of comparison? If Alonso and Kimi were team mates, then sure, that would make sense. But considering that the Lotus has been a better car than the Ferrari this season, those results indicate that either a) Alonso has driven exceptionally well and consistently in a relatively bad car or b) Kimi and Grosjean have underperformed quite a bit considering the cars they have or c) A mix of a) and b) - Which is the way I view things this season.

How did you consider that Lotus has been a better car than Ferrari this season?

I keep hearing this statement quite often in the form of "in the preseason and in Australia Ferrari was a handful to drive" or "experts agree that Ferrari is not the best car there", etc. Well guess what, Mercedes was crap in Australia but you don't see me applauding Rosberg for winning in a crap car. If you don't trust me, well, I can let you know too that experts agree that Mercedes is not the best car there.

So, for anyone out there, how good is that Ferrari?

So the "expert" consensus from the paddock isn't good enough, neither is my own opinion based on what I have seen...so I guess there isn't any point debating this with you? To throw your logic right back at you, what are you basing your own opinion on? I don't see any absolute proof. Everything you've said is no different than what others on this thread with a different viewpoint on the matter have said. And pretty much all the F1 experts/journalists were quite unanimous in agreeing that the Ferrari at least at the start of the season was quite atrocious. But if you won't give any importance or weight to what they said and to what others with a different opinion to your say on this thread, what special access to facts and knowledge do you have that should make me come around to your point of view?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but the net conclusion to draw from your line of reasoning is that nothing can be said and no conclusion can be made unless we have all the absolute facts (which we will never have). But if you feel that way, it is ironic that you then express your opinion on the issue and expect others to come around to feeling the same way on the matter.

You're missing the point entirely.

First, I don't want or need you to keep repeating me vaguely what the "expert" consensus is or what pretty much all the F1 experts/journalists were quite unanimous in agreeing about. SHOW ME THE MONEY! Can you back it up? Can you really show me this consensus or unanimity or are you just making it all up? Bear in mind, there are hundreds of experts and journos in the paddock so don't insult my intelligence further by providing me one, two or even a handful of quotes.

Second, THINK! We've had 6 races so far, why are you talking about the preseason and the start of the season? The fact that Ferrari was quite attrocius at the start of the season is pointless because Alonso didn't really set the world on fire in Australia and I don't see why it matters for Spain and Monaco for example.

I have nothing against you but everytime I hear this repeated rumor (because that's what it is) about experts agreeing about something or unanimously agreeing on something else I can't help but feel a feeble case.

BTW, I'm not asking to base opinions on absolute facts but at least I'm not basing or supporting my opinon with vague references on expert opinion.

[Greg92]

But I fail to see why absolute race positions are your only metric of comparison? If Alonso and Kimi were team mates, then sure, that would make sense. But considering that the Lotus has been a better car than the Ferrari this season, those results indicate that either a) Alonso has driven exceptionally well and consistently in a relatively bad car or b) Kimi and Grosjean have underperformed quite a bit considering the cars they have or c) A mix of a) and b) - Which is the way I view things this season.

How did you consider that Lotus has been a better car than Ferrari this season?

I keep hearing this statement quite often in the form of "in the preseason and in Australia Ferrari was a handful to drive" or "experts agree that Ferrari is not the best car there", etc. Well guess what, Mercedes was crap in Australia but you don't see me applauding Rosberg for winning in a crap car. If you don't trust me, well, I can let you know too that experts agree that Mercedes is not the best car there.

So, for anyone out there, how good is that Ferrari?

Im sorry but your bias is simply undeniable. Everyone watching that Ferrari going around the track at the beginning of the season could see that it was a handful piece of rubbish. The drivers all saw it, the commentators saw it, and any unbiased knowledgable observer could even spot it on the screen. As to where the car is now in relation to its' competition, that is more open to interpretation, but the early Ferrari was obviously crap.

Forgetting this immense support cast for a moment, what has Ferrari's performance at the start of the season got so special that everyone can't stop refering to it? As I said in the post above, Mercedes was even worse than Ferrari in Australia but I don't consider Rosberg's win a miracle on water because of that so why is everyone basing judgement on Alonso or Ferrari on the season start? Or as i said to HH, why does it really matter? Alonso managed a good 5th but attrition played a large role in there too and as for the next race I can't see how anyone can deny that rain and Ferrari's strategy were the main factors while in China he didn't do better than 9th. So again, what's your point about Ferrari being a handful at the start of the season?

