planetf1.com

jammin78 wrote:Actually y'know what I'll just wade in with what I think...

Kimi and Felipe @ Ferrari
2007 > Kimi WDC Champ, 110 points > Massa 4th in WDC, 94 points. 16 point difference.
2008 > Massa 2nd in WDC, 97 points > Kimi 3rd in WDC, 75 points. 22 point difference.
2009 > Kimi 6th in WDC, 48 points > Massa 11th in WDC, 22 points. 26 point difference.

in 2009 it's worth noting that Massa missed 8 races. But up to his accident, the points standings were:
Massa 22 points > Kimi 10 points, 12 point difference.

Fernando and Felipe @ Ferrari
2010 > Nando 2nd in WDC, 252 points > Massa 6th in WDC, 144 points. 108 point difference.
2011 > Nando 4th in WDC, 257 points > Massa 6th in WDC, 118 points. 139 point difference.
2012 > Nando 2nd in WDC, 278 points > Massa 7th in WDC, 122 points. 156 point difference.

So, using the common factor between the two (Massa). Alonso has beaten Massa by the equivalent of 5.3 race wins per year on average, whilst Kimi was beaten/being beaten by Massa in two of the three seasons they raced. Kimi defeated Massa by the equivalent of a win and a third place in 07, was beaten by two wins and a 7th in 2008, and was being beaten by a win and a 7th place just after the halfway point in 2009. Felipe actually fared better in 2010 than he has since, so you can't say he lost that much pace after his accident, and he's been on form lately as well. From what I can gather with those statistics, Fernando has been much better compared to Felipe than Kimi.

As such, it was worth replacing Kimi with Fernando, according to statistics, and by all accounts Ferrari seem happier with Alonso around. But that one I can't backup other than what I've read on the forums etc.

Assumptions that can be drawn... if Fernando has been on average 5 wins worth of points ahead of Felipe by the end of the year, and you applied the same margin to 2007-2009 as though he was driving the Ferrari alongside Massa, then Fernando would have been 2007 and 2008 World Champion. But that's an assumption, and is pure speculation on my part.

jammin78 wrote:Actually y'know what I'll just wade in with what I think...

Kimi and Felipe @ Ferrari
2007 > Kimi WDC Champ, 110 points > Massa 4th in WDC, 94 points. 16 point difference.
2008 > Massa 2nd in WDC, 97 points > Kimi 3rd in WDC, 75 points. 22 point difference.
2009 > Kimi 6th in WDC, 48 points > Massa 11th in WDC, 22 points. 26 point difference.

in 2009 it's worth noting that Massa missed 8 races. But up to his accident, the points standings were:
Massa 22 points > Kimi 10 points, 12 point difference.

Fernando and Felipe @ Ferrari
2010 > Nando 2nd in WDC, 252 points > Massa 6th in WDC, 144 points. 108 point difference.
2011 > Nando 4th in WDC, 257 points > Massa 6th in WDC, 118 points. 139 point difference.
2012 > Nando 2nd in WDC, 278 points > Massa 7th in WDC, 122 points. 156 point difference.

So, using the common factor between the two (Massa). Alonso has beaten Massa by the equivalent of 5.3 race wins per year on average, whilst Kimi was beaten/being beaten by Massa in two of the three seasons they raced. Kimi defeated Massa by the equivalent of a win and a third place in 07, was beaten by two wins and a 7th in 2008, and was being beaten by a win and a 7th place just after the halfway point in 2009. Felipe actually fared better in 2010 than he has since, so you can't say he lost that much pace after his accident, and he's been on form lately as well. From what I can gather with those statistics, Fernando has been much better compared to Felipe than Kimi.

As such, it was worth replacing Kimi with Fernando, according to statistics, and by all accounts Ferrari seem happier with Alonso around. But that one I can't backup other than what I've read on the forums etc.

Assumptions that can be drawn... if Fernando has been on average 5 wins worth of points ahead of Felipe by the end of the year, and you applied the same margin to 2007-2009 as though he was driving the Ferrari alongside Massa, then Fernando would have been 2007 and 2008 World Champion. But that's an assumption, and is pure speculation on my part.

santa baby wrote:3 years with Kimi, Ferrari has won 1 WDC & 2 WCC.
3 years with Alonso they have....

Fiki wrote:

jammin78 wrote:Actually y'know what I'll just wade in with what I think...

Kimi and Felipe @ Ferrari
2007 > Kimi WDC Champ, 110 points > Massa 4th in WDC, 94 points. 16 point difference.
2008 > Massa 2nd in WDC, 97 points > Kimi 3rd in WDC, 75 points. 22 point difference.
2009 > Kimi 6th in WDC, 48 points > Massa 11th in WDC, 22 points. 26 point difference.

in 2009 it's worth noting that Massa missed 8 races. But up to his accident, the points standings were:
Massa 22 points > Kimi 10 points, 12 point difference.

Fernando and Felipe @ Ferrari
2010 > Nando 2nd in WDC, 252 points > Massa 6th in WDC, 144 points. 108 point difference.
2011 > Nando 4th in WDC, 257 points > Massa 6th in WDC, 118 points. 139 point difference.
2012 > Nando 2nd in WDC, 278 points > Massa 7th in WDC, 122 points. 156 point difference.

So, using the common factor between the two (Massa). Alonso has beaten Massa by the equivalent of 5.3 race wins per year on average, whilst Kimi was beaten/being beaten by Massa in two of the three seasons they raced. Kimi defeated Massa by the equivalent of a win and a third place in 07, was beaten by two wins and a 7th in 2008, and was being beaten by a win and a 7th place just after the halfway point in 2009. Felipe actually fared better in 2010 than he has since, so you can't say he lost that much pace after his accident, and he's been on form lately as well. From what I can gather with those statistics, Fernando has been much better compared to Felipe than Kimi.

As such, it was worth replacing Kimi with Fernando, according to statistics, and by all accounts Ferrari seem happier with Alonso around. But that one I can't backup other than what I've read on the forums etc.

Assumptions that can be drawn... if Fernando has been on average 5 wins worth of points ahead of Felipe by the end of the year, and you applied the same margin to 2007-2009 as though he was driving the Ferrari alongside Massa, then Fernando would have been 2007 and 2008 World Champion. But that's an assumption, and is pure speculation on my part.

An interesting statistic, but one that needs to be put into perspective by the shadow that Alonso and Santander cast over the scuderia's drivers as early as spring 2008. How do you view it bearing that in mind?

pokerman wrote:

F1yer wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:Of course, it is worth it. Räikkönen would be on Massa's level (as he was in their common time), which would mean three catastrophic seasons for Ferrari.

