Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

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

Quiet One

Alonso's Comments

Recommended Posts

Read it HERE

It's too long to copy it here but it's worth reading. Among other things he says that he is not necessarily leaving Renault at the end of 2009, or 2008 for that matter.

But the interesting bit that caught my eye was this:

The recently-turned 27-year-old has claimed that the current cost cutting-designed engine freeze regulations have penalised those teams like Renault who have perhaps stuck more stringently to the letter of the rules than have done others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think FIA wants another scandal...

But, sure, Briatore started this and now Alonso has followed suit. He shouldn't have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mclaren engine with 2+ years of development has just been passed by the FIA as legal. It seems to me that Renault have scaled back the development of their engine signaficantly compared to the others ...cost cutting perhaps. The flip side to the argument is that Redbull seem to be getting more out of their chassis (with the renault engine) than the donor team...is the engine therefore really the issue or the chassis, aero etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Mclaren engine with 2+ years of development has just been passed by the FIA as legal. It seems to me that Renault have scaled back the development of their engine signaficantly compared to the others ...cost cutting perhaps. The flip side to the argument is that Redbull seem to be getting more out of their chassis (with the renault engine) than the donor team...is the engine therefore really the issue or the chassis, aero etc.

My exact thoughts when I read the article. I think Renault performance was hurt by many factors: the loss of Michelin, the loss of V10, the engine freeze...

The only problem they partially addressed was the brake wear. But they are struggling with the car's balance, tire temperatures and actual aerodynamic gain.

Oh, well. I still have faith in Renault...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My exact thoughts when I read the article. I think Renault performance was hurt by many factors: the loss of Michelin, the loss of V10, the engine freeze...

The only problem they partially addressed was the brake wear. But they are struggling with the car's balance, tire temperatures and actual aerodynamic gain.

Oh, well. I still have faith in Renault...

We have Raikkonen also complaining about the bridgestones, the competition between 2 tyre manufacturers took the quality of tyres to another level, now Bridgestone can just do what they want (well, safety aside).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have Raikkonen also complaining about the bridgestones, the competition between 2 tyre manufacturers took the quality of tyres to another level, now Bridgestone can just do what they want (well, safety aside).

I absolutely agree.plus,the competition between michelin and bridgestone made the races more exciting,in my opinion.for example, i can remember that back in 2006(fernando-michael battle) the tyres made the difference in many races.if one track favoured the michelins/bridgestones,then fernando/michael respectively had an edge.i think it was better before the introduction of the new rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have Raikkonen also complaining about the bridgestones, the competition between 2 tyre manufacturers took the quality of tyres to another level, now Bridgestone can just do what they want (well, safety aside).

I read that Michelin/Bridgestone had developed more than 200 compounds while they were fighting for the championships in the past. Now Bridgestone is lazy, there's no need for R&D... Tyres suck, they cut costs but they lose any chance of making money through competition, advertising, promotion...

Those brilliant brains in Formula One...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drivers cannot be one dimensional, they have to embrace change and prove their ability regardless. Michael Schumacher had to endure a raft of changes as a driver yet he always managed to excell. Nando, Kimi, Button & Kubica were very fast on Michelins and not so great on the Bridgestones...I would argue that the tyres flattered the drivers rather than there being an issue with the tyre, per se.

Given a level playing field the cream will always rise to the top

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed, but they suck for all the drivers so the competition is fair.

Yup. I'd rather stick to the one tire provider formula, even if it does not suit Renault. It was frusstrating when the tire difference alone meant at least .4 secs.

(We are agreeing too much, Mr.Fed Up, I am worried) :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed, but they suck for all the drivers so the competition is fair.

Now that you've mentioned it, I have to say no, the competition is not fair. Hamilton drives a McLaren while Alonso drives a Renault.

Formula One is not about fair competion so your comment is not valid no matter you were talking about tyres, engines, gearboxes, wings...

Your comment: Tyres suck but they suck for all the drivers so the competition is fair.

