Alonso Breaks His Toys

[Autumnpuma 0]

Like the previous thread you are AGAIN making an incorrect assumption...

You assume that had Alonso not driven as fast as possible his car would have lasted the race. It may not have, it may still have exploded, he had downshift problems from the start.

You don't know, you can never know - so stop assuming you do.

No. Deal with it.

His team will have told him to continue exactly as he was - they will be happy with him just as Red Bull will have been happy that Vettel drove exactly as he did.

Listen - if you were sat in a car with a sketchy engine/downshift/no problem at all (in Vettel's case) what would you do?

Option 1: Drive slower and give up any chance of points?

WRONG - what's the point of racing for no points? your car might have lasted if you'd driven faster and gained some points. Your crew think you're an idiot.

Option 2: Drive fast enough to gain a few points?

WRONG - how many points is enough? what's to say you couldn't have gone faster and got more? what's to say your engine won't still explode and you'll still get none?

Option 3: Drive fast and try to get as many points as you can?

RIGHT - think about it.

Considering the championship is all about amassing the most points by the end of the season, I would do Option 1. Think about it. Option 1 carries more of a guarantee than Option 3.

You sit there and say (with all important hindsight) that he drove 'too hard' and broke his car. So if you were driving the car, I assume you could tell me exactly how fast he should be driving so that his car explodes just meters over the finish line and collects the maximum points possible yes?

Bollocks.

If all the teams, F1 proffesionals, commentators and the drivers themselves see absolutely nothing wrong in what Alonso or Vettel did, then why do some forum monkeys think they know better?

Now can we stop trying to blame drivers for mechanical failures please. Let's put both these dumb threads out of their misery and shoot them.

:mf_tongue::mf_tongue::mf_tongue::mf_tongue:

Clearly, holding station instead of pushing for a pass was the best option for points.

It's interesting that I've had some banter back and forth with you on this forum but on this topic your normal level head has become...a bit unstable. Why is that? Why have you descended to calling me a 'forum monkey' and putting multiple 'mf_tongue' thingamabobbers in your post?

It could be that my stance on this is based on the pragmatic reality of winning a championship in today's F1 and it conflicts with your idealistic perception of what racing should be like. If we're talking about the balls-out passion a driver has for racing, that is one thing, and I would probably agree with you on most points, but if we're talking about how to win a championship, that's another thing entirely and the two do not always go hand in hand.

Take my advice and accept that your ideal is a good one, but that it isn't reality when discussing how to win a championship and you'll find you don't have to resort to petty insults to prove your point.

Back to the topic. I think I've explained my stance pretty clearly and I'm happy to let this topic drop. The seed, as it were, has been planted.

[UrKo 0]

Considering the championship is all about amassing the most points by the end of the season, I would do Option 1. Think about it. Option 1 carries more of a guarantee than Option 3.

Although ur right about that, still i would rather see each driver to go for option 3..but thats from a spectator point of view. From the driver point of view, option 1 is the best solution.

However, do we want that? I mean, do we really want to watch drivers driving like they're headed to the store to pick up some snacks?? I say no. I want to see drivers doing exactly want alonso did. fight to the end. Now if he losses the championship by 2pts of course he would immediatly say i lost it in Malaysia, or coz the season just started it may be he lost it on some other track.

Think about it. Is this his final mechanical failure of the season? I hope so, but u never know. Will he made a mistake in the future that will cause him to retire? i hope not, but again u never know. so at the end of the day, me as a F1 fan i want to see drivers fighting even if their car has some problem or not.

So option 3 is the way F1 should be orientated

[Schumikonen 2]

Although ur right about that, still i would rather see each driver to go for option 3..but thats from a spectator point of view. From the driver point of view, option 1 is the best solution.

However, do we want that? I mean, do we really want to watch drivers driving like they're headed to the store to pick up some snacks?? I say no. I want to see drivers doing exactly want alonso did. fight to the end. Now if he losses the championship by 2pts of course he would immediatly say i lost it in Malaysia, or coz the season just started it may be he lost it on some other track.

