Alonso Breaks His Toys

[Autumnpuma 0]

Ermm..sorry, buut either you are completely off mark here or I was completely off mark since the beginning of this discussion. I thought that the fact that Alonso's engine problems were connected with his gearbox issues was out of the question. Nando explained how he handled the gearbox failure: as he had downshift problems, when approaching to a curve he had to release the gears, choose the gear that he would like to use through the corner and then violently rev up the engine until the RPMs were the right ones for the gear he selected. That would cause stress on any engine.

That, composed with the already underlying reliability issues Ferrari seems to be having with their engines, make it very likely that his engine would have given up at any moment of the race, and the more stress it sustained, the more probable it was.

I think (please correct me if I am wrong about this argument) that the questions are:

Could Alonso have avoided the engine blow or minimized its probabilities? At what moment he should have stopped hitting for more cards and standed? My opinion, Button seemed like a distinct milestone. It was the first car Alonso really struggled to overtake and it was too late to do much else anyways. If I know that, then he (and the pitcrew) would have been even more aware of it.

So the fact that he kept pushing so hard when the "conservative" approach would have been not just to stay behind Button, but also to stay as far away from him as possible so as not to stress the car too much, makes me think that they were either convinced that the extra point was vital (mmmmh...doubtful, even more so with the current points system) or that they were actively looking for an engine blow to avoid a 5 slot penalty. Or perhaps to make up for the ****up at qualy? And how would such thing compensate? Who knows?

Or, for the people who likes to believe that Alonso is an idiot and that Massa is Hamilton: he did it because he was sooooooo frustrated by Massa's amazing display of skills he got all shaken up and drove like a madman. In that case, yes I _am_ smiling (credits to Maure, all rights reserved)

Um. My first post in this thread said pretty clearly what my stance was. Go back and read it. You are, in fact, agreeing with it. As is Alonso himself in Freak's posted quote that you are replying to here.

The thread title is irrelevant. The thread was Cav's usual half troll/half joke moment of fun. He did not mean it seriously. The argument between Adam and Mike, is what I am talking about.

If the issue here is whether or not Alonso caused the engine failure then this whole thing is as trivial as it can be.

YES, ALONSO MOST PROBABLY CAUSED THE ENGINE BLOW UP.

There.

The argument/debate I'm having with both Professor and Adam has gone far astray from what my initial points were (in both threads). As each of us responded to the newest post, we got further and further away from the point until both Prof and Adam seemed to be arguing a point I never stated.

You obviously have a different take and it concerns Ferrari's overall strategy. That's fine, but that's not what's being discussed here. Start another thread and we'll talk about it.

Back to the argument/debate.

Prof, Adam, you two have worn me out. I have little patience for the tedium and minutia involved in some of these debates. Indeed, I have little patience with debates. Some seem to like them (Cav and Adam seem to thrive on them). I don't. I'm content with stating my opinions as clearly as I can...which I believe I have. In both threads. The fact that two posters here don't like my opinions on the matter is of little concern to me. You can't please everyone, right?

I gave it one last shot in order to further clarify my thoughts, and it seems to have been wasted effort. Ah well. Most who read my thoughts here will grok them and I'm satisfied with that.

Some may think 'Ha! Mike is backing down! He must know he's wrong!'. That's very far from the truth. I'm simply realizing that there cannot be agreement on this matter. If you're the type to treat these forum discussions as some sort of competition, then call it a draw. Or call my side the winner. Or call your side the winner. I could care less. I approach these things as a conversations between fans. We've had that and now I'm shaking your hands, saying thanks for sharing your thoughts with me, and wishing you a nice day.

[Quiet One 15]

Um. My first post in this thread said pretty clearly what my stance was. Go back and read it. You are, in fact, agreeing with it. As is Alonso himself in Freak's posted quote that you are replying to here.

Of course I am agreeing with it. I thought that everybody agreed with that so I thought that wasn't even what the debate was all about. Man, I am really lost then. I have no idea what are we arguing about, then.