Are you saying being on Massa's level is something to be ashamed of. Wonder what you think of Alonso then

Had Alonso been at Massa 's level , he probbaly would be 3 x champ now

You've totally lost me there

jammin78 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

jammin78 wrote:Actually y'know what I'll just wade in with what I think...

Kimi and Felipe @ Ferrari
2007 > Kimi WDC Champ, 110 points > Massa 4th in WDC, 94 points. 16 point difference.
2008 > Massa 2nd in WDC, 97 points > Kimi 3rd in WDC, 75 points. 22 point difference.
2009 > Kimi 6th in WDC, 48 points > Massa 11th in WDC, 22 points. 26 point difference.

in 2009 it's worth noting that Massa missed 8 races. But up to his accident, the points standings were:
Massa 22 points > Kimi 10 points, 12 point difference.

Fernando and Felipe @ Ferrari
2010 > Nando 2nd in WDC, 252 points > Massa 6th in WDC, 144 points. 108 point difference.
2011 > Nando 4th in WDC, 257 points > Massa 6th in WDC, 118 points. 139 point difference.
2012 > Nando 2nd in WDC, 278 points > Massa 7th in WDC, 122 points. 156 point difference.

So, using the common factor between the two (Massa). Alonso has beaten Massa by the equivalent of 5.3 race wins per year on average, whilst Kimi was beaten/being beaten by Massa in two of the three seasons they raced. Kimi defeated Massa by the equivalent of a win and a third place in 07, was beaten by two wins and a 7th in 2008, and was being beaten by a win and a 7th place just after the halfway point in 2009. Felipe actually fared better in 2010 than he has since, so you can't say he lost that much pace after his accident, and he's been on form lately as well. From what I can gather with those statistics, Fernando has been much better compared to Felipe than Kimi.

As such, it was worth replacing Kimi with Fernando, according to statistics, and by all accounts Ferrari seem happier with Alonso around. But that one I can't backup other than what I've read on the forums etc.

Assumptions that can be drawn... if Fernando has been on average 5 wins worth of points ahead of Felipe by the end of the year, and you applied the same margin to 2007-2009 as though he was driving the Ferrari alongside Massa, then Fernando would have been 2007 and 2008 World Champion. But that's an assumption, and is pure speculation on my part.

An interesting statistic, but one that needs to be put into perspective by the shadow that Alonso and Santander cast over the scuderia's drivers as early as spring 2008. How do you view it bearing that in mind?

Could you elaborate on what you mean please? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by how the statistics can be changed by Alonso's shadow...

I think the biggest factor, possibly the only factor in Ferrari not winning a title since 08, is raised competition. In 07 and 08 you had Ferrari vs. McLaren. In 07, McLaren did their best to lose both titles and did, in 08 Ferrari won the WCC title because Kimi is better than Heikki, as Hamilton and Massa were only a point apart.

Yes Kimi won a title, and two WCC with Ferrari... but was nowhere near thrashing Massa, which Fernando has done for the most part. Since Kimi's titles, those meddling kids Red Bull have crashed the party that Alonso and Ferrari were hoping for. But thats the way it swings boys and girls.

Fiki wrote:

jammin78 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

jammin78 wrote:Actually y'know what I'll just wade in with what I think...

Kimi and Felipe @ Ferrari
2007 > Kimi WDC Champ, 110 points > Massa 4th in WDC, 94 points. 16 point difference.
2008 > Massa 2nd in WDC, 97 points > Kimi 3rd in WDC, 75 points. 22 point difference.
2009 > Kimi 6th in WDC, 48 points > Massa 11th in WDC, 22 points. 26 point difference.

in 2009 it's worth noting that Massa missed 8 races. But up to his accident, the points standings were:
Massa 22 points > Kimi 10 points, 12 point difference.

Fernando and Felipe @ Ferrari
2010 > Nando 2nd in WDC, 252 points > Massa 6th in WDC, 144 points. 108 point difference.
2011 > Nando 4th in WDC, 257 points > Massa 6th in WDC, 118 points. 139 point difference.
2012 > Nando 2nd in WDC, 278 points > Massa 7th in WDC, 122 points. 156 point difference.

So, using the common factor between the two (Massa). Alonso has beaten Massa by the equivalent of 5.3 race wins per year on average, whilst Kimi was beaten/being beaten by Massa in two of the three seasons they raced. Kimi defeated Massa by the equivalent of a win and a third place in 07, was beaten by two wins and a 7th in 2008, and was being beaten by a win and a 7th place just after the halfway point in 2009. Felipe actually fared better in 2010 than he has since, so you can't say he lost that much pace after his accident, and he's been on form lately as well. From what I can gather with those statistics, Fernando has been much better compared to Felipe than Kimi.

As such, it was worth replacing Kimi with Fernando, according to statistics, and by all accounts Ferrari seem happier with Alonso around. But that one I can't backup other than what I've read on the forums etc.

Assumptions that can be drawn... if Fernando has been on average 5 wins worth of points ahead of Felipe by the end of the year, and you applied the same margin to 2007-2009 as though he was driving the Ferrari alongside Massa, then Fernando would have been 2007 and 2008 World Champion. But that's an assumption, and is pure speculation on my part.

An interesting statistic, but one that needs to be put into perspective by the shadow that Alonso and Santander cast over the scuderia's drivers as early as spring 2008. How do you view it bearing that in mind?

Could you elaborate on what you mean please? I'm not entirely sure what you mean by how the statistics can be changed by Alonso's shadow...

I think the biggest factor, possibly the only factor in Ferrari not winning a title since 08, is raised competition. In 07 and 08 you had Ferrari vs. McLaren. In 07, McLaren did their best to lose both titles and did, in 08 Ferrari won the WCC title because Kimi is better than Heikki, as Hamilton and Massa were only a point apart.

Yes Kimi won a title, and two WCC with Ferrari... but was nowhere near thrashing Massa, which Fernando has done for the most part. Since Kimi's titles, those meddling kids Red Bull have crashed the party that Alonso and Ferrari were hoping for. But thats the way it swings boys and girls.