Think about it. Is this his final mechanical failure of the season? I hope so, but u never know. Will he made a mistake in the future that will cause him to retire? i hope not, but again u never know. so at the end of the day, me as a F1 fan i want to see drivers fighting even if their car has some problem or not.

So option 3 is the way F1 should be orientated

We want drivers to fight to the end but drivers should know when to ease the pace in order to preserve the car, remember that we are talking about a car that had a problem from the beggining, with no problems at all, that would be the idea situation, to fight for the best position but that was not the case and that is what we are talking about.

[UrKo 0]

We want drivers to fight to the end but drivers should know when to ease the pace in order to preserve the car, remember that we are talking about a car that had a problem from the beggining, with no problems at all, that would be the idea situation, to fight for the best position but that was not the case and that is what we are talking about.

ur right, but i cant settle for this. Fia has destroyed F1 with these stupid rules. Vettel had to slow down because of the stupid rules not because he was hoping to get some points! Alonso did opposite

So a true F1 driver would fight no matter how bad the engine sounds, etc...

[Autumnpuma 0]

What F1 should be. Hm. I'm not arguing that point with this topic. I'm pointing out what strategy best wins a championship. It's not an exact strategy, but if a driver tries to follow it, he'll pick up the most points by season's end and, like magic, win the championship. If a driver's goal is to push like hell, that driver should realize that the championship may elude him, though he'll likely be loved by millions of fans.

It's really a simple and time-tested strategy. Push when you need to, back off when you don't need to push and, if you know of a problem with the car, try to avoid making it worse. The underlining goal of all this is to finish in the points. Period. Amen.

[Schumikonen 2]

ur right, but i cant settle for this. Fia has destroyed F1 with these stupid rules. Vettel had to slow down because of the stupid rules not because he was hoping to get some points! Alonso did opposite

So a true F1 driver would fight no matter how bad the engine sounds, etc...

That's not the smarter thing to do, that's only the way if you are in the last race and there is no tomorrow, especially now with the engine limited to 8(I think) per season, this is a championship and a good driver should always think and be able to see the whole picture, Ferrari already changed an engine in Australia, I guess they used the same engine to race in Barhain so they used a new one for this race, if that's the case Alonso only have 5 remaining new engines for the rest of the season after that they will face penalty or will have to race with used engines, right now if my calculations are right Alonso have almost thrown to the trash his chances of winning this WDC.

[Schumikonen 2]

What F1 should be. Hm. I'm not arguing that point with this topic. I'm pointing out what strategy best wins a championship. It's not an exact strategy, but if a driver tries to follow it, he'll pick up the most points by season's end and, like magic, win the championship. If a driver's goal is to push like hell, that driver should realize that the championship may elude him, though he'll likely be loved by millions of fans.

It's really a simple and time-tested strategy. Push when you need to, back off when you don't need to push and, if you know of a problem with the car, try to avoid making it worse. The underlining goal of all this is to finish in the points. Period. Amen.

Well said

[Schumikonen 2]

ur right, but i cant settle for this. Fia has destroyed F1 with these stupid rules. Vettel had to slow down because of the stupid rules not because he was hoping to get some points! Alonso did opposite

So a true F1 driver would fight no matter how bad the engine sounds, etc...

http://www.totalf1.com/full_story/view/336146/Alguersuari_thankful_to_Schumacher/

Alguersuari thankful to Schumacher

By Jonathan Noble Tuesday, April 6th 2010, 09:34 GMT

Jaime Alguersuari has thanked Michael Schumacher for giving him the race-craft knowledge that helped him earn his maiden Formula 1 points in Malaysia.

The Scuderia Toro Rosso driver took the first points of his career with a strong drive in Sepang on Sunday - and believes that it was the understanding he got from racing Schumacher wheel-to-wheel in Australia that helped him deliver this time out.

"Definitely," Alguersuari told AUTOSPORT when asked if the Schumacher lessons had helped him in Malaysia.

