Arrivederci Arrivabene

[F1 MERCENARY]

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

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

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

Vettel is just as good as Alonso & Hamilton.

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

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

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

[Zoue]

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

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

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

Vettel is just as good as Alonso & Hamilton.

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

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

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

I'm sure Mattiacci did lay some groundwork for Ferrari's current situation, but Arrivabene became TP in 2014 and since then Ferrari have gone from strength to strength. Almost no-one could imagine them (or anyone, to be frank) challenging the mighty Mercedes after 2014 and even 2015, yet here we are at the beginning of 2019 and there's almost nothing between the two teams. I think it's a bit of a stretch to not give Arrivabene any credit for that after four years at the helm. They've been on an upward trajectory ever since he joined them at that can't all be down to his predecessor.

Yes, Ferrari made some mistakes last year, but if you give Arrivabene the blame for that then IMO it's somewhat unfair not to give him any credit for what has gone well, too. He may not be a perfect TP and perhaps he's reached the limit of what he can do, but he's left Ferrari in the healthiest condition they've been for a long, long while and I think that also deserves to be recognised

[VDV23]

Strange and sad decision for me. After taking over from Domenicali (I won't count Mattiacci since he was a hatchet man, not given a chance to make a difference) - the difference has been night and day. My only gripe with him is that he hanged for so long to keep Kimi in the team and that he didn't realize Vettel is not bringing the title home unless Ferrari have consistently the best car on the grid with some margin.

That is the most factually incorrect statement in this entire thread.

The successes Ferrari have enjoyed while Arrivabene was at the helm was entirely thanks to Mattiacci's work in his extremely short tenure as Team Principal.
ALL the moves he made, which were questioned beared fruit and Arrivabene was there to take credit for it, when in fact he didn't do much if anything in his time with the team. If I were on Ferrari's board I would be lobbying for the company to make a public apology and ask him to return with more pay and assurances to remain with the company even after F1 because the man has proven himself to be one of the most valuable assets in the companies history, and his efforts in F1, while vastly trumping his prior accomplishments with the company publicly, are a far cry from what he accomplished before ever being called up to run F1 operations.

Entirely thanks to Mattiacci? Talk about factually incorrect.

Anyway, I "skipped" Mattiacci as a TP for Ferrari because he was not really there to lead Ferrari to success, his job was to give the foundations for the next TP. Letting go so many people does not make him popular for the employees who are staying and that was my entire point.

On this topic, I'm guessing "sacrificing" Mattiacci was Ferrari internal politics at their finest. You move one of your top top guys within the company in order to set him up for the way out. But I guess that's besides the point as well.

Sorry but I am 100% correct.

The thing most people don't understand is that good leaders make the best decisions for a company, regardless of having to cut ties with longstanding personnel, without listening to anyone else. That's what Mattiacci did and how he did it and it proved unpopular with many people, but it in no way does that mean his actions weren't the right ones for Ferrari. It was Mattiacci who signed Vettel away from Red Bull, and he was the one who signed James Allison, and contrary to popular belief, he didn't get rid of as many people ad many assume, and he offered full support to many staff members he felt were paramount to Ferrari's success.

And wouldn't you know it… Ferrari is enjoying success.

And it was also Mattiacci who fought to loosen engine regs so manufacturers can further develop and refine their power units to bridge the gap to Mercedes.


But yeah, I'm factually incorrect.

You're now just making up & spinning stuff.

First off - Vettel, I would hardly categorize as game-changing move for Ferrari. Vettel was (is) a downgrade to Alonso and he bottled it over a season when he had the car. Ricciardo had just wiped the floor with him in 2014 + Hamilton and Alonso were the better options. And if you can make the argument that Danny and Lewis were impossible to get, he still couldn't keep a better driver who was already at the team and replaced him with in an inferior one. That's not a win in my book.

