Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Rainmaster

A War Is Coming..

Recommended Posts

Utter rubbish. A decent F1 driver is a maximum of about .5 seconds off the pace of an excellent teammate. Anyone who is more than half a second off his teammate under ideal conditions should just pack up. Picket averages 1.5 iirc. The most hilarious plan is to replace him with Sato. I assume Chanoch Nissany follows next and we will all sit here with our jaws to the floor admiring Alonso's exceptional skills.

It is not that hard to look pretty in a crap car, there are always plenty of excuses available. It's called the Fisichella fallacy.

At least it is a reasoned out post about Alonso.

:thbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bah you Alonso fans are no fun anymore :( I am going to have to start picking on Kimi fans now :(

Could I recommend you Brad and Schumikonen. :D

My last post was sincere, maybe you're right and Nelsinho is no worth but he can't be that bad, can he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And Andretti said 70% car 30% driver, Alonso 80-20, F. Williams 25% driver all while still in buisness.

When Fangio made the 95% remark he was a retired old man disillusioned by the lack of a great champion to blow them all away.

1982 was in fact perhaps the wildest year in F1 history with so many drivers winning, many overtakings and lead changed (post old Monza) that I personally regret F1 strain away from that.

So drivers were more important in Andretti's day than Alonso's? :lol: The point is that different people will assign different percentages because it's not a well-defined statistic. But changes over time in a given person's assessment of the importance of the drivers will be much more reliable.

Fangio, Prost and Alesi all say explicitly that drivers are now much less important than they were. Using your quotes above, we might add Alonso and Andretti to the list.

Agree with you on this one DOF. Drivers still make a lot of difference. For example I am pointing out the difference in performance between two drivers driving the same car, take a look at Kubica and Nick. Kubica is able to warm up his tyres quickly and thus setting better times compared to Nick who is struggling to bring his tyre's temprature up. That does not mean Nick is bad, he will find a way out. The difference in performance between two drivers itself is a proof that drivers make a difference.

Of course they still make a difference. Just not very much. Look at Kimi vs Massa, or Lewis vs Heikki (remembering the latter has been very unlucky). Of course there are counter-examples where one driver is clearly under-performing like DC or NPJr. Then there is your example or Kubi vs Nick. You say that's a good example of drivers making a difference, but they are still right next to each other in the WDC! All Kubi's brilliance has done is put him 4th and Nick 5th in the table. Personally I think that just shows you the scale of the problem: no one has a chance to get between them because the BMW is too quick, even when Nick is struggling temporarily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^

Runs and hides.

Come here you :angry:

Did you know that according to the rules Kimi should have started at the back of the grid at Monaco but thanks to Ferrari International Asistance he did not. And he didn't get penalised for trying to take Sutil up the backside, imagien what would have happened if Sutil had hit a FIArrari car. Kimi is the heir, he is the new cheatmacher, he will soon win 7 championships through cheating and thanks to his lapdog number 2 temmate who is actually faster than him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course they still make a difference. Just not very much. Look at Kimi vs Massa, or Lewis vs Heikki (remembering the latter has been very unlucky). Of course there are counter-examples where one driver is clearly under-performing like DC or NPJr. Then there is your example or Kubi vs Nick. You say that's a good example of drivers making a difference, but they are still right next to each other in the WDC! All Kubi's brilliance has done is put him 4th and Nick 5th in the table. Personally I think that just shows you the scale of the problem: no one has a chance to get between them because the BMW is too quick, even when Nick is struggling temporarily.

Massa already had the reputation of being a fast and agressive driver, it was the consistency that was a doubt. Kimi and Massa are pretty much in equal level so far this seasonI guess, Lewis and Hekki are both good, just as you say the later has been very unlucky. You should remember that Dr.T himself had voiced concerns that Nick must start contributing (I guess he said to the reporters in Monaco). Your assesments on Nick and Kubi is a very good one, Nick is just behind Kubi, but how much points could Nick would have been able to score if he just kept up with Kubi? How much points are BMW losing because of Nick? That itself is a difference. The only reason why Nick is still in F1 is because he is a good driver, I am sure he will improve. But look at the difference between Alonso and NPJR. All NPJR has to do is atleast finish one or two places behind Alonso. I know it is hard for a rookie driver to drive a crapy car that fast, but he already had one season of proper testing to atleast do a decent qualifying lap. Renault have lost a significant amount of points by keeping NPJR. Keeping Fifi would have helped them score some points.

Then in wets, we saw guys like Sutil doing very well in an inferior car (ignoring the fact that he overtook two cars under yellow flags and helped by a superb strategy) in wets, where guys like Kimi with the best car and who is also highly rated sucked a great deal, but we must also remember that the drive through penalty given to Kimi itself contributed to his bad race. I think Drivers still contribute a great deal, if only testing ban is ditched you will see more involvement of drivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Come here you :angry:

Did you know that according to the rules Kimi should have started at the back of the grid at Monaco but thanks to Ferrari International Asistance he did not. And he didn't get penalised for trying to take Sutil up the backside, imagien what would have happened if Sutil had hit a FIArrari car. Kimi is the heir, he is the new cheatmacher, he will soon win 7 championships through cheating and thanks to his lapdog number 2 temmate who is actually faster than him.

:o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey, why not take a look at Alonso and Piquet. Maybe Nelsinho is not that bad, he was ok as a pre-F1 driver. Maybe it is Alonso who makes the difference for the R28.