"Michael showed me the way to drive a Formula 1 car on the limit, with other drivers. This was very important. To finish the Australian Grand Prix and to fight against him showed me the way - like how to be aggressive with other people.

"The race in Malaysia worked out like that with [Vitaly] Petrov and Nico [Hulkenberg]. They were amazing fights, both were clean, and that is the way to do it in Formula 1."

Alguersuari in particular thought that understanding the level of aggression necessary in the race was a key factor – especially when he was wheel-to-wheel with Nico Hulkenberg.

"At that moment I was just thinking about the points. It was the same feeling I had with Michael when we both made contact," he said. "This is at the art of racing and it is very nice – but at the end you do it because you need the points. Today it worked out for me."

Although delighted with his first points, Alguersuari thinks it may take until the second half of the year for him to finally start delivering much-improved performances.

"There is still a lot to come from my side," he said. "To know how the tyres degrade – how the option and prime behave. You come to a new track, you do the qualifying and everything is different, very difficult.

"But I am really expecting a lot when I come to the European track and I go to the places I know because I will be able to show my performance at 100 per cent. My knowledge of the car will be much higher, so I am expecting a lot for the second half of the season."

See this is what I mean, a driver has to be aggresive but just when he has to be and that will take you to the part when you should not be aggresive but take care of your car in order to take it to complete the race.

[AleHop 0]

1.- All the grief started on Saturday.

2.- The problem was there from the warm-up lap.

3.- If the team had thought the engine would blow up they'd have told him to park it immediately.

3.- If he finished the race, he'd get 5 grid penalty for a gear-box replacement.

4.- As I said with Vettel, a fragile car and a damn good driver doesn't mix well.

If Alonso lose the WDC or Ferrari lose the WCC because of 2 points they might think about Malaysia, but mainly about qualifying. Having in mind we were talking about a top team and a top driver they had only two options:

1.- Park the car very early in the race

2.- Race

[Schumikonen 2]

1.- All the grief started on Saturday.

2.- The problem was there from the warm-up lap.

3.- If the team had thought the engine would blow up they'd have told him to park it immediately.

3.- If he finished the race, he'd get 5 grid penalty for a gear-box replacement.

4.- As I said with Vettel, a fragile car and a damn good driver doesn't mix well.

If Alonso lose the WDC or Ferrari lose the WCC because of 2 points they might think about Malaysia, but mainly about qualifying. Having in mind we were talking about a top team and a top driver they had only two options:

1.- Park the car very early in the race

2.- Race

But with the engine limited to 8 for a season they could loose both championship because of Malaysia for more than two points, this race could cost a lot more that those two points lost in that race, grid penalties for extra engines could be very clostly.

[yurp 0]

Hi fella - okay - calm now

No. Deal with it.

Come on - proper answers please.

Considering the championship is all about amassing the most points by the end of the season, I would do Option 1. Think about it. Option 1 carries more of a guarantee than Option 3.

This is a self contradictory sentence.

Option 1 means staying in 16th (after lap 1 when the downshift problem occured).

So how is that better for your points tally?

It guarantees that you get no points. It doesn't guarantee your engine - that might still explode anyway.

I just can't fathom how this is a good idea or how it would be better for the WDC. Please explain.

Clearly, holding station instead of pushing for a pass was the best option for points.

Holding station in 16th place (when the problem started) is better for your points tally? Same as above.

It's interesting that I've had some banter back and forth with you on this forum but on this topic your normal level head has become...a bit unstable. Why is that? Why have you descended to calling me a 'forum monkey' and putting multiple 'mf_tongue' thingamabobbers in your post?

It could be that my stance on this is based on the pragmatic reality of winning a championship in today's F1 and it conflicts with your idealistic perception of what racing should be like. If we're talking about the balls-out passion a driver has for racing, that is one thing, and I would probably agree with you on most points, but if we're talking about how to win a championship, that's another thing entirely and the two do not always go hand in hand.