Secondly, Ferrari secured Allison in mid-2013, around June (and paid a bit extra to cash-strapped Lotus so he can join immediately). Mattiacci joined Ferrari F1 in April 2014, just before the Chinese Grand Prix. Unless something has changed and time is no longer passing by linearly, I'm pretty confident to say that Allison's joining was in no way influenced by Mattiaci. But feel free to correct me, of course.

What you are saying about Mattiacci's decision-making in no way contradicts what I have said. He made good decisions but he was hired to pull the trigger on exactly those tough decisions. Obviously he was set up and someone didn't want him in Ferrari long-term. So he cleaned house and the next guy took over. I don't recall saying his actions were not the right thing to do. It's just that he wasn't hired to be Team Principal for Ferrari F1.

And are we crediting him for changing the PU regs now as well? Every non-Mercedes fought for that, and that fight extended way above the Team Principals due to Merc's enormous advantage. And FIA & FOM were more than open to ideas to bridge that huge gap.

[pokerman]

They did go wrong in their car development last year and had to revert to the "old" car. Something that arguably also contributed to Vettel pushing too hard and making mistakes. You can also argue that Binotto did a stellar job and deserves a promotion.


All I can tell is that politics were always part of the Italian team, so god knows what is truly the reason behind this move.

Vettel was making mistakes before that even happened, that's why he was trailing in the WDC rather than leading it.

"arguably also contributed"

...after the Singapore updates, he had the best car before then but was making mistakes.

I did not say that all of his mistakes were because of that, it ALSO contributed. Do not worry, I did not try to devalue Hamilton's year

No you wasn't being specific.

[Tufty]

His departure was rather suspicious as it occurred after it was speculated Allison might replace Arrivabene as TP. Quite noteworthy IMPO.

I'm curious, what's suspicious about a man leaving his job after his wife dies as he realises he wants to be closer to his remaining family? He quit, he wasn't fired.

[Siao7]

Vettel was making mistakes before that even happened, that's why he was trailing in the WDC rather than leading it.

"arguably also contributed"

...after the Singapore updates, he had the best car before then but was making mistakes.

I did not say that all of his mistakes were because of that, it ALSO contributed. Do not worry, I did not try to devalue Hamilton's year

No you wasn't being specific.

Ah, yeah, I forgot your confusion in all matters vaguely about Hamilton, even when they are not. Apologies, I'll try and filter it out specifically for you next time

[Siao7]

That is the most factually incorrect statement in this entire thread.

The successes Ferrari have enjoyed while Arrivabene was at the helm was entirely thanks to Mattiacci's work in his extremely short tenure as Team Principal.
ALL the moves he made, which were questioned beared fruit and Arrivabene was there to take credit for it, when in fact he didn't do much if anything in his time with the team. If I were on Ferrari's board I would be lobbying for the company to make a public apology and ask him to return with more pay and assurances to remain with the company even after F1 because the man has proven himself to be one of the most valuable assets in the companies history, and his efforts in F1, while vastly trumping his prior accomplishments with the company publicly, are a far cry from what he accomplished before ever being called up to run F1 operations.

Entirely thanks to Mattiacci? Talk about factually incorrect.

Anyway, I "skipped" Mattiacci as a TP for Ferrari because he was not really there to lead Ferrari to success, his job was to give the foundations for the next TP. Letting go so many people does not make him popular for the employees who are staying and that was my entire point.

On this topic, I'm guessing "sacrificing" Mattiacci was Ferrari internal politics at their finest. You move one of your top top guys within the company in order to set him up for the way out. But I guess that's besides the point as well.

Sorry but I am 100% correct.

The thing most people don't understand is that good leaders make the best decisions for a company, regardless of having to cut ties with longstanding personnel, without listening to anyone else. That's what Mattiacci did and how he did it and it proved unpopular with many people, but it in no way does that mean his actions weren't the right ones for Ferrari. It was Mattiacci who signed Vettel away from Red Bull, and he was the one who signed James Allison, and contrary to popular belief, he didn't get rid of as many people ad many assume, and he offered full support to many staff members he felt were paramount to Ferrari's success.