[ashley313]

Ferrari is just very good at managing expectations. The more Stefano and Fernando say the car is slow and they have all this work to do, the better they look when Fernando "pulls out" a great result when in reality the car simply isn't that bad. Massa having a really bad spell really played into their whole lowering expectations message since it was easy to use him as an example of how tough the car is to deal with. The car might LOOK a handful - honestly though how many of you are saying that just because Martin Brundle occasionally says it? do you all really know what you are looking at in the first place? - but it has very good inherent race pace. This doesn't take anything away from Fernando's talent in my eyes - but I don't see this season as him using godlike powers to drag a donkey cart around to lead the championship. He's incredibly smart, knows how to stay out of trouble, shows up big when necessary, plays the political game in the paddock as well as anyone, represents his millions of fans with dignity, and he's even humbled some over the past few years. He's not the driver I cheer for the most, but I do think he is the overall best driver package in the game right now, and I always appreciate his performances.

[-ZeroGravityToilet-]

But I fail to see why absolute race positions are your only metric of comparison? If Alonso and Kimi were team mates, then sure, that would make sense. But considering that the Lotus has been a better car than the Ferrari this season, those results indicate that either a) Alonso has driven exceptionally well and consistently in a relatively bad car or b) Kimi and Grosjean have underperformed quite a bit considering the cars they have or c) A mix of a) and b) - Which is the way I view things this season.

How did you consider that Lotus has been a better car than Ferrari this season?

I keep hearing this statement quite often in the form of "in the preseason and in Australia Ferrari was a handful to drive" or "experts agree that Ferrari is not the best car there", etc. Well guess what, Mercedes was crap in Australia but you don't see me applauding Rosberg for winning in a crap car. If you don't trust me, well, I can let you know too that experts agree that Mercedes is not the best car there.

So, for anyone out there, how good is that Ferrari?

Im sorry but your bias is simply undeniable. Everyone watching that Ferrari going around the track at the beginning of the season could see that it was a handful piece of rubbish. The drivers all saw it, the commentators saw it, and any unbiased knowledgable observer could even spot it on the screen. As to where the car is now in relation to its' competition, that is more open to interpretation, but the early Ferrari was obviously crap.

I was at the last Barcelona winter test sessions, went around the track but spent most of the time at turn 9, the fast right hander at the middle of the track, and the Ferrari looked like a donkey truck in the hands of Massa or a muscle car with Fernando at it. None of those versions was anything to make Maranello proud.
But in the hands of Alonso it actually resembled a race car, while Massa had the most atrocious time of any of the 20 drivers+ over the two days. He would need to ostensibly correct, lift, brake and accelerate again several times for fear of going off, all in that one turn, making it the most ungainly sight of the weekend. Lap in lap out, mind you. Not once did he get the darn truck to behave.

To be leading the points with such a nightmare deserves a lot of credit, independently of where they go from now on with a much improved car...

Let's see.

[ynot22]

But I fail to see why absolute race positions are your only metric of comparison? If Alonso and Kimi were team mates, then sure, that would make sense. But considering that the Lotus has been a better car than the Ferrari this season, those results indicate that either a) Alonso has driven exceptionally well and consistently in a relatively bad car or b) Kimi and Grosjean have underperformed quite a bit considering the cars they have or c) A mix of a) and b) - Which is the way I view things this season.

How did you consider that Lotus has been a better car than Ferrari this season?

I keep hearing this statement quite often in the form of "in the preseason and in Australia Ferrari was a handful to drive" or "experts agree that Ferrari is not the best car there", etc. Well guess what, Mercedes was crap in Australia but you don't see me applauding Rosberg for winning in a crap car. If you don't trust me, well, I can let you know too that experts agree that Mercedes is not the best car there.

So, for anyone out there, how good is that Ferrari?