Take my advice and accept that your ideal is a good one, but that it isn't reality when discussing how to win a championship and you'll find you don't have to resort to petty insults to prove your point.

Back to the topic. I think I've explained my stance pretty clearly and I'm happy to let this topic drop. The seed, as it were, has been planted.

I admittedly get frustrated when someone as intelligent as yourself refuses to drop an indefensible position. I expect it from a religious nut or certain other members of TF1, but you're an intelligent person and with intelligence, I assume you have the ability to look more objectively at the evidence and realise that your posts have been ill informed. It is a sign of strength, not weekness, to be able to accept that you've been wrong mistaken.

(Forum monkeys (plural), not just you. We are all forum monkeys - I use it as a term acknowledging the stupidity of all of us in thinking we know best.)

I shall attempt to keep my frustration under control from now on

[THE IMPORTANT BIT]

Now - to the crux of it - please read this time because the red sentence above shows you haven't understood my point...

Driving slower to conserve a car in a non-point scoring position is NOT "based on the pragmatic reality of winning a championship". I have been trying to explain to you that your own argument is not the one you think it is.

Second, my argument is NOT the argument that you have perceived it to be either. By driving as fast as you can and going for maximum points, I am following the most pragmatic route to gaining most points and therefore the championship. You keep thinking that I'm in favour of driving fast because I like to see drivers going fast (which is true), but that is misunderstanding my point. Driving fast is the most pragmatic way of winning the WCC.

Why?

First - non one knows how hard to drive a car so it will explode just over the finish line (you have ignored this point from 2 previous posts of mine). So it is impossible to know how hard a driver can push a fragile (or healthy) car.

If it doesn't explode and you've driven slowly, then you've wasted the oportunity to get more points - not the pragmatic way to win a championship.

If you drive slowly in a non-points position, then you aren't going to get any points - not the pragmatic way to win a championship.

If you think he should drive fast until a points position and then drive slowly, then how do you set the line at how far to push and when to slow down? This is unknowable. You might push too hard and explode, you might push too little and miss out on gettable points.

If you drive as fast as possible, the possibility of pushing too hard and exploding is still there, but the possibility of missing out on gettable points because you've driven slowly is not.

Ergo - logic dictates that driving as fast as possible is the best strategy with a healthy OR wounded car. It maximises the chance of gaining points and therefore the WDC.

The whole premis on which you base you argument is false. You have not understood the logic of your own stance and therefore the outcome of such a "strategy". More importantly you haven't realised that such a "strategy" is actually impossible (without hindsight) to run since any healthy car could explode at any time, any damaged car could explode at any time and no one can know when. Equally no one can ever know (before hand) how hard a driver can push a car and not have it explode until after the race.

Put simply -

You are suggesting that a driver should drive according to unknowable variables.

An analogy -

I want you to heat a pan of water on your hob to exactly x degrees.

If it is over x, you loose.

If it is under x, you loose.

I'm not going to tell you what x is.

Do you see how impossible your "strategy" is until you know what x is?

i.e. until after the race is run.

Last - if you had been Alonso with a downshift problem when placed 16th on lap one, what would you do? If you say 'drive at under 100%' then tell me what percentage you would drive at - it's an unknowable figure until after the race.

[/THE IMPORTANT BIT]

Hope you enjoyed all that.

Oh yes - and I like the best.

:mf_tongue::mf_tongue::mf_tongue::mf_tongue::mf_tongue:

[Rainmaster 7]

Obviously I agree with Twatbag on this one; I mentioned most (all?) of those points in my post in the other thread but I didn't get a reply. Anyhow, in this case I think the 'puma is letting his ego cloud his judgement slightly - he committed himself to an unreasonable position and he doesn't want to go back on it.

Of course none of this really matters because I'm using a new font.

Forum monkey, over and out.

[yurp 0]

Obviously I agree with Twatbag on this one

Forum monkey, over and out.

Your banana is in the post.

[maure 1]

You mean you're a masochist? XD

Rather the opposite. One could probably (yet erroneously) say that I'm an hedonist.