What I meant is this: it is interesting to compare Räikkönen and Alonso by seeing how they fared with Massa alongside. That is what you did. The resulting titles were, as always, not just a consequence of how good the Ferrari drivers were, but how good the competition was. So far so good.
What I meant by the shadow that Alonso and Santander cast on Räikkönen and Massa, was that as early as the spring of 2008 (so, with the drivers' title still warm in his pocket), Räikkönen was aware Alonso was coming in. At the same time Massa knew he was staying at Ferrari, which was probably some comfort to him.
But Massa would have had to have been a fool not to realise that he only had one shot at the title, if Alonso was coming in as early as 2009. Why? Because together with throwing out the current world champion (think about that... ), Ferrari's experiment with equal driver treatment was thrown out. Not because it hadn't served the scuderia well - besides the drivers' title, Ferrari were also the constructors' champion - but because that's not how Alonso was being brought on board. (Think Germany 2010 and late 2012). Massa knew that as soon as Alonso sat down in the car, he became a number two driver again.

The cars Massa and Räikkönen drove weren't great in 2007 and 2008, but were good enough to show the fans that both drivers were world champion capable. And Massa did come incredibly close. In the end, Alonso didn't come in for 2009, but that shouldn't make us forget that Räikkönen drove on an ejection seat nearly from the moment they stuck number 1 on his car. By Monaco 2008 he knew for certain he was going; despite leading the championship.

Equal treatment, removing your world champion and the re-introduction of the number 2 status. How do you think these factors influenced the outcome of those seasons, and therefore your statistical comparison?

jammin78 wrote:Unfortunately I don't know enough about the Kimi/Alonso/Santander scenario to speculate too much, just the bits I've read on here, and your good summary just now. I'm not sure how that may have affected either driver, though I think if Kimi was to suddenly drop in performance because he knows he was on an ejector seat like you say, then he was doing the wrong thing. If you know your drive is going, you should perform even better as a middle finger to the employer who's cutting you out. Use their resources to get a second World Championship, take the number one to another team, make the team realise they're losing an incredible asset. At least that's what I'd do. Afterall if Kimi is so much better than Massa and the known world as many people on the forum believe, then he really should've been 08 Champion if he wanted it. But, like you speculate, we don't know how the Santander/Alonso thing will have had an affect on either driver. It could have messed up the mindsets. But if thats the case, then I have to say Ferrari made the wise choice again, as Kimi was happy to be beaten by his team mate. We know Alonso does not ever want to be beaten by a teammate, and thats something you want, the drive to beat everyone.

I never thought Kimi fit in at Ferrari anyway, it always seemed an odd combination to me, much preferred him at McLaren and now at Lotus.

santa baby wrote:Of course its worth it, 3 years with Kimi, Ferrari has won 1 WDC & 2 WCC.
3 years with Alonso they have....
Wait I could have got it wrong.

Fiki wrote:

jammin78 wrote:Unfortunately I don't know enough about the Kimi/Alonso/Santander scenario to speculate too much, just the bits I've read on here, and your good summary just now. I'm not sure how that may have affected either driver, though I think if Kimi was to suddenly drop in performance because he knows he was on an ejector seat like you say, then he was doing the wrong thing. If you know your drive is going, you should perform even better as a middle finger to the employer who's cutting you out. Use their resources to get a second World Championship, take the number one to another team, make the team realise they're losing an incredible asset. At least that's what I'd do. Afterall if Kimi is so much better than Massa and the known world as many people on the forum believe, then he really should've been 08 Champion if he wanted it. But, like you speculate, we don't know how the Santander/Alonso thing will have had an affect on either driver. It could have messed up the mindsets. But if thats the case, then I have to say Ferrari made the wise choice again, as Kimi was happy to be beaten by his team mate. We know Alonso does not ever want to be beaten by a teammate, and thats something you want, the drive to beat everyone.

I never thought Kimi fit in at Ferrari anyway, it always seemed an odd combination to me, much preferred him at McLaren and now at Lotus.

While I fully agree with your last sentence, I am surprised by some of the things you say.

First of all, I don't believe for a second that Kimi was happy to be beaten by his team mate. Why would he? Or what gave you that idea?
Then, it may be that many people believe Räikkönen is so much better than Massa, but I don't. While I do think he may still be the fastest man in F1, but he hasn't had the full opportunity to apply his speed with the cars he was given. In fact, I have never believed that one driver is consistently superior to all the others, without the benefit of superior technical and team support - including number one status. That opinion, of course, includes Michael Schumacher. I do think that Räikkönen is a superior driver to Massa, but I do not believe Massa is as inferior to Alonso as Santander and Ferrari would have you believe. For the sake of completeness, I will add that I do believe Alonso to be superior to Massa. This is why as early as spring 2008, Massa knew he was staying, whatever the outcome of the 2008 season.
While everybody could see Räikkönen's speed "when the tyres eventually switched on", Ferrari saw no need to improve their car for him, since Massa was doing well enough to stand up to Hamilton.
What you would have Räikkönen do, make the team realise they were losing an incredible asset, can be found in the number of fastest laps he scored in 2008. Nobody had more. Of course, these laps came when the car came to him, but they showed Ferrari he needed a car that was exactly oppposite to what Ferrari had given him. In other words, you can drive the snöt out of your nose, if they don't want to adapt to your needs - or, indeed, if they are preparing your dismissal - what can you do?
He did try to win a second world title, but was under contract with Ferrari for another year. Santander and Ferrari showed us a year later just how much money is involved in "ending" a contract early. All in all, I think Räikkönen did show up Ferrari, and acted more honourably than the team is used to.

What I find most amusing is the fact that Ferrari said they wanted a driver who can lead the team. What an insult to the team principle... Almost as funny as hearing Räikkönen describe Alonso as a pay-driver. Which in fact he is. Whether Santander think their investment has been worth it, was exactly the question that shot through my mind when I saw a senior representative from that bank in the Ferrari garage in Brazil. I can't help but wonder whether he was on a fact finding mission.

F1yer wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1yer wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:Of course, it is worth it. Räikkönen would be on Massa's level (as he was in their common time), which would mean three catastrophic seasons for Ferrari.

Are you saying being on Massa's level is something to be ashamed of. Wonder what you think of Alonso then

Had Alonso been at Massa 's level , he probbaly would be 3 x champ now

You've totally lost me there

Nothing too complicated. Paolo hinted that if Kimi was still there and since he is at Massa s level , Ferrari would have had catastrophic seaons.

I m just pointing out that Alonso wasnt even at Massa 's level in the last 3 races. Had he been he would have won a title for Ferrari and stopped the flow of catastrophic seasons they are having in reality !

pokerman wrote:

F1yer wrote:

pokerman wrote:

F1yer wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:Of course, it is worth it. Räikkönen would be on Massa's level (as he was in their common time), which would mean three catastrophic seasons for Ferrari.