You are right, when the debate goes down to minutiae one tends to get lost and the positions become more extreme, so I suddenly find myself defending something totally trivial, or irrelevant. Happens to me often. And then I just give up. Not worth the effort for my liking.

The argument/debate I'm having with both Professor and Adam has gone far astray from what my initial points were (in both threads). As each of us responded to the newest post, we got further and further away from the point until both Prof and Adam seemed to be arguing a point I never stated.

I should re read carefully all the posts again. Is it worth it?

You obviously have a different take and it concerns Ferrari's overall strategy. That's fine, but that's not what's being discussed here. Start another thread and we'll talk about it.

Nah, I think it my take on that is pretty clear and I think there's too much taunting and too few reasoning in the posts, I don't want to have to explain basic things about logic and F1 just to make a minor point.

[Kopite Girl 0]

This is balls.

You lot moan if a driver goes for it and blows his engine and moan if he conserves his engine but plays it safe.

I'd rather full on racing than a procession of cars racing like they're on a formation lap. Simple really.

[Rainmaster 7]

Um. My first post in this thread said pretty clearly what my stance was. Go back and read it. You are, in fact, agreeing with it. As is Alonso himself in Freak's posted quote that you are replying to here.

The argument/debate I'm having with both Professor and Adam has gone far astray from what my initial points were (in both threads). As each of us responded to the newest post, we got further and further away from the point until both Prof and Adam seemed to be arguing a point I never stated.

You obviously have a different take and it concerns Ferrari's overall strategy. That's fine, but that's not what's being discussed here. Start another thread and we'll talk about it.

Back to the argument/debate.

Prof, Adam, you two have worn me out. I have little patience for the tedium and minutia involved in some of these debates. Indeed, I have little patience with debates. Some seem to like them (Cav and Adam seem to thrive on them). I don't. I'm content with stating my opinions as clearly as I can...which I believe I have. In both threads. The fact that two posters here don't like my opinions on the matter is of little concern to me. You can't please everyone, right?

I gave it one last shot in order to further clarify my thoughts, and it seems to have been wasted effort. Ah well. Most who read my thoughts here will grok them and I'm satisfied with that.

Some may think 'Ha! Mike is backing down! He must know he's wrong!'. That's very far from the truth. I'm simply realizing that there cannot be agreement on this matter. If you're the type to treat these forum discussions as some sort of competition, then call it a draw. Or call my side the winner. Or call your side the winner. I could care less. I approach these things as a conversations between fans. We've had that and now I'm shaking your hands, saying thanks for sharing your thoughts with me, and wishing you a nice day.

Meh, obviously you feel I argued a point you never stated, I don't think I ever did. I always read your post and responded on exactly what you said, without making any assumptions or extrapolating anything. So I'm not sure where that's coming from exactly? Anyway, I guess there is some kind of misunderstanding there and I might bother to re-read the posts to check that.

Also, it's not that I don't like your opinion I just happen not to fully agree with it. You seem offended somehow just because I have disagreed with you (or maybe I am being overly sensitive, I can't tell over the internet), even though I have kept it mostly reasonable and objective on my part (at least as far as I can tell or I assume you would have corrected me or somebody else would have). I even accepted that as far as I can tell we essentially agree on the basics, just not the finer points. It's a bit insulting to call it a wasted effort just because you haven't convinced us to completely change our stance imo, but it's your call and I look forward to our next debate *shakes hand*.

[AleHop 0]

So this long and ?????? thread is just to answer whether Alonso breaks his toys or no?

There are many more interesting questions to answer about what happened in Malasya with my boy's engine.

1.- Did Alonso break his gear-box?

2.- Did the gear-box problem shortened the engine's life?

3.- Should engineers have told Alonso not to race at all.

4.- Did they have a point in breaking the car to avoid gear-box replacement 5 grid penalty?

5.- Was it a better option to finish the race with a semi blown up engine and a destroyed gear-box?

6.- Is the Ferrari a fragile car?

.

.