And wouldn't you know it… Ferrari is enjoying success.

And it was also Mattiacci who fought to loosen engine regs so manufacturers can further develop and refine their power units to bridge the gap to Mercedes.


But yeah, I'm factually incorrect.

You're now just making up & spinning stuff.

First off - Vettel, I would hardly categorize as game-changing move for Ferrari. Vettel was (is) a downgrade to Alonso and he bottled it over a season when he had the car. Ricciardo had just wiped the floor with him in 2014 + Hamilton and Alonso were the better options. And if you can make the argument that Danny and Lewis were impossible to get, he still couldn't keep a better driver who was already at the team and replaced him with in an inferior one. That's not a win in my book.

Secondly, Ferrari secured Allison in mid-2013, around June (and paid a bit extra to cash-strapped Lotus so he can join immediately). Mattiacci joined Ferrari F1 in April 2014, just before the Chinese Grand Prix. Unless something has changed and time is no longer passing by linearly, I'm pretty confident to say that Allison's joining was in no way influenced by Mattiaci. But feel free to correct me, of course.

What you are saying about Mattiacci's decision-making in no way contradicts what I have said. He made good decisions but he was hired to pull the trigger on exactly those tough decisions. Obviously he was set up and someone didn't want him in Ferrari long-term. So he cleaned house and the next guy took over. I don't recall saying his actions were not the right thing to do. It's just that he wasn't hired to be Team Principal for Ferrari F1.

And are we crediting him for changing the PU regs now as well? Every non-Mercedes fought for that, and that fight extended way above the Team Principals due to Merc's enormous advantage. And FIA & FOM were more than open to ideas to bridge that huge gap.

That's a bit harsh. Alonso didn't want to stay, in fact, he went to a team he had burned all bridges with; he really wanted out.

I can't see how a 4xWDC still in his prime is a bad choice, especially given the prospects around at the time.

[pokerman]

"arguably also contributed"

...after the Singapore updates, he had the best car before then but was making mistakes.

I did not say that all of his mistakes were because of that, it ALSO contributed. Do not worry, I did not try to devalue Hamilton's year

No you wasn't being specific.

Ah, yeah, I forgot your confusion in all matters vaguely about Hamilton, even when they are not. Apologies, I'll try and filter it out specifically for you next time

No I just see wanting to make excuses for Vettel because for 3 races Ferrari went backwards with their development, Vettel made mistakes throughout the season.

[Zoue]

...after the Singapore updates, he had the best car before then but was making mistakes.

I did not say that all of his mistakes were because of that, it ALSO contributed. Do not worry, I did not try to devalue Hamilton's year

No you wasn't being specific.

Ah, yeah, I forgot your confusion in all matters vaguely about Hamilton, even when they are not. Apologies, I'll try and filter it out specifically for you next time

No I just see wanting to make excuses for Vettel because for 3 races Ferrari went backwards with their development, Vettel made mistakes throughout the season.

I think "arguably also contributed" covers that, as has already been pointed out...

[pokerman]

I did not say that all of his mistakes were because of that, it ALSO contributed. Do not worry, I did not try to devalue Hamilton's year

No you wasn't being specific.

Ah, yeah, I forgot your confusion in all matters vaguely about Hamilton, even when they are not. Apologies, I'll try and filter it out specifically for you next time

No I just see wanting to make excuses for Vettel because for 3 races Ferrari went backwards with their development, Vettel made mistakes throughout the season.

I think "arguably also contributed" covers that, as has already been pointed out...

In response to Vettels mistakes being the biggest contributor to failure, I would argue that this put even more pressure on Ferrari to improve the car, the pattern of Vettel's mistakes were prevalent throughout the season if Vettel was unable to lead a race.

[Rockie]

In response to Vettels mistakes being the biggest contributor to failure, I would argue that this put even more pressure on Ferrari to improve the car, the pattern of Vettel's mistakes were prevalent throughout the season if Vettel was unable to lead a race.