Other comments: Engines suck but they suck for all the drivers so the competition is fair. Gearboxes suck but they suck for all the drivers so the competition is fair... I precisely like Formula One because they develop every single element to the limit and beyond, included tyres. Standard ECU sucks so the competition sucks. Tyres suck so the competition sucks. I don't like too much aerodynamics, wings and winglets because they affect too much any car behind, it's like spilling oil from the rear while you drive. Aerodynamics suck so the competition suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now that you've mentioned it, I have to say no, the competition is not fair. Hamilton drives a McLaren while Alonso drives a Renault.

Formula One is not about fair competion so your comment is not valid no matter you were talking about tyres, engines, gearboxes, wings...

Your comment: Tyres suck but they suck for all the drivers so the competition is fair.

Other comments: Engines suck but they suck for all the drivers so the competition is fair. Gearboxes suck but they suck for all the drivers so the competition is fair... I precisely like Formula One because they develop every single element to the limit and beyond, included tyres. Standard ECU sucks so the competition sucks. Tyres suck so the competition sucks. I don't like too much aerodynamics, wings and winglets because they affect too much any car behind, it's like spilling oil from the rear while you drive. Aerodynamics suck so the competition suck.

If you can't see that equal tyres for all the drivers is fair that is your problem. A Bridgestone tyre for a Renault is the same Bridgestone tyre for a Mclaren, Ferrari, Red Bull, Honda etc. The engines are not the same, nor the chassis, exhaust, electronics, gearboxes, even fuel.

If you say the tyres suck, you may be right, but they are the same for all the drivers and teams, so the driver/team that limits the downsides of the tyres will come out of top.

Not very difficult concept to grasp TBH

:huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you can't see that equal tyres for all the drivers is fair that is your problem. A Bridgestone tyre for a Renault is the same Bridgestone tyre for a Mclaren, Ferrari, Red Bull, Honda etc. The engines are not the same, nor the chassis, exhaust, electronics, gearboxes, even fuel.

If you say the tyres suck, you may be right, but they are the same for all the drivers and teams, so the driver/team that limits the downsides of the tyres will come out of top.

Not very difficult concept to grasp TBH

:huh:

If you read my post and you can't see what I mean that is your problem.

If the engines are not the same, nor chassis, exhaust, gearboxes, wings... Why the hell sECU and tyres should be the same for all? And I'm not sure fuel is the same for every team, I would say it is not.

Formula One should be based on a competition in every single element of the sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drivers cannot be one dimensional, they have to embrace change and prove their ability regardless. Michael Schumacher had to endure a raft of changes as a driver yet he always managed to excell. Nando, Kimi, Button & Kubica were very fast on Michelins and not so great on the Bridgestones...I would argue that the tyres flattered the drivers rather than there being an issue with the tyre, per se.

Given a level playing field the cream will always rise to the top

Kimi won his first WC the first year he drove with Bridgestomes... a WC that Alonso would have won (it hurts to say it but it's true) also on his first season with bridgestones.

And this season, Kubica remains the most consistent driver _with_ bridgestones and is only 8 points behind the leader (while on a clearly inferior car).

Drivers have adapted and have done so exceptionally quickly considering.

Beyond that, you are free to explain how the competition is now any better because of this or any other restriction. I, for one, don't see the improvement on the track. Those with better cars still have the edge and it remains as "levelled" as it's always been... the only real difference I see is that now there is significantly less room for innovative ways to stick it up to the teams with the giganormous budgets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Fed Up on this one. Tires were too much of a factor in the last seasons. You ended up depending on the tire/track combination more than on the car.

Many agreed that most of the later of Ferrari's WDCs were almost 50% a Bridgestone accomplishment.

Now it's almost all up to each team (besides the idotic restrictions, of course). And I like it better that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm with Fed Up on this one. Tires were too much of a factor in the last seasons. You ended up depending on the tire/track combination more than on the car.

Many agreed that most of the later of Ferrari's WDCs were almost 50% a Bridgestone accomplishment.

Now it's almost all up to each team (besides the idotic restrictions, of course). And I like it better that way.

Yep. There lies one of the dangers... If one imagines that now the competition is more "fair", then previous ones are necessarily less so. Are we ready to discredit the champions of the past? And to do so in order to defend a single brand of orange juice?

The point of competition (as in tyre competition, for example) is that teams can _choose_ which way to go. After all, no one forced any team to go with Michelins or with Bridgestones [EDIT] until now [/EDIT].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many agreed that most of the later of Ferrari's WDCs were almost 50% a Bridgestone accomplishment.