98.- Is Ferrari engine really @@#€~# or they will be able to ammend it?

99.- Did the engine blew up or it was detonated by LdM?

100.- Did the gear-box problem ever exist?

I can think of a hundred more.

[yurp 0]

I love how committed you are to arguing your point Captain Obvious, to the extent that you created a game to demonstrate it! Of course 'puma may argue that the design is flawed because the designer is a twat

Of course it demostrates nothing.

It was never meant to demonstrate anything apart from my willingness to bring a little levity and joy to the discussion.

Better than batracer thought - don't you think?

Twat-face, twat-face not twat. There is a big difference

He tried to get away with "twatbag" earlier - where were you then???

Well you would know!

naughty

Has anyone noticed this? It seems that in the fun of arguing with me, Freak's very astute posts are being ignored.

Linking the discussion of Vettel and applying it here is not relevant. My thoughts on Alonso here are a bit different from those on Vettel.

That brings nothing new - Andres has explained.

The argument/debate I'm having with both Professor and Adam has gone far astray from what my initial points were (in both threads). As each of us responded to the newest post, we got further and further away from the point until both Prof and Adam seemed to be arguing a point I never stated.

I'm sorry, but that's disingeniuous. You know exactly what I've been discussing - your repeated statement that drivers should "push when needed". I have repeatedly asked you how you would define 'needed' during a race (without hindsight). because that is the logical flaw in your argument.

It's that simple.

Every time I force this point you go on some roundabout escape routine a la maure...

'You're not reading my posts properly.'

'you seem to be arguing a point I never stated.'

'I don't know why you seem to be getting emotional.'

'I am happy to state my beliefs and leave it there.'

Great filibustering, but rather obvious (and that's coming from Captain Obvious).

So...

First - I am arguing a point that you most definately stated many times.

Second - You still haven't answered the question: 'How do you define how much is "needed" when in a race situation?'

Third - There is no possible answer to that question and we both know it.

Forth - I realised you weren't going admit it a long time ago. So I went off and made a silly game instead.

Frankly - I love the idea of pushing when needed - it's just not practicable unless you know exactly how hard you can push a dodgy engine, and that is unknowable until it blows. That's okay - it's a nice idea.

Yours lovingly with kittens on top,

TF1

EDIT - fluffy kittens

EDIT EDIT - with big, adorable eyes

[Schumikonen 2]

So this long and ?????? thread is just to answer whether Alonso breaks his toys or no?

There are many more interesting questions to answer about what happened in Malasya with my boy's engine.

1.- Did Alonso break his gear-box?

I don't think so, if you mean, that if he caused the problem, that is very unlikely

2.- Did the gear-box problem shortened the engine's life?

Not the gearbox but the way Alonso handle the problem, I think the stress caused by the extra revs overheated the engine while he was behind Button and that may be the reason why he wanted so badly to pass him, not just the points but to cool the engine down.

3.- Should engineers have told Alonso not to race at all.

No, I've seen driver with bigger problem get a good result in race with many retirement, staying on track in the only way to get some result.

4.- Did they have a point in breaking the car to avoid gear-box replacement 5 grid penalty?

No, I already posted about why I don't think they did it intentionally.

5.- Was it a better option to finish the race with a semi blown up engine and a destroyed gear-box?

The gearbox wasn't destroyed, actually it worked well until the engine gave up and I think the engine could have finish in relative healthy condition.

6.- Is the Ferrari a fragile car?

It doesn't look like that, that problem with the clotch is not a big deal for drivers in others series like the dominican GTS, the drive those car (Trans Am Series cars) without clotching a all and their gearbox doesn't get affected by that.

.I couldn't see the rest

.

98.- Is Ferrari engine really @@#€~# or they will be able to ammend it?

If they still have the overheating problem they are more than capable of fixing it

99.- Did the engine blew up or it was detonated by LdM?

No

100.- Did the gear-box problem ever exist?

Yes

I can think of a hundred more.