Are you saying being on Massa's level is something to be ashamed of. Wonder what you think of Alonso then

Had Alonso been at Massa 's level , he probbaly would be 3 x champ now

You've totally lost me there

Nothing too complicated. Paolo hinted that if Kimi was still there and since he is at Massa s level , Ferrari would have had catastrophic seaons.

I m just pointing out that Alonso wasnt even at Massa 's level in the last 3 races. Had he been he would have won a title for Ferrari and stopped the flow of catastrophic seasons they are having in reality !

Yes i would agree Alonso getting the most out of the Ferrari sort of came apart at the end of the season, its interesting that i read an article that the Ferrari was made more easy to drive at seasons end and less peaky in performance, hence Massa being more at ease with the car but the wins dried up for Alonso somewhat.

As for Kimi who knows what he would have done these past 3 seasons, would he have overcome the deficiences of the car and come close to WDC titles in 2010 and 2012 like Alonso did?

The only fact you can really draw on is that in the 3 year periods Massa was on a similar level to Kimi but clearly he isn't relative to Alonso, alls sorts of excuses have been put forward for this, but given the way Massa ended the season if he gets beat easily by Alonso again next season will the excuses end?

Fiki wrote: What I meant is this: it is interesting to compare Räikkönen and Alonso by seeing how they fared with Massa alongside. That is what you did. The resulting titles were, as always, not just a consequence of how good the Ferrari drivers were, but how good the competition was. So far so good.
What I meant by the shadow that Alonso and Santander cast on Räikkönen and Massa, was that as early as the spring of 2008 (so, with the drivers' title still warm in his pocket), Räikkönen was aware Alonso was coming in. At the same time Massa knew he was staying at Ferrari, which was probably some comfort to him.
But Massa would have had to have been a fool not to realise that he only had one shot at the title, if Alonso was coming in as early as 2009. Why? Because together with throwing out the current world champion (think about that... ), Ferrari's experiment with equal driver treatment was thrown out. Not because it hadn't served the scuderia well - besides the drivers' title, Ferrari were also the constructors' champion - but because that's not how Alonso was being brought on board. (Think Germany 2010 and late 2012). Massa knew that as soon as Alonso sat down in the car, he became a number two driver again.

The cars Massa and Räikkönen drove weren't great in 2007 and 2008, but were good enough to show the fans that both drivers were world champion capable. And Massa did come incredibly close. In the end, Alonso didn't come in for 2009, but that shouldn't make us forget that Räikkönen drove on an ejection seat nearly from the moment they stuck number 1 on his car. By Monaco 2008 he knew for certain he was going; despite leading the championship.

Equal treatment, removing your world champion and the re-introduction of the number 2 status. How do you think these factors influenced the outcome of those seasons, and therefore your statistical comparison?

jammin78 wrote:

pokerman wrote:Yes i would agree Alonso getting the most out of the Ferrari sort of came apart at the end of the season, its interesting that i read an article that the Ferrari was made more easy to drive at seasons end and less peaky in performance, hence Massa being more at ease with the car but the wins dried up for Alonso somewhat.

As for Kimi who knows what he would have done these past 3 seasons, would he have overcome the deficiences of the car and come close to WDC titles in 2010 and 2012 like Alonso did?

The only fact you can really draw on is that in the 3 year periods Massa was on a similar level to Kimi but clearly he isn't relative to Alonso, alls sorts of excuses have been put forward for this, but given the way Massa ended the season if he gets beat easily by Alonso again next season will the excuses end?

No matter what driver we talk about... do excuses ever end?

pokerman wrote:

Fiki wrote: What I meant is this: it is interesting to compare Räikkönen and Alonso by seeing how they fared with Massa alongside. That is what you did. The resulting titles were, as always, not just a consequence of how good the Ferrari drivers were, but how good the competition was. So far so good.
What I meant by the shadow that Alonso and Santander cast on Räikkönen and Massa, was that as early as the spring of 2008 (so, with the drivers' title still warm in his pocket), Räikkönen was aware Alonso was coming in. At the same time Massa knew he was staying at Ferrari, which was probably some comfort to him.
But Massa would have had to have been a fool not to realise that he only had one shot at the title, if Alonso was coming in as early as 2009. Why? Because together with throwing out the current world champion (think about that... ), Ferrari's experiment with equal driver treatment was thrown out. Not because it hadn't served the scuderia well - besides the drivers' title, Ferrari were also the constructors' champion - but because that's not how Alonso was being brought on board. (Think Germany 2010 and late 2012). Massa knew that as soon as Alonso sat down in the car, he became a number two driver again.

The cars Massa and Räikkönen drove weren't great in 2007 and 2008, but were good enough to show the fans that both drivers were world champion capable. And Massa did come incredibly close. In the end, Alonso didn't come in for 2009, but that shouldn't make us forget that Räikkönen drove on an ejection seat nearly from the moment they stuck number 1 on his car. By Monaco 2008 he knew for certain he was going; despite leading the championship.

Equal treatment, removing your world champion and the re-introduction of the number 2 status. How do you think these factors influenced the outcome of those seasons, and therefore your statistical comparison?

Its not often you see an equal driver policy where one driver is paid 5 times the salary of the other, Kimi was brought in because Schumacher was stalling over a new contract, Massa was merely on a 1 year contract, a fill in driver after Barrichello left the team, If Schumacher had re-signed for Ferrari there was no seat for Massa.

pokerman wrote:Massa became an equal #1 driver for two reasons, one is because Kimi is not political the other because initially Kimi was slower than Massa before he got his act together later in the season. You would have thought that Kimi would then establish himself as #1 at Ferrari but he was never able to maintain any kind of dominance over Massa, all the stats show them to be quite equal as drivers.

pokerman wrote:Whereas with Alonso he established dominance on the track from Massa at a very early stage, off track politics doesn't affect how fast a driver can peddle a car unless the thinking is that Massa's car was made to go slower.

Fiki wrote:

pokerman wrote: Its not often you see an equal driver policy where one driver is paid 5 times the salary of the other, Kimi was brought in because Schumacher was stalling over a new contract, Massa was merely on a 1 year contract, a fill in driver after Barrichello left the team, If Schumacher had re-signed for Ferrari there was no seat for Massa.