Alonso and Piquet? :lmavfa:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Utter rubbish. A decent F1 driver is a maximum of about .5 seconds off the pace of an excellent teammate. Anyone who is more than half a second off his teammate under ideal conditions should just pack up. Picket averages 1.5 iirc. The most hilarious plan is to replace him with Sato. I assume Chanoch Nissany follows next and we will all sit here with our jaws to the floor admiring Alonso's exceptional skills.

It is not that hard to look pretty in a crap car, there are always plenty of excuses available. It's called the Fisichella fallacy.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Massa already had the reputation of being a fast and agressive driver, it was the consistency that was a doubt. Kimi and Massa are pretty much in equal level so far this seasonI guess, Lewis and Hekki are both good, just as you say the later has been very unlucky. You should remember that Dr.T himself had voiced concerns that Nick must start contributing (I guess he said to the reporters in Monaco). Your assesments on Nick and Kubi is a very good one, Nick is just behind Kubi, but how much points could Nick would have been able to score if he just kept up with Kubi? How much points are BMW losing because of Nick? That itself is a difference. The only reason why Nick is still in F1 is because he is a good driver, I am sure he will improve. But look at the difference between Alonso and NPJR. All NPJR has to do is atleast finish one or two places behind Alonso. I know it is hard for a rookie driver to drive a crapy car that fast, but he already had one season of proper testing to atleast do a decent qualifying lap. Renault have lost a significant amount of points by keeping NPJR. Keeping Fifi would have helped them score some points.

Then in wets, we saw guys like Sutil doing very well in an inferior car (ignoring the fact that he overtook two cars under yellow flags and helped by a superb strategy) in wets, where guys like Kimi with the best car and who is also highly rated sucked a great deal, but we must also remember that the drive through penalty given to Kimi itself contributed to his bad race. I think Drivers still contribute a great deal, if only testing ban is ditched you will see more involvement of drivers.

No one is denying that if you put me in the same car as Alonso you would conclude that the driver can make a huge difference. No doubt I would make him look even sillier than he usually does himself.

However, if we restrict ourselves to comparing drivers who actually deserve to be in F1, then I don't think the driver is as important as people like to believe. This restriction rules out DC and NPJr. And as I said, the only big difference in pace is between Nick and Kubi and I suspect it is partly temporary. Even so, the difference in pace is overshadowed by the difference between the cars, because Nick is only one place behind. And that is really my whole point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But changes over time in a given person's assessment of the importance of the drivers will be much more reliable.

Fangio, Prost and Alesi all say explicitly that drivers are now much less important than they were. Using your quotes above, we might add Alonso and Andretti to the list.

Fangio was refering to 1982. Prost was one of the 82ers mentioned by Fangio.

Grand Prix racing was never in a scenario where a driver was at least equal to the car and team; for at leat 75% of the people on the grid the situation always hopeless.

Anyway this is Bernie and Max war tread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Fangio said it had got worse by '82. Now Alesi and Prost say it's gotten worse still over the time they've been around. But I agree that the car has always been more important than the driver in F1. Just not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one is denying that if you put me in the same car as Alonso you would conclude that the driver can make a huge difference. No doubt I would make him look even sillier than he usually does himself.

However, if we restrict ourselves to comparing drivers who actually deserve to be in F1, then I don't think the driver is as important as people like to believe. This restriction rules out DC and NPJr. And as I said, the only big difference in pace is between Nick and Kubi and I suspect it is partly temporary. Even so, the difference in pace is overshadowed by the difference between the cars, because Nick is only one place behind. And that is really my whole point.

I agree with you. You mean to say that as long as drivers do the job they are suposed to do, they are not that important?

But there are very few drivers who do their job! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The measures mentioned about the 50s/60s were a joke, tool little and too late.

The displacement reduction to 1.5 litre cars had the exact opposite effect. The 60s saw the fatalities grow to 1920s levels and made the 30s, 40s and 50s look like relatively "quiet" periods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway this is Bernie and Max war tread

.. which goes to show how little we all care... fitting really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The measures mentioned about the 50s/60s were a joke, tool little and too late.

The displacement reduction to 1.5 litre cars had the exact opposite effect. The 60s saw the fatalities grow to 1920s levels and made the 30s, 40s and 50s look like relatively "quiet" periods.

I totally agree with you DOF. Although some of the measures taken prior to the coming (no pun intended) of Max did have apositive affect on safety and some of the measures taken after the coming of Max haven't helped - so it's horses for courses really.

My point is this - the idea of safety was around in F1 long before Max came along and will be retained long after he's gone.

F1 didn't and doesn't need him to make things safer and in fact I would argue that safety development in F1 happens as a natural consequence of progress and deaths, not because Max opened our eyes to it. It's the FIA(the body) not Max(it's head) who have made F1 safer and will continue to do so with someone else sitting at the chairman's desk.

The idea that "Max made F1 safe" is simply poppyc#ck. Max courted the press, did a great job of self-publicity and p**sed a lot of people off.

The true developments in safety came from the unsung scientists and engineers who's ideas Max publicises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>

^

I don't seem to understand how Mosley could pull the ban on the active ride cars.

The result was unsafe cars (deadly even) incapable to engage in wheel-to-wheel-nose-to-tail racing witch were advanced in some areas then production cars and were more expensive and also slower (for a while).

So much did Mosley care for safety that it made Senna proclaim during the 94 winter testing that only a divine miracle would get anyone in piece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I must say, the hobbit talks some serious sense here.

AY!!! :thbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...