[maure 1]

What F1 should be. Hm. I'm not arguing that point with this topic. I'm pointing out what strategy best wins a championship. It's not an exact strategy, but if a driver tries to follow it, he'll pick up the most points by season's end and, like magic, win the championship. If a driver's goal is to push like hell, that driver should realize that the championship may elude him, though he'll likely be loved by millions of fans.

It's really a simple and time-tested strategy. Push when you need to, back off when you don't need to push and, if you know of a problem with the car, try to avoid making it worse. The underlining goal of all this is to finish in the points. Period. Amen.

All true... sadly.

Besides which, Alonso's engine failure was not a certain to happen. In hindsight anyone can claim so. But on the spot, Ferrari and Alonso seem to think it was worth to push... which is why they told him to do so... and they were nearly right. The engine gave up only a few laps from the flag.

The amussing thing, ultimately, is how much effort the lewisterics are putting into a claim that is absurd from the get-go. That is reason enough (for me) to smile.

[maure 1]

1.- All the grief started on Saturday.

2.- The problem was there from the warm-up lap.

3.- If the team had thought the engine would blow up they'd have told him to park it immediately.

3.- If he finished the race, he'd get 5 grid penalty for a gear-box replacement.

4.- As I said with Vettel, a fragile car and a damn good driver doesn't mix well.

If Alonso lose the WDC or Ferrari lose the WCC because of 2 points they might think about Malaysia, but mainly about qualifying. Having in mind we were talking about a top team and a top driver they had only two options:

1.- Park the car very early in the race

2.- Race

Point 4 is not necessarily so. All else on the money.

[Autumnpuma 0]

I see no place for this debate to go but downwards. I have stated my point and I firmly believe I'm right. The opposition has as a similar stance. At this point, I agree to disagree.

EDIT: Alright, I'll respond once more to the comments above despite my belief that it will be useless. I see that we're both making each other's arguments seem extreme.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Come on - proper answers please.

That was the proper answer to what you typed.

This is a self contradictory sentence.

Option 1 means staying in 16th (after lap 1 when the downshift problem occured).

So how is that better for your points tally?

It guarantees that you get no points. It doesn't guarantee your engine - that might still explode anyway.

I just can't fathom how this is a good idea or how it would be better for the WDC. Please explain.

Where Alonso should have held station was behind Button. It was obvious that trying to pass Button was more difficult for him and his injured car than passing any other driver had been. That should have been a clue to him to back off and bag the points he could bag. The probability of his engine blowing up increased as each lap ticked off and where the ballsy pushing was good when the car was fresh and the competition was easy fodder, the situation changed as the race progressed. Alonso even set a few useless fast laps while behind Button. I say useless because he would have seen that Jenson was driving a very wide car and that he would be nigh impossible to pass. Too much risk for too little gain.

Driving slower to conserve a car in a non-point scoring position is NOT based on the pragmatic reality of winning a championship". I have been trying to explain to you that your own argument is not the one you think it is.

My argument isn't the one you think it is either. We were discussing Alonso's DNF and the pushing he made just prior to it. We were not discussing lap 1.

Second, my argument is NOT the argument that you have perceived it to be either. By driving as fast as you can and going for maximum points, I am following the most pragmatic route to gaining most points and therefore the championship. You keep thinking that I'm in favour of driving fast because I like to see drivers going fast (which is true), but that is misunderstanding my point. Driving fast is the most pragmatic way of winning the WCC.

OK. I've painted your position as extreme. My apologies for that. When you say By driving as fast as you can and going for maximum points we in fact agree. Re-read my posts carefully and you'll see that I'm saying the same thing. Push when you need to is the same as driving as fast as you can. We both agree that a driver must go for maximum points. However, what that maximum is depends on what the car is capable of. Some mechanical issues a driver just can't predict. Vettel's spark plug failure is an example. But in Alonso's case he had a bum car from the start. In that situation, you fight to get into a points position without regard to breaking your car and keep pushing until you come across a driver like Button that was just not passable with an injured car. Right there you've got some points and should be content with that.