Im sorry but your bias is simply undeniable. Everyone watching that Ferrari going around the track at the beginning of the season could see that it was a handful piece of rubbish. The drivers all saw it, the commentators saw it, and any unbiased knowledgable observer could even spot it on the screen. As to where the car is now in relation to its' competition, that is more open to interpretation, but the early Ferrari was obviously crap.

Forgetting this immense support cast for a moment, what has Ferrari's performance at the start of the season got so special that everyone can't stop refering to it? As I said in the post above, Mercedes was even worse than Ferrari in Australia but I don't consider Rosberg's win a miracle on water because of that so why is everyone basing judgement on Alonso or Ferrari on the season start? Or as i said to HH, why does it really matter? Alonso managed a good 5th but attrition played a large role in there too and as for the next race I can't see how anyone can deny that rain and Ferrari's strategy were the main factors while in China he didn't do better than 9th. So again, what's your point about Ferrari being a handful at the start of the season?

The point is that the car was one of the worst on the grid and has only slowly come up to pace. I have no interest in a pointless argument about where the Ferrari is at the moment and how quickly they came up to speed but there is no denying that Ferrari and Alonso were at a performance disadvantage for a good portion of the season. Yes strategies have helped but Alonso's cool head and incredible driving are being rightfully acknowledged here and in the media despite your desperate denials. As for Rosberg in Australia and so on you are missing the OP. Nico is not leading the WDC, Alonso is.

[F108]

But these are just Alonso's words where he is being rather modest. These do not prove in any way that he is not the fastest.

...........

I think i'll take his word for it.

You have a very weak arguement then. Like I said the on track facts do not suggest drivers like Vettel, Hamilton and even Raikkonen are necessarily faster than Alonso. There is not much evidence at all for that being the case.

I'm not arguing with anything, I posted quotes straight from Alonso HIMSELF. Holy chocolate fudge cake guy

[ynot22]

But I fail to see why absolute race positions are your only metric of comparison? If Alonso and Kimi were team mates, then sure, that would make sense. But considering that the Lotus has been a better car than the Ferrari this season, those results indicate that either a) Alonso has driven exceptionally well and consistently in a relatively bad car or b) Kimi and Grosjean have underperformed quite a bit considering the cars they have or c) A mix of a) and b) - Which is the way I view things this season.

How did you consider that Lotus has been a better car than Ferrari this season?

I keep hearing this statement quite often in the form of "in the preseason and in Australia Ferrari was a handful to drive" or "experts agree that Ferrari is not the best car there", etc. Well guess what, Mercedes was crap in Australia but you don't see me applauding Rosberg for winning in a crap car. If you don't trust me, well, I can let you know too that experts agree that Mercedes is not the best car there.

So, for anyone out there, how good is that Ferrari?

Im sorry but your bias is simply undeniable. Everyone watching that Ferrari going around the track at the beginning of the season could see that it was a handful piece of rubbish. The drivers all saw it, the commentators saw it, and any unbiased knowledgable observer could even spot it on the screen. As to where the car is now in relation to its' competition, that is more open to interpretation, but the early Ferrari was obviously crap.

I was at the last Barcelona winter test sessions, went around the track but spent most of the time at turn 9, the fast right hander at the middle of the track, and the Ferrari looked like a donkey truck in the hands of Massa or a muscle car with Fernando at it. None of those versions was anything to make Maranello proud.
But in the hands of Alonso it actually resembled a race car, while Massa had the most atrocious time of any of the 20 drivers+ over the two days. He would need to ostensibly correct, lift, brake and accelerate again several times for fear of going off, all in that one turn, making it the most ungainly sight of the weekend. Lap in lap out, mind you. Not once did he get the darn truck to behave.

To be leading the points with such a nightmare deserves a lot of credit, independently of where they go from now on with a much improved car...

Let's see.

That reminds me, Much of the handling nightmares were tied to the pull rod suspension. Anyone know if they still have that on the front and back or if they've abandoned it and when?

[JMILAT]

But these are just Alonso's words where he is being rather modest. These do not prove in any way that he is not the fastest.

...........

I think i'll take his word for it.

You have a very weak arguement then. Like I said the on track facts do not suggest drivers like Vettel, Hamilton and even Raikkonen are necessarily faster than Alonso. There is not much evidence at all for that being the case.