Those are just my answer any similarity with the real life is just coincidence

[Schumikonen 2]

It's a great idea, you tell us how many engines and changes have made each team before China.

I thought you had that info but I can find it but in order for me to do that I need to be bored and with some extra time to do that si I think I will try to find that info on the weekend.

[Schumikonen 2]

I'm sorry, but that's disingeniuous. You know exactly what I've been discussing - your repeated statement that drivers should "push when needed". I have repeatedly asked you how you would define 'needed' during a race (without hindsight). because that is the logical flaw in your argument.

I just noticed you are not a good driver, a good driver knows when is time to push and when is time to back off, I said here that I was part of team in DR and the driver won many races not pushing at the beggining of the race, saving the tires for the final laps and then pushing went the other ran out of tires, I have videos of that strategy and there are many situations where is very wise not to push, I thought this was something obvious to all racing fans, of course that's something you can't do in drag races, but in circuits, the longer the races the more chances you'll find where not administering your car wisely can be very punishing to you.

[AleHop 0]

I just noticed you are not a good driver, a good driver knows when is time to push and when is time to back off, I said here that I was part of team in DR and the driver won many races not pushing at the beggining of the race, saving the tires for the final laps and then pushing went the other ran out of tires, I have videos of that strategy and there are many situations where is very wise not to push, I thought this was something obvious to all racing fans, of course that's something you can't do in drag races, but in circuits, the longer the races the more chances you'll find where not administering your car wisely can be very punishing to you.

It's not a successful strategy for nowaday's Formula One.

Qualifying, qualifying and qualifying.

Race pace, good tyre managemente, etc. are good things to have but the Championship will be for the fastest car on Saturday.

[yurp 0]

I just noticed you are not a good driver, a good driver knows when is time to push and when is time to back off, I said here that I was part of team in DR and the driver won many races not pushing at the beggining of the race, saving the tires for the final laps and then pushing went the other ran out of tires, I have videos of that strategy and there are many situations where is very wise not to push, I thought this was something obvious to all racing fans, of course that's something you can't do in drag races, but in circuits, the longer the races the more chances you'll find where not administering your car wisely can be very punishing to you.

That's all very true Freakazoid - I completely agree - Taking care of your car is a good idea - Are you after my Captain Obvious Crown?

Unfortunately, the issue at hand is not about driving in a fashion that extends your car's life expectancy (we all know the sense in that) - I'm talking about the impossibility of knowing precisely how far a car will take you before it breaks.

You see Autumnpuma says that 'when needed' in this race was 'up to Button' and no further. I want to know how anyone could know that before Alonso's car exploded. So far he has insisted a good driver should know this, but hasn't explained how.

If my car breaks, I went too fast, if it doesn't break, I went too slow.

I don't think you can make a strategy on 'push until we get to X' during a race. You might explode before you get there, you might have passed X and made it to the end with more points. You can't know until either Kabooom or Chequered flag.

It's a simple point and one that he will continue to avoid - no matter.

But you are indeed correct in everything you say - apart from the bit about being a bad driver - you want to see bad driving? pick any road junction in my city, sit and wait and you'll see ridiculously bad driving within the hour.

I saw a traffic jam that lasted for 45 minutes the other day consisting of a total of 3 cars - all facing each other, all beeping their horns. I kid you not.

[maure 1]

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.

Ignore the lewisteric part. It just amuses me. It's not personal. I throw it randonly and sometimes someone barks back... you should not be one of those, my friend.

Regarding my alledged "err", how can we disagree when you say:

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.

Regarding the cheating, you err.

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

It doesn't matter. That's reason enough for both to smile.

Blah, blah, Alonso, blah..

Blah? Please elaborate.

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

You are goofy.

[Schumikonen 2]

That's all very true Freakazoid - I completely agree - Taking care of your car is a good idea - Are you after my Captain Obvious Crown?

Unfortunately, the issue at hand is not about driving in a fashion that extends your car's life expectancy (we all know the sense in that) - I'm talking about the impossibility of knowing precisely how far a car will take you before it breaks.