Lol Vettel's mistakes put more pressure on Ferrari to improve the car which led to more mistakes, You have written some ridiculous things on here, but this one takes the cake.

Oh it wasn't because Mercedes, Redbull et all were improving, it was because Vettel was making mistake tahts why they were under pressure to improve, cant stop laughing!

[Zoue]

No you wasn't being specific.

Ah, yeah, I forgot your confusion in all matters vaguely about Hamilton, even when they are not. Apologies, I'll try and filter it out specifically for you next time

No I just see wanting to make excuses for Vettel because for 3 races Ferrari went backwards with their development, Vettel made mistakes throughout the season.

I think "arguably also contributed" covers that, as has already been pointed out...

In response to Vettels mistakes being the biggest contributor to failure, I would argue that this put even more pressure on Ferrari to improve the car, the pattern of Vettel's mistakes were prevalent throughout the season if Vettel was unable to lead a race.

it's a combination of things, as Siao7 pointed out.

Not sure what the "if Vettel was unable to lead a race" has to do with it?

[babararacucudada]

Ferrari as a team under performed last year. Vettel made mistakes, but they also made development mistakes. The boss has to own that.
https://www.racefans.net/2018/10/22/vet ... -from-car/

[VDV23]

That's a bit harsh. Alonso didn't want to stay, in fact, he went to a team he had burned all bridges with; he really wanted out.

I can't see how a 4xWDC still in his prime is a bad choice, especially given the prospects around at the time.

Ferrari didn't want to bend to Alonso's wishes. He was ready to stay on his own terms - short term deal with option to get out - Ferrari, rightfully as the mammoth brand they are, didn't allow that to happen and moved for another driver.

4xWDC doesn't cover the whole story, though. Even when he was crushing everyone due to RBR's huge car advantage he was showing cracks. It was criminal that 2010 and 2012 went to the wire. And 2011 and 2013 were as dominant years as they come. All-in-all, replacing Alonso with Vettel was a downgrade which in 2015 & 16 was not the end of the world as even someone talented as Alonso wouldn't have challenged for the title. 2017 & 18 on the other hand...

At the end of the day, it was a deal that had no winners. Alonso went to a car that was a midfielder at the best days & Ferrari didn't secure a driver that could extract every possible point to mount a strong title challenge which was very possible in both 17' and 18'.

[Zoue]

That's a bit harsh. Alonso didn't want to stay, in fact, he went to a team he had burned all bridges with; he really wanted out.

I can't see how a 4xWDC still in his prime is a bad choice, especially given the prospects around at the time.

Ferrari didn't want to bend to Alonso's wishes. He was ready to stay on his own terms - short term deal with option to get out - Ferrari, rightfully as the mammoth brand they are, didn't allow that to happen and moved for another driver.

4xWDC doesn't cover the whole story, though. Even when he was crushing everyone due to RBR's huge car advantage he was showing cracks. It was criminal that 2010 and 2012 went to the wire. And 2011 and 2013 were as dominant years as they come. All-in-all, replacing Alonso with Vettel was a downgrade which in 2015 & 16 was not the end of the world as even someone talented as Alonso wouldn't have challenged for the title. 2017 & 18 on the other hand...

At the end of the day, it was a deal that had no winners. Alonso went to a car that was a midfielder at the best days & Ferrari didn't secure a driver that could extract every possible point to mount a strong title challenge which was very possible in both 17' and 18'.

2010 I'll grant you up to a point, although that should be mitigated by the fact that it was his first real shot at the title and nerves may have played a part. But I think you're being harsh with 2012 -that was the first year of the Great Pirelli Tyre Lottery and pretty much everybody had a topsy-turvy first half of the season while they got to understand the tyres. But Vettel put in a very strong second half of the season to be fair to him. as for 2011 and 2013 - the fact the car only looked remotely dominant in the hands of one driver raises at least some questions as to how dominant it actually was.