First - non one knows how hard to drive a car so it will explode just over the finish line (you have ignored this point from 2 previous posts of mine). So it is impossible to know how hard a driver can push a fragile (or healthy) car.

I didn't ignore it, I judged it to be too simplistic. While it's true no driver can know when or if a car will explode, it's also true that the probability of an engine failure would increase while driving a notoriously hot-running Ferrari in a swelteringly hot Malaysian afternoon being driven abnormally to compensate for a gearbox issue in the hot air right behind Button. In such circumstances, it's impossible not to know that you shouldn't push the car to pass Button.

Also, when you say "So it is impossible to know how hard a driver can push a fragile (or healthy) car." You are quite wrong. Drivers do this all the time. Hell, I bet even you do it with your own car.

If it doesn't explode and you've driven slowly, then you've wasted the oportunity to get more points - not the pragmatic way to win a championship.

I agree. Again, here's what I've said "Push when you need to." Need being in the points. Knowing when to push and when to back off is a unique knowledge that some driver have more of than others. Alonso is usually a very keen driver in this respect, but I suspect he said 'F uck it' and agreed with the team's call to push and just drove. His post-race interview said something to that effect as well.

If you drive slowly in a non-points position, then you aren't going to get any points - not the pragmatic way to win a championship.

Thank you Captain Obvious. I don't know where this came from...nobody has said any such argument.

---------

continued in next post...why the hell is there a limit to the amount of quotable texts I can use?

[Autumnpuma 0]

If you think he should drive fast until a points position and then drive slowly, then how do you set the line at how far to push and when to slow down? This is unknowable. You might push too hard and explode, you might push too little and miss out on gettable points.

This isn't unknowable. As I said earlier, when you're in a car with a damaged gearbox and having to alter your throttle and braking to compensate for that, you push until you're in the points then, when it became clear that passing Button was going to be next to impossible (Button was always going to be quicker on exit than Alonso's damaged Ferrari) that is the 'line'. None of this applies to a healthy car...and I would think that obvious.

If you drive as fast as possible, the possibility of pushing too hard and exploding is still there, but the possibility of missing out on gettable points because you've driven slowly is not.

Ergo - logic dictates that driving as fast as possible is the best strategy with a healthy OR wounded car. It maximises the chance of gaining points and therefore the WDC.

Have you ever worked with machines? If so, you must be bad at your job. The probability of a damaged machine breaking is greater when put under stress than the probability of a healthy machine breaking when put under the same stress. Possibility and probability are not the same. Possibility means 'is a thing able to happen'. Probability means 'how likely is that thing to happen'. While it's possible a healthy car's engine will explode while racing it, the probability is low. We know this from many, many races with these engines. But an engine that's having to cope with Alonso being creative with the throttle and brake has a greater probability of failing...especially in the later stages of a race.

The whole premis on which you base you argument is false. You have not understood the logic of your own stance and therefore the outcome of such a "strategy". More importantly you haven't realised that such a "strategy" is actually impossible (without hindsight) to run since any healthy car could explode at any time, any damaged car could explode at any time and no one can know when. Equally no one can ever know (before hand) how hard a driver can push a car and not have it explode until after the race.

Actually, I think you've completely misunderstood my argument. As to the rest of your statement, I've explained it again above.

Put simply -

You are suggesting that a driver should drive according to unknowable variables.

In some situations the driver doesn't know the variables and in some situations he does. Saying that a driver is clueless of how his car is behaving in every situation, thereby giving him unknowable variables all the time, is not correct.

An analogy -

I want you to heat a pan of water on your hob to exactly x degrees.

If it is over x, you loose.

If it is under x, you loose.

I'm not going to tell you what x is.

Do you see how impossible your "strategy" is until you know what x is?

i.e. until after the race is run.

X=fighting too hard to pass Button when you've got an injured car and you're in the points. And I think everyone knew that before the race was run. I wonder how many people weren't surprised that Alonso's engine blew up? Brundle wasn't.