I sincerely doubt this; do you have a source you could direct us to? Kimi being brought in because Schumacher was stalling over a new contract is exactly the opposite of what I seem to recall, and it also doesn't dovetail with your last sentece; that Massa was out if Schumacher decided to stay indicated that Räikkönen was already signed before Schumacher was ready to make up his mind. Which is why some remember this phase as Schumacher shying away from having a teammate on equal treatment alongside him, something I agree with.
Your remark about equal treatment yet being paid 5 times more is neither here not there. The money is definitely less important than the opportunity of vying for the title. Especially to somebody like Massa, who was guaranteed never to have a shot at the title as a number two. Look at 2008.

pokerman wrote:Massa became an equal #1 driver for two reasons, one is because Kimi is not political the other because initially Kimi was slower than Massa before he got his act together later in the season. You would have thought that Kimi would then establish himself as #1 at Ferrari but he was never able to maintain any kind of dominance over Massa, all the stats show them to be quite equal as drivers.

Fiki wrote:You seem to forget that 2007 was always going to be an equal treatment season from the moment Räikkönen signed. Massa, given the seat because Schumacher retired, therefore was an equal driver from the moment the lights went out, not because Räikkönen took some time getting used to a car that never truly became one for him. The stats reflect the reality, which includes how good a car the team was able to build, and Massa was shown to be a world title capable driver instead of a "mere" contractual number two.

pokerman wrote:Whereas with Alonso he established dominance on the track from Massa at a very early stage, off track politics doesn't affect how fast a driver can peddle a car unless the thinking is that Massa's car was made to go slower.

Fiki wrote:I don't believe for a second that Massa's car was made to go slower. But I also don't believe Alonso established dominance on the track over Massa just like that. This is post-equal treatment Ferrari we are talking about.

What remains is the question whether Alonso is indeed a driver who can "lead the team", as was put forward by Ferrari at the time. So far it would seem he has been either unable to do that, or unable to provide the team with the right "feedback that would drive the design process on", or adapted more than either Massa or Räikkönen to a difficult car, enough to secure both titles. As another forum member put it; only Santander can tell if it was worth it. But the absence of titles seems to indicate Ferrari are no closer to picking up where Todt left off, than before Santander stepped in.

pokerman wrote:You don't remember the press conference then that one of the reasons Schumacher gave for his retirement was that he didn't want to harm the career of Massa who had become a close friend, Kimi was already signed.

pokerman wrote:The problem with the thinking here is that drivers do not design the cars

Fiki wrote:

pokerman wrote:You don't remember the press conference then that one of the reasons Schumacher gave for his retirement was that he didn't want to harm the career of Massa who had become a close friend, Kimi was already signed.

Fiki wrote:Of course I remember that! I don't see what that means to you, but I feel I'm not naive enough to believe that was Schumacher's main reason for not signing.

Ferrari didn't sign Räikkönen because they thought he would be faster than Massa, they signed him because they knew he was.

I don't believe that was Schumacher's real reason for retiring either, i believe he wanted to retire as WDC and wanted to wait until the seasons end to make his decision but LDM forced him into making a decision at Monza.

Well they signed him believeing he was quicker than Massa that is true

pokerman wrote:The problem with the thinking here is that drivers do not design the cars

Fiki wrote: I agree. They also don't lead teams.

Ferrari have been struggling since late 2004, though they've always been there or thereabouts. Which leads me to think that in a cruel way, it is Massa who comes out of the whole smelly business best: he has shown what he can do, but is not going to get the chance to do it again. HIs late season resurgence must have left him with a few regrets, yet with a warm comfy feeling. Good for him!

pokerman wrote:I think the only way they can really lead teams is by giving the team the belief they are maximising the car everytime they're on track, i wonder how much Ferrari see Massa for instance as a true #1 driver when you see the higher profile drivers they bring in as his teammates, Kimi, Alonso, and did they expect Massa to be beating Kimi as often as he was?

pokerman wrote:

santa baby wrote:Of course its worth it, 3 years with Kimi, Ferrari has won 1 WDC & 2 WCC.
3 years with Alonso they have....
Wait I could have got it wrong.

2007 and 2008 fastest car, 2009 onwards not so fast, simples

Fiki wrote:

pokerman wrote:I think the only way they can really lead teams is by giving the team the belief they are maximising the car everytime they're on track, i wonder how much Ferrari see Massa for instance as a true #1 driver when you see the higher profile drivers they bring in as his teammates, Kimi, Alonso, and did they expect Massa to be beating Kimi as often as he was?

A good question, but now irrelevant; he was only treated on an equal basis for just under 3 seasons. Before he was a number two, and when Santander came in, he was the designated number two again.
I think Ferrari may well have been genuinely surprised at how good Massa really was. Or how well he adapted to a car that went against the other driver's driving style. Which makes me wonder just how good Ferrari really is.

diablof1 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

santa baby wrote:Of course its worth it, 3 years with Kimi, Ferrari has won 1 WDC & 2 WCC.
3 years with Alonso they have....
Wait I could have got it wrong.

2007 and 2008 fastest car, 2009 onwards not so fast, simples

Exactly. You have to look at the bigger picture.

Water wrote:

diablof1 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

santa baby wrote:Of course its worth it, 3 years with Kimi, Ferrari has won 1 WDC & 2 WCC.
3 years with Alonso they have....
Wait I could have got it wrong.

2007 and 2008 fastest car, 2009 onwards not so fast, simples

Exactly. You have to look at the bigger picture.

2009 onwards not so fast?

In 2010, the Ferrari was fast. Five victories says it all. The problem is they had competition from Red Bull, which they did not in 2007-2008. In 2009 Ferrari had their worst year of the 21st century.
In 2011, the Ferrari wasn't really a contender.
In 2012, it was. In the beginning of the season, Ferrari was said to be in crisis, but how big is a crisis when during the first four races, there's one victory, one fifth place, and then the for a Ferrari subpar 7th and 9th? After that, Alonso had a strong season basically all along. The car wasn't nearly as bad as some people make it up to be - McLaren and Red Bull were faster on pure speed, but when it came to race pace and straight-line speed, the Ferrari was very good.

Now, there is the factor called Felipe Massa, the man who went from very close to a WDC to nowhere to suddenly finding pace matching Alonso in the second half of 2012, even though he clearly is not allowed to race Alonso. I won't go into speculation about what happened, but Massa in 2008 simply isn't comparable to Massa after his accident up to mid-2012. The drop in his performance was huge. Therefore, there's even more to throw random arguments around about, which I'm sure many people here like!

Anyway, was it worth to replace Räikkönen with Alonso? Yes, it was.
Räikkönen didn't look like he was "at home" at Ferrari despite winning the WDC, because the team works in a different way to what he wants to do. There's a little bit of Montoya over the situation - an extremely fast driver, whose personality clashes with the team (even though Montoya seemed to clash with nearly everyone ). Keep in mind Räikkönen was filming a TV program, Montezemolo arrived, and Räikkönen downright refused to see LdM until he was done. That's not what Alonso would do. Also, Ferrari likes doing politics, and Räikkönen very clearly does not. All this is likely to have amounted to Santander bringing in Alonso and Ferrari paying millions to Räikkönen for not racing. They focused their efforts on Massa, who likes working the way Ferrari does (and after all, he was ahead in 2008!) and got Alonso moved in.