[F1 MERCENARY]

Strange and sad decision for me. After taking over from Domenicali (I won't count Mattiacci since he was a hatchet man, not given a chance to make a difference) - the difference has been night and day. My only gripe with him is that he hanged for so long to keep Kimi in the team and that he didn't realize Vettel is not bringing the title home unless Ferrari have consistently the best car on the grid with some margin.

That is the most factually incorrect statement in this entire thread.

The successes Ferrari have enjoyed while Arrivabene was at the helm was entirely thanks to Mattiacci's work in his extremely short tenure as Team Principal.
ALL the moves he made, which were questioned beared fruit and Arrivabene was there to take credit for it, when in fact he didn't do much if anything in his time with the team. If I were on Ferrari's board I would be lobbying for the company to make a public apology and ask him to return with more pay and assurances to remain with the company even after F1 because the man has proven himself to be one of the most valuable assets in the companies history, and his efforts in F1, while vastly trumping his prior accomplishments with the company publicly, are a far cry from what he accomplished before ever being called up to run F1 operations.

Entirely thanks to Mattiacci? Talk about factually incorrect.

Anyway, I "skipped" Mattiacci as a TP for Ferrari because he was not really there to lead Ferrari to success, his job was to give the foundations for the next TP. Letting go so many people does not make him popular for the employees who are staying and that was my entire point.

On this topic, I'm guessing "sacrificing" Mattiacci was Ferrari internal politics at their finest. You move one of your top top guys within the company in order to set him up for the way out. But I guess that's besides the point as well.

Sorry but I am 100% correct.

The thing most people don't understand is that good leaders make the best decisions for a company, regardless of having to cut ties with longstanding personnel, without listening to anyone else. That's what Mattiacci did and how he did it and it proved unpopular with many people, but it in no way does that mean his actions weren't the right ones for Ferrari. It was Mattiacci who signed Vettel away from Red Bull, and he was the one who signed James Allison, and contrary to popular belief, he didn't get rid of as many people ad many assume, and he offered full support to many staff members he felt were paramount to Ferrari's success.

And wouldn't you know it… Ferrari is enjoying success.

And it was also Mattiacci who fought to loosen engine regs so manufacturers can further develop and refine their power units to bridge the gap to Mercedes.


But yeah, I'm factually incorrect.

You're now just making up & spinning stuff.

First off - Vettel, I would hardly categorize as game-changing move for Ferrari. Vettel was (is) a downgrade to Alonso and he bottled it over a season when he had the car. Ricciardo had just wiped the floor with him in 2014 + Hamilton and Alonso were the better options. And if you can make the argument that Danny and Lewis were impossible to get, he still couldn't keep a better driver who was already at the team and replaced him with in an inferior one. That's not a win in my book.

Secondly, Ferrari secured Allison in mid-2013, around June (and paid a bit extra to cash-strapped Lotus so he can join immediately). Mattiacci joined Ferrari F1 in April 2014, just before the Chinese Grand Prix. Unless something has changed and time is no longer passing by linearly, I'm pretty confident to say that Allison's joining was in no way influenced by Mattiaci. But feel free to correct me, of course.

What you are saying about Mattiacci's decision-making in no way contradicts what I have said. He made good decisions but he was hired to pull the trigger on exactly those tough decisions. Obviously he was set up and someone didn't want him in Ferrari long-term. So he cleaned house and the next guy took over. I don't recall saying his actions were not the right thing to do. It's just that he wasn't hired to be Team Principal for Ferrari F1.

And are we crediting him for changing the PU regs now as well? Every non-Mercedes fought for that, and that fight extended way above the Team Principals due to Merc's enormous advantage. And FIA & FOM were more than open to ideas to bridge that huge gap.

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

It was all politics and games and a man doing what was needed for his beloved employer, never once allowing anyone to pressure him to play nice with the powers that be so as to not ruffle feathers. THAT'S why he was given the boot, but at the time of Arivabene's appointment Marchionne even said the groundwork is already laid and the new guy is the right guy to manage things from here. In other words, "ride the coat tails of his predecessor". I'm not saying Arrivabene didn't do anything in his time there, but whatever he did (outside of rule with a supposed iron fist), I sure would love to see/hear it. His appointment was 1,000,000% political and nothing more.