I'm not arguing with anything, I posted quotes straight from Alonso HIMSELF. Holy chocolate fudge cake guy

And your posting that for no reason right? Nope your posting it in an attempt to back up your original claim.

Your not seriously going to base your opinion just on Alonso's words are you?

[HamsterHuey]

But I fail to see why absolute race positions are your only metric of comparison? If Alonso and Kimi were team mates, then sure, that would make sense. But considering that the Lotus has been a better car than the Ferrari this season, those results indicate that either a) Alonso has driven exceptionally well and consistently in a relatively bad car or b) Kimi and Grosjean have underperformed quite a bit considering the cars they have or c) A mix of a) and b) - Which is the way I view things this season.

How did you consider that Lotus has been a better car than Ferrari this season?

I keep hearing this statement quite often in the form of "in the preseason and in Australia Ferrari was a handful to drive" or "experts agree that Ferrari is not the best car there", etc. Well guess what, Mercedes was crap in Australia but you don't see me applauding Rosberg for winning in a crap car. If you don't trust me, well, I can let you know too that experts agree that Mercedes is not the best car there.

So, for anyone out there, how good is that Ferrari?

So the "expert" consensus from the paddock isn't good enough, neither is my own opinion based on what I have seen...so I guess there isn't any point debating this with you? To throw your logic right back at you, what are you basing your own opinion on? I don't see any absolute proof. Everything you've said is no different than what others on this thread with a different viewpoint on the matter have said. And pretty much all the F1 experts/journalists were quite unanimous in agreeing that the Ferrari at least at the start of the season was quite atrocious. But if you won't give any importance or weight to what they said and to what others with a different opinion to your say on this thread, what special access to facts and knowledge do you have that should make me come around to your point of view?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but the net conclusion to draw from your line of reasoning is that nothing can be said and no conclusion can be made unless we have all the absolute facts (which we will never have). But if you feel that way, it is ironic that you then express your opinion on the issue and expect others to come around to feeling the same way on the matter.

You're missing the point entirely.

First, I don't want or need you to keep repeating me vaguely what the "expert" consensus is or what pretty much all the F1 experts/journalists were quite unanimous in agreeing about. SHOW ME THE MONEY! Can you back it up? Can you really show me this consensus or unanimity or are you just making it all up? Bear in mind, there are hundreds of experts and journos in the paddock so don't insult my intelligence further by providing me one, two or even a handful of quotes.

Second, THINK! We've had 6 races so far, why are you talking about the preseason and the start of the season? The fact that Ferrari was quite attrocius at the start of the season is pointless because Alonso didn't really set the world on fire in Australia and I don't see why it matters for Spain and Monaco for example.

I have nothing against you but everytime I hear this repeated rumor (because that's what it is) about experts agreeing about something or unanimously agreeing on something else I can't help but feel a feeble case.

BTW, I'm not asking to base opinions on absolute facts but at least I'm not basing or supporting my opinon with vague references on expert opinion.

I don't think there was much there to insult to begin with. Enjoy your soapbox. What you're saying is you won't trust any journalist or technical person linked to F1 who talked about the poor Ferrari performance at the start of the season because it doesn't agree with your world view? Confirmation bias anyone? You are basing your opinions on nothing at all, which is a lot worse than what most on this thread are basing their opinions on. If you followed F1 news (Autosport.com, PF-1, crash.net) and the journalist blogs (James Allen, Fanatic F1, Adam Cooper, Joe Saward) before and during this season, you wouldn't have to go on asking for "proof". Additionally, I am basing it on everything I have seen this season, and from gauging the relative performance of the different cars and drivers and their team mates over the season. I'm not the only one here who has mentioned this (see JMILAT's response below). What proof have you shown to back your opinions? What have you had to offer to this entire conversation besides your biased opinions backed by zero facts? Pot...kettle...black.

Everyone is here to express their opinions and have a good debate. It's fine to disagree and it's fine if you don't have the same opinion as me or others on the forums. However, telling people off for not having definitive proof (at least by standards acceptable to you) supporting their own opinion while simultaneously having absolutely nothing supporting your own personal opinions smacks of the highest level of hypocrisy. I don't know if you just don't understand that, or are intentionally ignoring that fact and trooping on continuing this absurd line of reasoning.