Alonso and Ferrari simply like working together, which was basically never the case with Räikkönen. Now Räikkönen came back to F1 after a two-year break with Lotus, he got 3rd in the WDC, just behind Alonso. I highly doubt he would been third in a Ferrari (even though he wouldn't have been there in the first place because of Ferrari's policy of a clear #1, which Räikkönen didn't really care for).

tl;dr - Räikkönen and Ferrari don't really mix, Alonso and Ferrari are a perfect match. You can compare Alonso in a Ferrari to Alonso in a McLaren, and then compare Räikkönen in a Lotus to Räikkönen in a Ferrari. It's the difference in how the teams work that in this case made a lot of difference. No, not all the difference, but a good part of it.

EverestBaseCamp wrote:Jammin..

If everything is kept "Relative" as you describe it for Massa- Raikkonen.... Meaning other drivers like Hamilton also present in the grid and mega competetive etc.

Then why the hell did Hamilton barely managed to beat Massa by 1 point in an equally competive Mclaren.

Also, going by the same logic of performance between Massa-Hamilton.... And your current "Relative" performance of Alonso against Massa.... Then doesn't that actually make all other drivers on the Grid in 2008 really aweful to have been trounced by Massa.

You are trying to say Alonso is so much superior to Kimi because of Massa's point difference.... Yet he has 0 WDC's.


Technically, Kimi has "also" trounced Massa driving a Lotus in a approx points margin that Alonso has in 2012. Kimi was absent in 2010-11, so your assessment is really flawed as one of the main protagonist of the comparision was not on the grid.

mikeyg123 wrote:

EverestBaseCamp wrote:Jammin..

If everything is kept "Relative" as you describe it for Massa- Raikkonen.... Meaning other drivers like Hamilton also present in the grid and mega competetive etc.

Then why the hell did Hamilton barely managed to beat Massa by 1 point in an equally competive Mclaren.

Also, going by the same logic of performance between Massa-Hamilton.... And your current "Relative" performance of Alonso against Massa.... Then doesn't that actually make all other drivers on the Grid in 2008 really aweful to have been trounced by Massa.

You are trying to say Alonso is so much superior to Kimi because of Massa's point difference.... Yet he has 0 WDC's.


Technically, Kimi has "also" trounced Massa driving a Lotus in a approx points margin that Alonso has in 2012. Kimi was absent in 2010-11, so your assessment is really flawed as one of the main protagonist of the comparision was not on the grid.

You assuming that the Ferrari and Mclaren were equal in 2008. What are you basing that on?

XRV750 wrote:I'm a big Raikkonen fan. I believe him to be faster on outright pace than alonso....by some margin. But I believe the trade was good for everyone involved. During Raikkonens time at the italian team there seemed to be some at the team not happy with him there. So they began working at having him replaced as early as 2008. Obviously they were going to put all their focus on the other driver (Massa) during this time. Now Raikk is in a team he is happy with and The italians got a man they feel fits in well, and an excellent racing driver I might add. Has he delivered for them, yes and no. Yes he has done very well with what is there (though I can't help but feel a faster driver would deliver a little more) and no because he hasn't given the italians what they want, a WDC. There is time though and if he pulls the team around him a little tighter he might just get that championship, if the faster drivers have bad luck in 2013.

EverestBaseCamp wrote:Jammin..

If everything is kept "Relative" as you describe it for Massa- Raikkonen.... Meaning other drivers like Hamilton also present in the grid and mega competetive etc.

Then why the hell did Hamilton barely managed to beat Massa by 1 point in an equally competive Mclaren.

Also, going by the same logic of performance between Massa-Hamilton.... And your current "Relative" performance of Alonso against Massa.... Then doesn't that actually make all other drivers on the Grid in 2008 really aweful to have been trounced by Massa.

You are trying to say Alonso is so much superior to Kimi because of Massa's point difference.... Yet he has 0 WDC's.

Technically, Kimi has "also" trounced Massa driving a Lotus in a approx points margin that Alonso has in 2012. Kimi was absent in 2010-11, so your assessment is really flawed as one of the main protagonist of the comparision was not on the grid.

Water wrote:

diablof1 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

santa baby wrote:Of course its worth it, 3 years with Kimi, Ferrari has won 1 WDC & 2 WCC.
3 years with Alonso they have....
Wait I could have got it wrong.

2007 and 2008 fastest car, 2009 onwards not so fast, simples

Exactly. You have to look at the bigger picture.

2009 onwards not so fast?

In 2010, the Ferrari was fast. Five victories says it all. The problem is they had competition from Red Bull, which they did not in 2007-2008. In 2009 Ferrari had their worst year of the 21st century.
In 2011, the Ferrari wasn't really a contender.
In 2012, it was. In the beginning of the season, Ferrari was said to be in crisis, but how big is a crisis when during the first four races, there's one victory, one fifth place, and then the for a Ferrari subpar 7th and 9th? After that, Alonso had a strong season basically all along. The car wasn't nearly as bad as some people make it up to be - McLaren and Red Bull were faster on pure speed, but when it came to race pace and straight-line speed, the Ferrari was very good.

Now, there is the factor called Felipe Massa, the man who went from very close to a WDC to nowhere to suddenly finding pace matching Alonso in the second half of 2012, even though he clearly is not allowed to race Alonso. I won't go into speculation about what happened, but Massa in 2008 simply isn't comparable to Massa after his accident up to mid-2012. The drop in his performance was huge. Therefore, there's even more to throw random arguments around about, which I'm sure many people here like!

Anyway, was it worth to replace Räikkönen with Alonso? Yes, it was.
Räikkönen didn't look like he was "at home" at Ferrari despite winning the WDC, because the team works in a different way to what he wants to do. There's a little bit of Montoya over the situation - an extremely fast driver, whose personality clashes with the team (even though Montoya seemed to clash with nearly everyone ). Keep in mind Räikkönen was filming a TV program, Montezemolo arrived, and Räikkönen downright refused to see LdM until he was done. That's not what Alonso would do. Also, Ferrari likes doing politics, and Räikkönen very clearly does not. All this is likely to have amounted to Santander bringing in Alonso and Ferrari paying millions to Räikkönen for not racing. They focused their efforts on Massa, who likes working the way Ferrari does (and after all, he was ahead in 2008!) and got Alonso moved in.