Autosport has a brief write-up about it, but you go ahead and keep believing what you've heard: https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/11693 ... -mattiacci

[F1 MERCENARY]

That's a bit harsh. Alonso didn't want to stay, in fact, he went to a team he had burned all bridges with; he really wanted out.

I can't see how a 4xWDC still in his prime is a bad choice, especially given the prospects around at the time.

Ferrari didn't want to bend to Alonso's wishes. He was ready to stay on his own terms - short term deal with option to get out - Ferrari, rightfully as the mammoth brand they are, didn't allow that to happen and moved for another driver.

4xWDC doesn't cover the whole story, though. Even when he was crushing everyone due to RBR's huge car advantage he was showing cracks. It was criminal that 2010 and 2012 went to the wire. And 2011 and 2013 were as dominant years as they come. All-in-all, replacing Alonso with Vettel was a downgrade which in 2015 & 16 was not the end of the world as even someone talented as Alonso wouldn't have challenged for the title. 2017 & 18 on the other hand...

At the end of the day, it was a deal that had no winners. Alonso went to a car that was a midfielder at the best days & Ferrari didn't secure a driver that could extract every possible point to mount a strong title challenge which was very possible in both 17' and 18'.

2010 I'll grant you up to a point, although that should be mitigated by the fact that it was his first real shot at the title and nerves may have played a part. But I think you're being harsh with 2012 -that was the first year of the Great Pirelli Tyre Lottery and pretty much everybody had a topsy-turvy first half of the season while they got to understand the tyres. But Vettel put in a very strong second half of the season to be fair to him. as for 2011 and 2013 - the fact the car only looked remotely dominant in the hands of one driver raises at least some questions as to how dominant it actually was.

Ding… DING!!!

[Exediron]

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

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

[Paolo_Lasardi]

Just out of curiosity: what is this wannabe-genius Mattiacci doing nowadays?

[pokerman]

In response to Vettels mistakes being the biggest contributor to failure, I would argue that this put even more pressure on Ferrari to improve the car, the pattern of Vettel's mistakes were prevalent throughout the season if Vettel was unable to lead a race.

Lol Vettel's mistakes put more pressure on Ferrari to improve the car which led to more mistakes, You have written some ridiculous things on here, but this one takes the cake.

Oh it wasn't because Mercedes, Redbull et all were improving, it was because Vettel was making mistake tahts why they were under pressure to improve, cant stop laughing!

They gave Vettel the best car in 9 out of the 14 races at the start of the season but that wasn't enough, that's bound to put extra pressure on the team, Mercedes themselves were not improving relative to Ferrari at that point.

[pokerman]

Ah, yeah, I forgot your confusion in all matters vaguely about Hamilton, even when they are not. Apologies, I'll try and filter it out specifically for you next time

No I just see wanting to make excuses for Vettel because for 3 races Ferrari went backwards with their development, Vettel made mistakes throughout the season.

I think "arguably also contributed" covers that, as has already been pointed out...

In response to Vettels mistakes being the biggest contributor to failure, I would argue that this put even more pressure on Ferrari to improve the car, the pattern of Vettel's mistakes were prevalent throughout the season if Vettel was unable to lead a race.

it's a combination of things, as Siao7 pointed out.

Not sure what the "if Vettel was unable to lead a race" has to do with it?

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

[Zoue]

No I just see wanting to make excuses for Vettel because for 3 races Ferrari went backwards with their development, Vettel made mistakes throughout the season.

I think "arguably also contributed" covers that, as has already been pointed out...

In response to Vettels mistakes being the biggest contributor to failure, I would argue that this put even more pressure on Ferrari to improve the car, the pattern of Vettel's mistakes were prevalent throughout the season if Vettel was unable to lead a race.

it's a combination of things, as Siao7 pointed out.

Not sure what the "if Vettel was unable to lead a race" has to do with it?