PS - Since you're so insistent on proof, how about you show me some articles written by F1 journalists or F1 technical folks claiming that the Ferrari was a very good car at the beginning of this season, or that Ferrari were hatching a cunning plan by claiming to have an under performing car just to look good in the races. It is well accepted by most on this thread that the Ferrari was indeed a weaker car than the Lotus and McLaren. So if you're going to claim that the Ferrari was really superior or just as good as those cars, the burden of proof lies with you.

[JMILAT]

Alonso's results so far:

5 - 1 - 9 - 7- 2 - 3

In 6 races he has been three times on the podium and three times off of it (and twice considerably off as a matter of fact). Not exactly Mr. Consistency IMO.

BTW, do you want to see something eerie?

Kimi's results so far:

7 - 5 - 14- 2 - 3 - 9

They have identical results so far but one. If Kimi had won in China instead of finishing 14th they'd be dead tied right now. And you can't blame Kimi for the China mishap so in the end it basically boils down to who's better, Lotus or Ferrari and simultaneously, who's doing a better job, Alonso or Kimi? While I can see the opinion tilt in favor of Lotus as a better car I would also add that the Ferrari crew has been much better than the Lotus one both in strategy and execution. Furthermore, let's not forget we're talking about Kimi who has been out of Formula 1 for two years after being kicked out of Ferrari by Alonso, and more importantly let's not forget the Kimi-Massa-Alonso triangle.

While talking of results, here's another close competitor.

Rosberg's results so far:

12 - 13- 1 - 5 - 7 - 2

He only has 4 results identical to Alonso in 6 races so not as close as Kimi but he could have easily finished 9th in Australia if he didn't get a puncture in the very last lap after brushing with Perez which would make them identical twins in 5 out of 6 races. Not to mention that he was 4th in Malaysia after the stops but had to pit again for inters because his car wasn't agreeing with them and had he finished there they'd be ridiculously close results-wise. In this case though, I can't see how the opinion can tilt in favor of Mercedes over Ferrari as the better car.

Again, I have nothing bad against Alonso's driving this season but let's not make him superhuman. Judging by the numbers and performances there are at least two drivers IMO that are doing as good a job as Alonso and even though often we hear compliments about them they're never ranked as high as Alonso "officially". Another driver that is doing an excellent job this season has been hugely let down by his team more often than not. So with 4 drivers doing a pretty similar job this season, would any of them be considered special?

Except Alonso is doing all this with a lesser car.

Look at Massa. Alright he's no Hamilton but he has gotten nearly nothing with this car. A driver you compared similarly with Alonso in Grosjean is looking very competitive in the Lotus. Alonso was barely making the top ten in qualifying in the first four races. Not only was the car slower than the top teams, it was arguably slower than some of the other midfield teams as well.

When people say Alonso is consistent its not just the results because that depends a lot on the car. Its that Alonso can nearly always get the maximum out of his car every weekend. He doesn't have many bad days.

[HamsterHuey]

Except Alonso is doing all this with a lesser car.

Look at Massa. Alright he's no Hamilton but he has gotten nearly nothing with this car. A driver you compared similarly with Alonso in Grosjean is looking very competitive in the Lotus. Alonso was barely making the top ten in qualifying in the first four races. Not only was the car slower than the top teams, it was arguably slower than some of the other midfield teams as well.

When people say Alonso is consistent its not just the results because that depends a lot on the car. Its that Alonso can nearly always get the maximum out of his car every weekend. He doesn't have many bad days.

Well said. Hamilton also seems to have a similar ability to extract a lot of performance out of a not car on any given day. What he needs to work on though (and perhaps it will come with age and experience) is in being level headed and crafty like Alonso in making the most of every single race without throwing results away. Despite the mess ups by McLaren, I think he's also doing well so far in consistently picking up points, extracting the most he can from the car and not doing anything silly on track.

[rawsushi]

Except Alonso is doing all this with a lesser car.