Alonso and Ferrari simply like working together, which was basically never the case with Räikkönen. Now Räikkönen came back to F1 after a two-year break with Lotus, he got 3rd in the WDC, just behind Alonso. I highly doubt he would been third in a Ferrari (even though he wouldn't have been there in the first place because of Ferrari's policy of a clear #1, which Räikkönen didn't really care for).

tl;dr - Räikkönen and Ferrari don't really mix, Alonso and Ferrari are a perfect match. You can compare Alonso in a Ferrari to Alonso in a McLaren, and then compare Räikkönen in a Lotus to Räikkönen in a Ferrari. It's the difference in how the teams work that in this case made a lot of difference. No, not all the difference, but a good part of it.

pokerman wrote:

Water wrote:

diablof1 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

santa baby wrote:Of course its worth it, 3 years with Kimi, Ferrari has won 1 WDC & 2 WCC.
3 years with Alonso they have....
Wait I could have got it wrong.

2007 and 2008 fastest car, 2009 onwards not so fast, simples

Exactly. You have to look at the bigger picture.

2009 onwards not so fast?

In 2010, the Ferrari was fast. Five victories says it all. The problem is they had competition from Red Bull, which they did not in 2007-2008. In 2009 Ferrari had their worst year of the 21st century.
In 2011, the Ferrari wasn't really a contender.
In 2012, it was. In the beginning of the season, Ferrari was said to be in crisis, but how big is a crisis when during the first four races, there's one victory, one fifth place, and then the for a Ferrari subpar 7th and 9th? After that, Alonso had a strong season basically all along. The car wasn't nearly as bad as some people make it up to be - McLaren and Red Bull were faster on pure speed, but when it came to race pace and straight-line speed, the Ferrari was very good.

Now, there is the factor called Felipe Massa, the man who went from very close to a WDC to nowhere to suddenly finding pace matching Alonso in the second half of 2012, even though he clearly is not allowed to race Alonso. I won't go into speculation about what happened, but Massa in 2008 simply isn't comparable to Massa after his accident up to mid-2012. The drop in his performance was huge. Therefore, there's even more to throw random arguments around about, which I'm sure many people here like!

Anyway, was it worth to replace Räikkönen with Alonso? Yes, it was.
Räikkönen didn't look like he was "at home" at Ferrari despite winning the WDC, because the team works in a different way to what he wants to do. There's a little bit of Montoya over the situation - an extremely fast driver, whose personality clashes with the team (even though Montoya seemed to clash with nearly everyone ). Keep in mind Räikkönen was filming a TV program, Montezemolo arrived, and Räikkönen downright refused to see LdM until he was done. That's not what Alonso would do. Also, Ferrari likes doing politics, and Räikkönen very clearly does not. All this is likely to have amounted to Santander bringing in Alonso and Ferrari paying millions to Räikkönen for not racing. They focused their efforts on Massa, who likes working the way Ferrari does (and after all, he was ahead in 2008!) and got Alonso moved in.

Alonso and Ferrari simply like working together, which was basically never the case with Räikkönen. Now Räikkönen came back to F1 after a two-year break with Lotus, he got 3rd in the WDC, just behind Alonso. I highly doubt he would been third in a Ferrari (even though he wouldn't have been there in the first place because of Ferrari's policy of a clear #1, which Räikkönen didn't really care for).

tl;dr - Räikkönen and Ferrari don't really mix, Alonso and Ferrari are a perfect match. You can compare Alonso in a Ferrari to Alonso in a McLaren, and then compare Räikkönen in a Lotus to Räikkönen in a Ferrari. It's the difference in how the teams work that in this case made a lot of difference. No, not all the difference, but a good part of it.

The Ferrari has been inferior to the Red Bull these past 3 seasons and the Mclaren these past 2 seasons, a far cry from the Ferrari of 2007 and 2008 which was inferior to no car.

Its interesting with Massa having such a good finish to the season he's now considered back to where he was before his accident, so lets see how Massa performs next season relative to Alonso, however if he's comfortably beaten yet again by Alonso i'm sure that still will not stop the excuses.

As for Kimi he is a class act but lets not gloss over the fact that all the stats show there wasn't much to choose between him and Massa over the time they were teammates, also this last season he was often outqualified and outpaced by Grosjean but this was often masked by Grosjean's ineptitude.

Fiki wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

EverestBaseCamp wrote:Jammin..

If everything is kept "Relative" as you describe it for Massa- Raikkonen.... Meaning other drivers like Hamilton also present in the grid and mega competetive etc.

Then why the hell did Hamilton barely managed to beat Massa by 1 point in an equally competive Mclaren.

Also, going by the same logic of performance between Massa-Hamilton.... And your current "Relative" performance of Alonso against Massa.... Then doesn't that actually make all other drivers on the Grid in 2008 really aweful to have been trounced by Massa.

You are trying to say Alonso is so much superior to Kimi because of Massa's point difference.... Yet he has 0 WDC's.


Technically, Kimi has "also" trounced Massa driving a Lotus in a approx points margin that Alonso has in 2012. Kimi was absent in 2010-11, so your assessment is really flawed as one of the main protagonist of the comparision was not on the grid.

You assuming that the Ferrari and Mclaren were equal in 2008. What are you basing that on?

Assuming that Heikki Kovalaïnen wasn't quite up to the level of the defending world champion, the comfortable second place in the constructors' championship might be taken as a trustworthy indicator, might it not?

jammin78 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Water wrote:

diablof1 wrote:

pokerman wrote:2007 and 2008 fastest car, 2009 onwards not so fast, simples

Exactly. You have to look at the bigger picture.

2009 onwards not so fast?

In 2010, the Ferrari was fast. Five victories says it all. The problem is they had competition from Red Bull, which they did not in 2007-2008. In 2009 Ferrari had their worst year of the 21st century.
In 2011, the Ferrari wasn't really a contender.
In 2012, it was. In the beginning of the season, Ferrari was said to be in crisis, but how big is a crisis when during the first four races, there's one victory, one fifth place, and then the for a Ferrari subpar 7th and 9th? After that, Alonso had a strong season basically all along. The car wasn't nearly as bad as some people make it up to be - McLaren and Red Bull were faster on pure speed, but when it came to race pace and straight-line speed, the Ferrari was very good.