No way, you have to look very shortly to think that way and I don't even think that was the case for Renault and Michelin. They had the right people working in the right direction: engineers, designers, mechanics and drivers. They had the budget to achieve their goals, they had the always necessary bit of luck. No, the whole picture is much more complex than that and at the same time simpler to explain their success.

I can't see the problem having more than one tyre supplier but I can see a problem having just one supplier for all. It is Formula One, every team has a different budget, a different sponsor, different engines, different drivers... One x thing for all is not good for the competition, you name it tyres, sECU, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My exact thoughts when I read the article. I think Renault performance was hurt by many factors: the loss of Michelin, the loss of V10, the engine freeze...

I think Renault's performance in 2005-06 was probably an abnormality caused primarily by their links with Michelin, coupled with some other factors such as other teams' mistakes/poor reliability and having a very good driver. They will improve from where they are now, but without Michelin they won't win another championship for a long time.

Those brilliant brains in Formula One...

:huh:

Yup. I'd rather stick to the one tire provider formula, even if it does not suit Renault. It was frusstrating when the tire difference alone meant at least .4 secs.

Ahhh I knew you were a closet spec-ist. And of course you are right.

Beyond that, you are free to explain how the competition is now any better because of this or any other restriction. I, for one, don't see the improvement on the track. Those with better cars still have the edge and it remains as "levelled" as it's always been... the only real difference I see is that now there is significantly less room for innovative ways to stick it up to the teams with the giganormous budgets.

I think F1 has gradually become more "levelled". Last year's drivers' championship was the closest ever, with 3 drivers covered by 1 point after 17 races. This year's might even surpass it: as you know, we currently have 4 drivers from 3 different teams within 10 points of each other after 10 races.

It hasn't happened as fast as I would have liked because most people dismiss Max's excellent ideas for closing up the field, in favour of pointless and not very impressive "innovation", about which no one on this site understands very much, partly because it's too complicated and partly because it's confidential. Unless of course you work for another team, in which case you will probably know all about what other teams are doing...

The picture is further complicated by the fact that budgets keep rising at a ridiculous pace, which will of course obscure the good work the (far too limited) technical restrictions are doing.

Yep. There lies one of the dangers... If one imagines that now the competition is more "fair", then previous ones are necessarily less so. Are we ready to discredit the champions of the past? And to do so in order to defend a single brand of orange juice?

The point of competition (as in tyre competition, for example) is that teams can _choose_ which way to go. After all, no one forced any team to go with Michelins or with Bridgestones [EDIT] until now [/EDIT].

I sure am in favour of discrediting past WDC/WCCs. But even if you're not, I don't see how that is a good argument to refute evidence-based arguments regarding the effect tyres actually have. And again, the choice argument is a bit of a simplistic one. It presupposes all kinds of things that are highly unrealistic: do tyre manufacturers work equally closely with each team etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:huh:

Max.

It presupposes all kinds of things that are highly unrealistic: do tyre manufacturers work equally closely with each team etc.

The choice argument? Does Bridgestone work equally closely with each team now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beyond that, you are free to explain how the competition is now any better because of this or any other restriction. I, for one, don't see the improvement on the track. Those with better cars still have the edge and it remains as "levelled" as it's always been... the only real difference I see is that now there is significantly less room for innovative ways to stick it up to the teams with the giganormous budgets.

True.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My exact thoughts when I read the article. I think Renault performance was hurt by many factors: the loss of Michelin, the loss of V10, the engine freeze...

The only problem they partially addressed was the brake wear. But they are struggling with the car's balance, tire temperatures and actual aerodynamic gain.

Oh, well. I still have faith in Renault...

Look whos talking about F1! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Er...wasn't I supposed to? :unsure:

How could you Andres?

I forgot to tell you. There is this guy in my class who is from Argentina, his name is Augustin, and is a real funny clown. We expected his design skill to be the same, but he is one bloody good designer, probably the best in class, gives me a lot of advice, has helped me a lot in the begning of my course.

He does remind me of you :P , usualy talks funny things, but you do have a lot of valid points. (Except when it comes to F*******)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...