Look at Massa. Alright he's no Hamilton but he has gotten nearly nothing with this car. A driver you compared similarly with Alonso in Grosjean is looking very competitive in the Lotus. Alonso was barely making the top ten in qualifying in the first four races. Not only was the car slower than the top teams, it was arguably slower than some of the other midfield teams as well.

When people say Alonso is consistent its not just the results because that depends a lot on the car. Its that Alonso can nearly always get the maximum out of his car every weekend. He doesn't have many bad days.

Well said. Hamilton also seems to have a similar ability to extract a lot of performance out of a not car on any given day. What he needs to work on though (and perhaps it will come with age and experience) is in being level headed and crafty like Alonso in making the most of every single race without throwing results away. Despite the mess ups by McLaren, I think he's also doing well so far in consistently picking up points, extracting the most he can from the car and not doing anything silly on track.

Hamilton and Alonso are probably the only 2 drivers on the grid who are capable of winning in a non-winning car, but they both do it in very different ways.

Alonso by knowing how to adapt his driving style to extract the maximum from the car.

Hamilton by probably being the driver that's got the best reflexes and handling instincts on the grid.

[Greg92]

How did you consider that Lotus has been a better car than Ferrari this season?

I keep hearing this statement quite often in the form of "in the preseason and in Australia Ferrari was a handful to drive" or "experts agree that Ferrari is not the best car there", etc. Well guess what, Mercedes was crap in Australia but you don't see me applauding Rosberg for winning in a crap car. If you don't trust me, well, I can let you know too that experts agree that Mercedes is not the best car there.

So, for anyone out there, how good is that Ferrari?

So the "expert" consensus from the paddock isn't good enough, neither is my own opinion based on what I have seen...so I guess there isn't any point debating this with you? To throw your logic right back at you, what are you basing your own opinion on? I don't see any absolute proof. Everything you've said is no different than what others on this thread with a different viewpoint on the matter have said. And pretty much all the F1 experts/journalists were quite unanimous in agreeing that the Ferrari at least at the start of the season was quite atrocious. But if you won't give any importance or weight to what they said and to what others with a different opinion to your say on this thread, what special access to facts and knowledge do you have that should make me come around to your point of view?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but the net conclusion to draw from your line of reasoning is that nothing can be said and no conclusion can be made unless we have all the absolute facts (which we will never have). But if you feel that way, it is ironic that you then express your opinion on the issue and expect others to come around to feeling the same way on the matter.

You're missing the point entirely.

First, I don't want or need you to keep repeating me vaguely what the "expert" consensus is or what pretty much all the F1 experts/journalists were quite unanimous in agreeing about. SHOW ME THE MONEY! Can you back it up? Can you really show me this consensus or unanimity or are you just making it all up? Bear in mind, there are hundreds of experts and journos in the paddock so don't insult my intelligence further by providing me one, two or even a handful of quotes.

Second, THINK! We've had 6 races so far, why are you talking about the preseason and the start of the season? The fact that Ferrari was quite attrocius at the start of the season is pointless because Alonso didn't really set the world on fire in Australia and I don't see why it matters for Spain and Monaco for example.

I have nothing against you but everytime I hear this repeated rumor (because that's what it is) about experts agreeing about something or unanimously agreeing on something else I can't help but feel a feeble case.

BTW, I'm not asking to base opinions on absolute facts but at least I'm not basing or supporting my opinon with vague references on expert opinion.

I don't think there was much there to insult to begin with. Enjoy your soapbox. What you're saying is you won't trust any journalist or technical person linked to F1 who talked about the poor Ferrari performance at the start of the season because it doesn't agree with your world view? Confirmation bias anyone? You are basing your opinions on nothing at all, which is a lot worse than what most on this thread are basing their opinions on. If you followed F1 news (Autosport.com, PF-1, crash.net) and the journalist blogs (James Allen, Fanatic F1, Adam Cooper, Joe Saward) before and during this season, you wouldn't have to go on asking for "proof". Additionally, I am basing it on everything I have seen this season, and from gauging the relative performance of the different cars and drivers and their team mates over the season. I'm not the only one here who has mentioned this (see JMILAT's response below). What proof have you shown to back your opinions? What have you had to offer to this entire conversation besides your biased opinions backed by zero facts? Pot...kettle...black.