Now, there is the factor called Felipe Massa, the man who went from very close to a WDC to nowhere to suddenly finding pace matching Alonso in the second half of 2012, even though he clearly is not allowed to race Alonso. I won't go into speculation about what happened, but Massa in 2008 simply isn't comparable to Massa after his accident up to mid-2012. The drop in his performance was huge. Therefore, there's even more to throw random arguments around about, which I'm sure many people here like!

Anyway, was it worth to replace Räikkönen with Alonso? Yes, it was.
Räikkönen didn't look like he was "at home" at Ferrari despite winning the WDC, because the team works in a different way to what he wants to do. There's a little bit of Montoya over the situation - an extremely fast driver, whose personality clashes with the team (even though Montoya seemed to clash with nearly everyone ). Keep in mind Räikkönen was filming a TV program, Montezemolo arrived, and Räikkönen downright refused to see LdM until he was done. That's not what Alonso would do. Also, Ferrari likes doing politics, and Räikkönen very clearly does not. All this is likely to have amounted to Santander bringing in Alonso and Ferrari paying millions to Räikkönen for not racing. They focused their efforts on Massa, who likes working the way Ferrari does (and after all, he was ahead in 2008!) and got Alonso moved in.

Alonso and Ferrari simply like working together, which was basically never the case with Räikkönen. Now Räikkönen came back to F1 after a two-year break with Lotus, he got 3rd in the WDC, just behind Alonso. I highly doubt he would been third in a Ferrari (even though he wouldn't have been there in the first place because of Ferrari's policy of a clear #1, which Räikkönen didn't really care for).

tl;dr - Räikkönen and Ferrari don't really mix, Alonso and Ferrari are a perfect match. You can compare Alonso in a Ferrari to Alonso in a McLaren, and then compare Räikkönen in a Lotus to Räikkönen in a Ferrari. It's the difference in how the teams work that in this case made a lot of difference. No, not all the difference, but a good part of it.

The Ferrari has been inferior to the Red Bull these past 3 seasons and the Mclaren these past 2 seasons, a far cry from the Ferrari of 2007 and 2008 which was inferior to no car.

Its interesting with Massa having such a good finish to the season he's now considered back to where he was before his accident, so lets see how Massa performs next season relative to Alonso, however if he's comfortably beaten yet again by Alonso i'm sure that still will not stop the excuses.

As for Kimi he is a class act but lets not gloss over the fact that all the stats show there wasn't much to choose between him and Massa over the time they were teammates, also this last season he was often outqualified and outpaced by Grosjean but this was often masked by Grosjean's ineptitude.

Now why would you say that? I've tried this argument with some avid Kimi fans, backed up with a variety of stats to show Grosjean was close to Kimi, and have been verbally assaulted for daring to speak ill of the Kimster. Stats mean nothing around here. Kimi is god.

pokerman wrote:

jammin78 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Water wrote:

diablof1 wrote:
Exactly. You have to look at the bigger picture.

2009 onwards not so fast?

In 2010, the Ferrari was fast. Five victories says it all. The problem is they had competition from Red Bull, which they did not in 2007-2008. In 2009 Ferrari had their worst year of the 21st century.
In 2011, the Ferrari wasn't really a contender.
In 2012, it was. In the beginning of the season, Ferrari was said to be in crisis, but how big is a crisis when during the first four races, there's one victory, one fifth place, and then the for a Ferrari subpar 7th and 9th? After that, Alonso had a strong season basically all along. The car wasn't nearly as bad as some people make it up to be - McLaren and Red Bull were faster on pure speed, but when it came to race pace and straight-line speed, the Ferrari was very good.

Now, there is the factor called Felipe Massa, the man who went from very close to a WDC to nowhere to suddenly finding pace matching Alonso in the second half of 2012, even though he clearly is not allowed to race Alonso. I won't go into speculation about what happened, but Massa in 2008 simply isn't comparable to Massa after his accident up to mid-2012. The drop in his performance was huge. Therefore, there's even more to throw random arguments around about, which I'm sure many people here like!

Anyway, was it worth to replace Räikkönen with Alonso? Yes, it was.
Räikkönen didn't look like he was "at home" at Ferrari despite winning the WDC, because the team works in a different way to what he wants to do. There's a little bit of Montoya over the situation - an extremely fast driver, whose personality clashes with the team (even though Montoya seemed to clash with nearly everyone ). Keep in mind Räikkönen was filming a TV program, Montezemolo arrived, and Räikkönen downright refused to see LdM until he was done. That's not what Alonso would do. Also, Ferrari likes doing politics, and Räikkönen very clearly does not. All this is likely to have amounted to Santander bringing in Alonso and Ferrari paying millions to Räikkönen for not racing. They focused their efforts on Massa, who likes working the way Ferrari does (and after all, he was ahead in 2008!) and got Alonso moved in.

Alonso and Ferrari simply like working together, which was basically never the case with Räikkönen. Now Räikkönen came back to F1 after a two-year break with Lotus, he got 3rd in the WDC, just behind Alonso. I highly doubt he would been third in a Ferrari (even though he wouldn't have been there in the first place because of Ferrari's policy of a clear #1, which Räikkönen didn't really care for).

tl;dr - Räikkönen and Ferrari don't really mix, Alonso and Ferrari are a perfect match. You can compare Alonso in a Ferrari to Alonso in a McLaren, and then compare Räikkönen in a Lotus to Räikkönen in a Ferrari. It's the difference in how the teams work that in this case made a lot of difference. No, not all the difference, but a good part of it.

The Ferrari has been inferior to the Red Bull these past 3 seasons and the Mclaren these past 2 seasons, a far cry from the Ferrari of 2007 and 2008 which was inferior to no car.

Its interesting with Massa having such a good finish to the season he's now considered back to where he was before his accident, so lets see how Massa performs next season relative to Alonso, however if he's comfortably beaten yet again by Alonso i'm sure that still will not stop the excuses.

As for Kimi he is a class act but lets not gloss over the fact that all the stats show there wasn't much to choose between him and Massa over the time they were teammates, also this last season he was often outqualified and outpaced by Grosjean but this was often masked by Grosjean's ineptitude.

Now why would you say that? I've tried this argument with some avid Kimi fans, backed up with a variety of stats to show Grosjean was close to Kimi, and have been verbally assaulted for daring to speak ill of the Kimster. Stats mean nothing around here. Kimi is god.

Well i remember one race where Grosjean had a coming together with another car on the opening lap and ended dead last, then drove through the field to finish right behind Kimi, of course Kimi beat him so Kimi must have been better, there seemed to be several races like this for Grosjean and it had you thinking just where would he have finished if he hadn't driven like a dufus on the opening lap/laps?