You see Autumnpuma says that 'when needed' in this race was 'up to Button' and no further. I want to know how anyone could know that before Alonso's car exploded. So far he has insisted a good driver should know this, but hasn't explained how.

If my car breaks, I went too fast, if it doesn't break, I went too slow.

I don't think you can make a strategy on 'push until we get to X' during a race. You might explode before you get there, you might have passed X and made it to the end with more points. You can't know until either Kabooom or Chequered flag.

It's a simple point and one that he will continue to avoid - no matter.

But you are indeed correct in everything you say - apart from the bit about being a bad driver - you want to see bad driving? pick any road junction in my city, sit and wait and you'll see ridiculously bad driving within the hour.

I saw a traffic jam that lasted for 45 minutes the other day consisting of a total of 3 cars - all facing each other, all beeping their horns. I kid you not.

Now I get your point but like you said it is nothing a driver can plan before hand, that is something that gfoes changing with the way a race is developed, we lost championships for not paying attention to that point, I can once we have to beat the leadng driver in my country, before the race we talked about all posibilities in the race and we got to the conclusion that we need to win the race to make sure we win the championship, as our rival had a newer faster car and was dominating the championship so far, that's what we talked before the race but during the race the leading driver had problems and was falling behind, our driver was in a more that confortable second place, in the heat of the battle he didn't maek any calculation, he was determined to make it or brake it, like we planned, the people in the radio didn't tell him that as the situation was developing he didn't need to win the race to win the championship so he never changed his plan, he kept pushing the driver in first place until they crash in an overtake attempt, they both got out of the track but our driver got first in the track and went to win the race but it was disqualified for the crash an lost the point he won and the championship too, having he slow down and settled for second he could have been the champion that year, so when to push and when not is not an exact science it is something that the best drivers know by instinct I would say, that day I noticed that our driver is was a very fast one but that a very smart one, he was great making strategies works and a great overtaker but sometimes he had the championship won and he didn't know it.

So what we have to keep in mind is that every race is different and you can not know how a race it is going to develope and according to that is that you should make your decision of when to push and when not, I can tell you Barhain it was a great place for the drivers not to push, they all were stuck behind the driver in front, the tempeture was hot, pushing will get you only close enough to the guy ahead to overheat your engine in that case the smarter thing to do is to keep a safe distant and hope for the best, the guy in front have the control of the race, Alonso did that, he knew that and it paid for him, once he had the lead he stablished his true pace, he was faster than his pace before Vetel problem btu it was not a smart thing to push in the conditions he was, but after that he was able to push the way he wanted eventhought he didn't need to push like that but this is a good exmaple of when to and when not to push.

In the Button case you know that the longer the stress the higher the probavilities of aggravating the failure, you said that it was impossible to know ifth car was going to make it to the end but I was expecting that failure, it didn't come as a surprise to me and I know Ferrari and Alosno knew this could happen, I am not saying that they provocated it I just think they took the risk trying to erase the saturday failure, but two wrongs don't make a right.

[yurp 0]

Now... etc etc

Yeppers to everything you wrote.

[Autumnpuma 0]

I came back to this out of morbid curiosity. Freakazoid (Tommy, now) has said basically what I've been saying and adam is agreeing with him 100%. Odd that. Even Tommy sees that he and I are saying the same thing.

I can only wonder at this.

[AleHop 0]

Alonso's engines

1. Used (can only be used in practice or Abu Dhabi) Blown up in China FP1, unuseable

2. Not new but useable (could be China, Barcelona...) Used in FP2, FP3, Qfy, race in China = Bahrain + China

3. Blown up, unuseable

4. New

5. New

6. New

7. New

8. New

[Rainmaster 7]

Ferrari have traced the engine failures suffered by Fernando Alonso in Malaysia and China to a defect in the pneumatic valve system, out of which too much air leaks during races. The FIA may allow them to rectify the problem on grounds of reliability.

Full story: Auto Motor und Sport (in German)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8639280.stm