Everyone is here to express their opinions and have a good debate. It's fine to disagree and it's fine if you don't have the same opinion as me or others on the forums. However, telling people off for not having definitive proof (at least by standards acceptable to you) supporting their own opinion while simultaneously having absolutely nothing supporting your own personal opinions smacks of the highest level of hypocrisy. I don't know if you just don't understand that, or are intentionally ignoring that fact and trooping on continuing this absurd line of reasoning.

PS - Since you're so insistent on proof, how about you show me some articles written by F1 journalists or F1 technical folks claiming that the Ferrari was a very good car at the beginning of this season, or that Ferrari were hatching a cunning plan by claiming to have an under performing car just to look good in the races. It is well accepted by most on this thread that the Ferrari was indeed a weaker car than the Lotus and McLaren. So if you're going to claim that the Ferrari was really superior or just as good as those cars, the burden of proof lies with you.

Congratulations again for either missing or dodging the point completely and don't think for a minute that I don't appreciate your well-thought attack on my intelligence. It was a piece of art.

Let me type this slowly for you:

1. I'm fine with everyone having an opinion, whether I agree or disagree with it. However, when people use expert opinions to support theirs I'd like to see this expert opinion instead of taking a stranger's word for it. Since you're obviously convinced you're more intelligent than me shouldn't you have realized this by now? Especially considering that I spelled it out correctly in my last post.

2. In no post here have I claimed that Ferrari was the class of the field and the experts agree with me. Matter of fact I am not claiming anything, I'm merely questioning people who are. If your blind rage against someone questioning Alonso's awesomeness hadn't impaired your vision, you'd have realized it by now. If I'm wrong though, please go ahead and tell me when did I claim that Ferrari was superior or as good as McLaren and Lotus.

3. Repeating that the consensus in the paddock or that the unanimous agreement of all the F1 journos is that Ferrari was a dog of a car doesn't make it a fact without providing a source. Saying that others should find that consensus or unanimous agreement on their own, without providing anything to prove it makes it even worse. All the prominent experts on the matter unanimously agree that I'm right about this and if you had followed them in their blogs, journals and tweets you would have realized I'm saying nothing but the truth. (Hope you figure out what I just did there).

4. I'm not questioning the aforesaid consensus or unanimous agreement, I merely want to see it in forms other than your own statements. While I have no reason to doubt you, I have even less reasons to trust you so again, can you back up your statements or not??

Anyway, now that we're done with childish games how about we go back on topic?

The fact that Ferrari was a dog in the pre season doesn't matter because they don't give points then.

The fact that Ferrari was a dog in the start of the season is neither here nor there. With a better car Alonso might have scored more points but we're not talking about missed opportunities here, we're talking about actual performances. Even granting that Ferrari was an awful car until Bahrain, the fourth race, these are the standings of the top 5 drivers after that round:

Vett. - 53
Ham. - 49
Web. - 48
Butt. - 43
Alon. - 43

Alonso's results thus far were: 5 - 1 - 9 - 7. Taking away Malaysia, can you please tell me what was so special about Alonso in the other 3 races when he didn't have a good car? As for Malaysia itself, either he was lucky to win and get 25 points there or the team deserves most of the credit which would nullify the car shortcomings. Otherwise, if you claim he deserves most of the credit for his win in Malaysia then he should deserve most of the blame for the next 2 results at least where his results were awful. You can't have it both ways, even if you prefer so. You can't praise the driver for good results and blame the car for the bad ones.

Yes, Alonso is doing better than Kimi and Rosberg at this point but the fact that this thread didn't start then but only now shows there wasn't much to brag about it at the time.

Now that we're done with the pre-season or the start of the season, why apply Ferrari's form at the time to the last two races where Alonso scored 33 points because this is exactly what most people are doing in this thread.

Anyway, looking forward to some more words of wisdom from you even though the leading experts in the field unanimously agree I'm much smarter than you as you would know had you followed their articles.

[Greg92]

Alonso's results so far:

5 - 1 - 9 - 7- 2 - 3

In 6 races he has been three times on the podium and three times off of it (and twice considerably off as a matter of fact). Not exactly Mr. Consistency IMO.

BTW, do you want to see something eerie?