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

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

[Siao7]

Ah, yeah, I forgot your confusion in all matters vaguely about Hamilton, even when they are not. Apologies, I'll try and filter it out specifically for you next time

No I just see wanting to make excuses for Vettel because for 3 races Ferrari went backwards with their development, Vettel made mistakes throughout the season.

I think "arguably also contributed" covers that, as has already been pointed out...

In response to Vettels mistakes being the biggest contributor to failure, I would argue that this put even more pressure on Ferrari to improve the car, the pattern of Vettel's mistakes were prevalent throughout the season if Vettel was unable to lead a race.

it's a combination of things, as Siao7 pointed out.

Not sure what the "if Vettel was unable to lead a race" has to do with it?

Thanks Zoue, words seriously fail me sometimes with Poker.

But I'm not going to let myself to be bullied into treading on eggshells every time I post something in here in case Poker gets the wrong idea that someone is bad mouthing Hamilton.

What I wrote is self explanatory. Unless you want to twist it to whatever you want it to sound like, which is what Poker does regularly. I'll drop it here as this is a thread about Arrivabene

[Siao7]

Latest news is that Arrivabene may end up at Sauber:

https://www.sportsmole.co.uk/formula-1/ ... 46501.html

[Fiki]

Latest news is that Arrivabene may end up at Sauber:

https://www.sportsmole.co.uk/formula-1/ ... 46501.html

It makes me wonder whether his connection with Philip Morris continues or not. If it does, would that indicate tobacco sponsorship for Sauber as well as Ferrari?

[Pullrod]

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

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

Vettel is just as good as Alonso & Hamilton.

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

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

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

He surely will not come here to tell you that?
Mattiacci biggest success was to fire Alonso, I give you that but Ferrari was in a very bad place when Arrivabene was appointed and I find it absolutely disrepectful to give all the credits for Ferrari resurgence to either Marchionne o Binotto o Mattiacci.

For once that Ferrari after a long time has a team principal who is ABOVE the drivers unlike the guys before him they are lucky to see his back. Alonso would have performed miles better with a guy like Maurizio Arrivabene who is simply the opposite of Boullier/Zak Brown/Domenicali when he was at Ferrari.

Anyway, now that the worst Ferrari employee is out, I guess starting from this year, Ferrari will win all the championships until the next regulation changes. Good times ahead for the Tifosi.

[Siao7]

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

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

Vettel is just as good as Alonso & Hamilton.

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

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

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

He surely will not come here to tell you that?
Mattiacci biggest success was to fire Alonso, I give you that but Ferrari was in a very bad place when Arrivabene was appointed and I find it absolutely disrepectful to give all the credits for Ferrari resurgence to either Marchionne o Binotto o Mattiacci.

For once that Ferrari after a long time has a team principal who is ABOVE the drivers unlike the guys before him they are lucky to see his back. Alonso would have performed miles better with a guy like Maurizio Arrivabene who is simply the opposite of Boullier/Zak Brown/Domenicali when he was at Ferrari.

Anyway, now that the worst Ferrari employee is out, I guess starting from this year, Ferrari will win all the championships until the next regulation changes. Good times ahead for the Tifosi.

Will you eat your hat publicly if this happens?

[Siao7]

Latest news is that Arrivabene may end up at Sauber:

https://www.sportsmole.co.uk/formula-1/ ... 46501.html

It makes me wonder whether his connection with Philip Morris continues or not. If it does, would that indicate tobacco sponsorship for Sauber as well as Ferrari?

Not sure about that, however these two teams are close and this would make it easier to strike a deal I guess. Maybe Kimi was an influence too, who knows?

[Pullrod]

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

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

Vettel is just as good as Alonso & Hamilton.

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

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

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

He surely will not come here to tell you that?
Mattiacci biggest success was to fire Alonso, I give you that but Ferrari was in a very bad place when Arrivabene was appointed and I find it absolutely disrepectful to give all the credits for Ferrari resurgence to either Marchionne o Binotto o Mattiacci.