Last - if you had been Alonso with a downshift problem when placed 16th on lap one, what would you do? If you say 'drive at under 100%' then tell me what percentage you would drive at - it's an unknowable figure until after the race.

My argument was never all or nothing. Even when talking about Vettel. I clearly said that drivers should push when needed. I would say starting in 16th requires pushing, wouldn't you? However, driving many, many laps behind Button and seeing that torquey Merc engine speed away on exit lap after lap....well, with an injured car and points in the bag, perhaps that's where you dial it back and drive it home.

Hope you enjoyed all that.

Actually, I didn't.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Obviously I agree with Twatbag on this one; I mentioned most (all?) of those points in my post in the other thread but I didn't get a reply. Anyhow, in this case I think the 'puma is letting his ego cloud his judgement slightly - he committed himself to an unreasonable position and he doesn't want to go back on it.

Of course none of this really matters because I'm using a new font.

Forum monkey, over and out.

Both you and Adam have pushed me to the extreme side of the argument and then based your own responses off of that. Why is it that Freakazoid and Andres understood what I was saying and you two didn't?

Besides which, Alonso's engine failure was not a certain to happen. In hindsight anyone can claim so. But on the spot, Ferrari and Alonso seem to think it was worth to push... which is why they told him to do so... and they were nearly right. The engine gave up only a few laps from the flag.

I know. Here's my initial posting:

I like that I'm getting people to think about this issue. It is a fact that Alonso's balls-to-the-wall driving broke his car. So the loss of a few points is on his shoulders. It may matter later on.

From his position, fighting for just a few points, I'd say the risk to the car was worth it. If Fernando was leading the race, or at least had second or third on offer, I'd say he was stupid to push his machine.

Only the points tally at the end of the year will determine what Alonso's technical mistake has cost him, but it would be more true to say that Ferrari's qualifying goof cost him far more than his pushing did.

I bolded the relevant part.

The amussing thing, ultimately, is how much effort the lewisterics are putting into a claim that is absurd from the get-go. That is reason enough (for me) to smile.

You err. I happen to respect Alonso's racecraft quite well. In fact, it wasn't so long ago that I was his only supporter on this here forum, taking on all comers about his talent. And I'll do so again, if needs be. His past cheating does still bug me, though.'

I've also criticized Lewis from time to time.

[yurp 0]

Okay AutumnPuma - I'm going to simply concentrate on what you say you mean using the following quotes - I don't think I'm quoting out of context, but correct me if I am...

1 - Again, here's what I've said "Push when you need to."

2 - I clearly said that drivers should push when needed.

the problem here is the definition of 'need'.

you have stated in several places above that passing button was more than what was needed and so have set your line at button. correct?

now ask yourself this - at what point did you reach that conclusion (that the limit should be set at button)?

the problem with this statement is that you made it after the race.

of course we can know how hard Alonso should have pushed after the event - that's easy, he should have pushed slightly less than he did.

but here's the problem - how can someone know that at the time? - in order for it to be a strategy, you have to set that line somewhere before Alonso's engine blows up.

how can you know (while racing) that he wouldn't blow up overtaking Algiosaurus?

how can you know (while racing) that he might not have passed Button and gone on to take another few points?

you can claim you knew afterwards (I wasn't surprised when his engine blew either - I don't think anyone was), but you can't actually know at the time.

your strategy of pushing when it's "needed" would be impossible to implement - how much is needed? You can't say 'until Button' because had he not blown up at that point you'd be saying 'until Massa', had he blown up before that you'd be saying 'until Algiosaurus'. it's very convenient to use this kind of measure to support your argument, but a changeable target is quite a different beast from a fixed one - there is no definitive amount of pushing that your strategy can produce. Should he push at be 96% or 95%? perhaps 94%? which would be too much? which would be too little?

had alonso's engine expired without attempting to pass button you would have been wrong, had he passed button and gone on to finish you would also be wrong. the fact is that the only reason your 'right' about how much to push is because you're saying that AFTER he blew up passing Button.