Kimi's results so far:

7 - 5 - 14- 2 - 3 - 9

They have identical results so far but one. If Kimi had won in China instead of finishing 14th they'd be dead tied right now. And you can't blame Kimi for the China mishap so in the end it basically boils down to who's better, Lotus or Ferrari and simultaneously, who's doing a better job, Alonso or Kimi? While I can see the opinion tilt in favor of Lotus as a better car I would also add that the Ferrari crew has been much better than the Lotus one both in strategy and execution. Furthermore, let's not forget we're talking about Kimi who has been out of Formula 1 for two years after being kicked out of Ferrari by Alonso, and more importantly let's not forget the Kimi-Massa-Alonso triangle.

While talking of results, here's another close competitor.

Rosberg's results so far:

12 - 13- 1 - 5 - 7 - 2

He only has 4 results identical to Alonso in 6 races so not as close as Kimi but he could have easily finished 9th in Australia if he didn't get a puncture in the very last lap after brushing with Perez which would make them identical twins in 5 out of 6 races. Not to mention that he was 4th in Malaysia after the stops but had to pit again for inters because his car wasn't agreeing with them and had he finished there they'd be ridiculously close results-wise. In this case though, I can't see how the opinion can tilt in favor of Mercedes over Ferrari as the better car.

Again, I have nothing bad against Alonso's driving this season but let's not make him superhuman. Judging by the numbers and performances there are at least two drivers IMO that are doing as good a job as Alonso and even though often we hear compliments about them they're never ranked as high as Alonso "officially". Another driver that is doing an excellent job this season has been hugely let down by his team more often than not. So with 4 drivers doing a pretty similar job this season, would any of them be considered special?

Except Alonso is doing all this with a lesser car.

Look at Massa. Alright he's no Hamilton but he has gotten nearly nothing with this car. A driver you compared similarly with Alonso in Grosjean is looking very competitive in the Lotus. Alonso was barely making the top ten in qualifying in the first four races. Not only was the car slower than the top teams, it was arguably slower than some of the other midfield teams as well.

When people say Alonso is consistent its not just the results because that depends a lot on the car. Its that Alonso can nearly always get the maximum out of his car every weekend. He doesn't have many bad days.

In a lesser car but a better team, don't forget. I'm certain now you realize the futility of your argument because it's unlike you to make partial analysis. For those that don't understand this, would you consider better a car that is fast but breaks every single race or a car that is slower but finishes every race?

How about we go race by race and see which car/team combo has had the upper hand?

Australia:
Lotus has a much better car in qualy
Lotus made an awful mistake in qualy Kimi started behind both Alonso and Massa
For me advantage Ferrari seing as Kimi finished some 18 seconds behind Alonso.
For you?

Malaysia:
Lotus has a much better car in qually
Ferrari makes the best call in race
For me advantage Ferrari seing as Kimi finished some 30 seconds behind Alonso.
For you?

China:
Lotus has a much better car in qualy
Lotus screws up Kimi in the race
For me advantage Ferrari, clearly.
For you?

Bahrain:
Lotus has a much better car in qualy
Lotus has a much better pace in race
For me advantage Lotus.
For you?

Spain:
Ferrari is faster both in qualy and in race.
For me advantage Ferrrari even though I wouldn't mind calling them even.
For you?

Monaco:
Ferrari is faster both in qualy and in the race.
Lotus also screws up Kimi with tire strategies again.
For me advantage Ferrari.
For you?

So out of 6 races, only once has Lotus held a clear advantage over Ferrari while Ferrari has been better in 5 races or 4 at least anyway.

We can do the same thing for Hamilton if you want. Or for Rosberg too.

Let's not involve Massa here who is no Hamilton. And let's not involve Grosjean and his short stint with Renault in 2009 either. I don't want to open a can of worms again but if you pretend that these drivers are as good as they were 3 years ago then I don't see why we have this thread for Alonso who is as good as the driver that got technically beaten by both a rookie teammate and by Kimi 5 years ago.

[rawsushi]

You've framed the discussion so subjectively, it's never going to end well and it's just going to go on and on until everyone decides to let you have the last word.

Why not just let this thread be for those who admire what he has achieved do so here in peace?