For once that Ferrari after a long time has a team principal who is ABOVE the drivers unlike the guys before him they are lucky to see his back. Alonso would have performed miles better with a guy like Maurizio Arrivabene who is simply the opposite of Boullier/Zak Brown/Domenicali when he was at Ferrari.

Anyway, now that the worst Ferrari employee is out, I guess starting from this year, Ferrari will win all the championships until the next regulation changes. Good times ahead for the Tifosi.

Will you eat your hat publicly if this happens?

Look at my track record and take a guess. You better don't bet against me

So what will you eat publicly if Ferrari will do worse than with Arrivabene?

[Siao7]

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

Vettel is just as good as Alonso & Hamilton.

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

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

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

He surely will not come here to tell you that?
Mattiacci biggest success was to fire Alonso, I give you that but Ferrari was in a very bad place when Arrivabene was appointed and I find it absolutely disrepectful to give all the credits for Ferrari resurgence to either Marchionne o Binotto o Mattiacci.

For once that Ferrari after a long time has a team principal who is ABOVE the drivers unlike the guys before him they are lucky to see his back. Alonso would have performed miles better with a guy like Maurizio Arrivabene who is simply the opposite of Boullier/Zak Brown/Domenicali when he was at Ferrari.

Anyway, now that the worst Ferrari employee is out, I guess starting from this year, Ferrari will win all the championships until the next regulation changes. Good times ahead for the Tifosi.

Will you eat your hat publicly if this happens?

Look at my track record and take a guess. You better don't bet against me

So what will you eat publicly if Ferrari will do worse than with Arrivabene?

Oh I'm not arguing against you, just having fun, jesting. I'll eat my hat I guess for the fun of it!

I haven't made my mind about Arrivabene yet, I think that he did both good and bad things at Ferrari. I am not sure that they will crumble without him, but not sure that he was the source of all evil either!

[pokerman]

I think "arguably also contributed" covers that, as has already been pointed out...

In response to Vettels mistakes being the biggest contributor to failure, I would argue that this put even more pressure on Ferrari to improve the car, the pattern of Vettel's mistakes were prevalent throughout the season if Vettel was unable to lead a race.

it's a combination of things, as Siao7 pointed out.

Not sure what the "if Vettel was unable to lead a race" has to do with it?

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

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

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

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

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

[Zoue]

In response to Vettels mistakes being the biggest contributor to failure, I would argue that this put even more pressure on Ferrari to improve the car, the pattern of Vettel's mistakes were prevalent throughout the season if Vettel was unable to lead a race.

it's a combination of things, as Siao7 pointed out.

Not sure what the "if Vettel was unable to lead a race" has to do with it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[sandman1347]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Zoue]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grossly mischaracterize? Usual crap from you I see.

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

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

[sandman1347]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grossly mischaracterize? Usual crap from you I see.

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

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

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

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

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

[Zoue]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grossly mischaracterize? Usual crap from you I see.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[aice]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grossly mischaracterize? Usual crap from you I see.

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

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

Didn't Pirelli issue a statement clarifying Räikkönen's tyre woes? Räikkönen's tyre problems were largey self-inflicted. To avoid the potential undercut from Hamilton, Räikkönen pushed too hard, too soon on his fresh tyres after pitting. This was the main trigger for the blistering.

[Zoue]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grossly mischaracterize? Usual crap from you I see.

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

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

Didn't Pirelli issue a statement clarifying Räikkönen's tyre woes? Räikkönen's tyre problems were largey self-inflicted. To avoid the potential undercut from Hamilton, Räikkönen pushed too hard, too soon on his fresh tyres after pitting. This was the main trigger for the blistering.

it was a combination of that and being held behind Bottas, yes. According to Pirelli it was a "perfect storm" of events and not just about Kimi pushing too much too quickly

[sandman1347]

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

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

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

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

Grossly mischaracterize? Usual crap from you I see.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mod Titanium]

lets not go down the usual path here. Thanks