3 - X=fighting too hard to pass Button when you've got an injured car and you're in the points. And I think everyone knew that before the race was run. I wonder how many people weren't surprised that Alonso's engine blew up? Brundle wasn't.

wrong - and this demostrates my point - x is exactly where I say it is, because I'm the engine. this time it's lap 18 - kabooooooom - you loose - press esc to exit or enter to try again.

I don't know how many different ways I can say the same thing - but I've managed about a dozen here.

And here's a smiley face to show I'm not taking it too seriously -

[freaky2 1]

Rather the opposite. One could probably (yet erroneously) say that I'm an hedonist.

It was meant for Brad, because if he ever became a Lewis fan he'd have to live with you calling him Lewisteric every day... though I guess he could become fond of that XD

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Blah, blah, Alonso, blah..

[Schumikonen 2]

Ferrari downplays claims of engine reliability dramas

Apr.7 (GMM) Ferrari has downplayed suggestions that last weekend's Malaysian grand prix highlighted a major engine reliability problem for the Italian marque.

After both his and Felipe Massa's engines had to be replaced before the race in Bahrain, Fernando Alonso then retired at Sepang last weekend with a smoky blown V8.

Pedro de la Rosa and Kamui Kobayashi's Ferrari-powered Saubers also failed in the Malaysian heat, even though their problems were not related to Alonso's.

Ferrari has now confirmed that the Sauber-spec engines failed due to "a malfunction of the electronic engine management". All electronic control units fitted to F1 cars are supplied by McLaren Electronic Systems (MES).

The Maranello based team also said Alonso's Sepang failure was sudden and isolated, and therefore not linked to the problems in Bahrain that were caused "by a momentary overheating".

Ferrari said Alonso's separate gearbox problem in Malaysia, where the Spaniard drove almost the entire race without a clutch, "could have caused some consequences for the engine".

"A more precise analysis can only be made when the engine is back at the works (factory) on Wednesday afternoon," added the team.

Source

[Quiet One 15]

Ah...a high level argument finally going on in these forums. Brings back old memories.

From the outside, it is funny to see that both Adam and Mike seem to agree at the core, yet they keep trying to trace the line at each one's favoured spot, and each one's favoured spot is merely inches away from the other's. I bet that is how most of us become entangled in these discussions, but we obviously can't be aware except when we are not involved.

As for the issue itself, I can't help but partially agree with both. Mike is right when he says that it is hard to see what were they trying to accomplish with Button's overtaking and, on the other hand, Adam is right when he says that there is no easy way to trace the line, unless we know the facts after they already happened.

I am going to add my "third dimension" or "z axis" to this debate: Alonso's usual behavior. He has been often criticized for being too conservative and settling for a points position instead of fighting for a podium. That he usually focus more on the championship than on the race. Of course, some other times he is criticized for losing his temper and acting like a maniac.

I think this case was neither. He obviously wasn't being conservative. I wouldn't blame him as that car would have neded in the garage before even the race start in some other driver's hands. (Remember DC and his car parked because "it vibrated too much"?). On the other hand, I don't think he lost his temper, as he was very calm after the race. This was no Singapore 2008 qualy. You could tell that he didn't just got crazy and tried to overtake Button. Having watched the onboard camera that Alex provided us, it seems to me that he wasn't pushing harder to overtake Button at that corner. The manoeuvre itself is weird as he seems to be way too fast and simply overshots the corner, and Button in the process. Maybe it was just a case of the car giving up before the manoeuvre and thus the car suddenly overrevving and going wide?

As for why he kept pushing. I still suspect that the engine failure was something Ferrari was looking for. Again, finishing ahead or behind Button would have meant a meager points' haul and a certain penalty next race due to the gearbox change. Would you rather risk these one/two points in the bag and get a clean start in next race where hopefully you will be fighting for a podium? Or settle for one/two points and deal next race with the penalty and the unknown? Only at the end of season we will know.