Alonso Is Credited With Mclaren's Upturn In Form.

[Shane2 0]

Makes no difference now, he is on my ignore list

[Autumnpuma 0]

Ferrari teammates used to get nowhere sharing setups with Michael.

Fine as far as it goes, but we were talking about Alonso and Hammy. I'm sure they are sharing set-ups, as most teammates do. Hammy no doubt tweaks them to suit his style and possibly contributes alot (though I've not heard anything one way or the other about his testing acumen). Plus, Hammy is simply a quick mutha who, as I predicted in pre-seaon, will have the measure of Alonso by Spain. It's looking likely that will happen.

Nor can those setups suddenly catapualt Mclaren from nowhere to the top of the grid.

When we are talking in tenths of seconds, you bet they can, especially considering McLaren weren't 'nowhere' last season. They had a decent car that lacked that bit of refinement that the current car is now getting. Kimi and JPM were hardly the technical brain-trust at McLaren. Poor Pedro is good, but he's no Wurz. This season you've got Pedro and Alonso, with Hammy, contributing to the car.

Let's not forget to factor in the morale boost that Alonso seems to bring to the team. CertainlymorethanmonotoneKimihadbrought.

[cavallino 2]

When we are talking in tenths of seconds, you bet they can, especially considering McLaren weren't 'nowhere' last season. They had a decent car that lacked that bit of refinement that the current car is now getting. Kimi and JPM were hardly the technical brain-trust at McLaren. Poor Pedro is good, but he's no Wurz. This season you've got Pedro and Alonso, with Hammy, contributing to the car.

They were nowhere. Do I need to post the points tally here for you to figure that out? So your claim now is that if Alonso was at Mclaren last year, it would be Mclaren and not Renault who would have been challenging Ferrari last year? If Kimi and JPM are so bad, how did Mclaren have the fastest car on the grid 2 years ago. You've rather shot yourself in the foot there, because you yourself have insisted that Kimi's mistakes lost them the title in 2005. So the car was good enough. I wonder why, I don't remember seeing a certain Alonso driving for them. And since the Mclaren was a better car than Renault, Kimi and Montoya are better development drivers than Alonso.

Let's not forget to factor in the morale boost that Alonso seems to bring to the team. CertainlymorethanmonotoneKimihadbrought.

That is rubbish. Are you telling me that the 500 people working at Mclaren were less motivated in 2005 than they are right now simply because Alonso gives them cute pep talks and Kimi didn't? That's just subjective drivel, not only is it unprovable, but it is utterly baseless. Kimi was the best thing since sliced bread in 2005 and now it is Alonso. That's just Mclaren PR crap, perhaps the most tightly controlled crap in the paddock.

[Autumnpuma 0]

They were nowhere. Do I need to post the points tally here for you to figure that out?

They were 3rd. That's far from 'nowhere' so drop the attitude.

Pos Team pts Wins poles fastest laps (forgive the formatting)

1 Renault 206 8 7 5

2 Ferrari 201 9 7 9

3 McLaren 110 - 3 3

So your claim now is that if Alonso was at Mclaren last year, it would be Mclaren and not Renault who would have been challenging Ferrari last year?

Yes.

If Kimi and JPM are so bad, how did Mclaren have the fastest car on the grid 2 years ago. You've rather shot yourself in the foot there, because you yourself have insisted that Kimi's mistakes lost them the title in 2005. So the car was good enough. I wonder why, I don't remember seeing a certain Alonso driving for them. And since the Mclaren was a better car than Renault, Kimi and Montoya are better development drivers than Alonso.

No. 2005 had both Alex Wurz and Pedro de la Rosa as test drivers. That nudged the car up where it should be. 2006 saw the loss of Wurz and that, I feel, knocked the team down slightly, set-up wise. JPM, in 2005, was nursing an injury, was he not? So it's likely he wasn't contributing to the car much. Also, Montoya is famous for letting his team, instead of him, dictate the car set-up.

That is rubbish. Are you telling me that the 500 people working at Mclaren were less motivated in 2005 than they are right now simply because Alonso gives them cute pep talks and Kimi didn't?

Don't be foolish, it's unbecoming. Of course the 500 people at the McLaren team didn't benefit from Alonso's 'pep talks'. Certainly the race and testing team at the track did and that sort of thing helps the team's morale. When you're motivated like that you tend to try a bit harder. You tend to tighten all the bolts on the chassis and really give your 'all' for the driver. Ask Michael how this tactic works, I'm sure he'll tell you quite a bit

That's just subjective drivel, not only is it unprovable, but it is utterly baseless. Kimi was the best thing since sliced bread in 2005 and now it is Alonso. That's just Mclaren PR crap, perhaps the most tightly controlled crap in the paddock.

Subjective drivel? When did you wake up and smell the roses? All of this is subjective drivel, including the not-so-thought-out words you are typing!! Chill out!! I happen to like my particular drivel (and your's on occasion).

[Shane2 0]

Its a shame the ignore system doesn't extend to quotes

[dribbler 6]

Fine as far as it goes, but we were talking about Alonso and Hammy. I'm sure they are sharing set-ups, as most teammates do. Hammy no doubt tweaks them to suit his style and possibly contributes alot.

It seems that Lewis prefers a car that is pointy and loose at the rear (like Michael did) whereas Fernando is more of a neutral balance driver (ultimately leaning on understeer). I wonder how much set-up sharing goes on and if so how that translates to their respective styles (if i have judged their styles accurately that is)?

[Shane2 0]

I would imagine their setups are pretty unique. A great example would be the first stint of Malaysia, Lewis was handling attrociously (yes I did say handling attrociously, not following team orders!) and Alonso was fine. If anything they probably share technical data.

The impression I get is that Alonso likes to sling his car into the corner, which is why Understeer suits him, whereas Lewis seems to be a bit more smooth.

[dribbler 6]

The impression I get is that Alonso likes to sling his car into the corner, which is why Understeer suits him, whereas Lewis seems to be a bit more smooth.

But smoothness is normally attributed with drivers who prefer neutral balance, like Jenson. Lewis seems to be the one to me who throws his car into a corner, gets the nose into the apex and doesn't worry about upsetting the rear but collecting it on the exit.

[cavallino 2]

They were 3rd. That's far from 'nowhere' so drop the attitude.

Well they were far off the pace of the top two, let us leave it at that. And no wins.

No. 2005 had both Alex Wurz and Pedro de la Rosa as test drivers. That nudged the car up where it should be. 2006 saw the loss of Wurz and that, I feel, knocked the team down slightly, set-up wise.

And what about the races where Wurz did the set up, they shared 3rd driver duties. So all the change in performance from 2005 to today can be attributed to the drivers, the rest doesn't matter at all?

JPM, in 2005, was nursing an injury, was he not? So it's likely he wasn't contributing to the car much. Also, Montoya is famous for letting his team, instead of him, dictate the car set-up.

I don't see the point, 200 is when they had the fast car. Unless you are saying that Montoya's net contribution is negative.

Of course the 500 people at the McLaren team didn't benefit from Alonso's 'pep talks'. Certainly the race and testing team at the track did and that sort of thing helps the team's morale.

Knowing you have the fastest car on the grid motivates like nothing else, I doubt if Alonso's hypnotic motivation techniques can do more. Remember last year when he was so rattled, he was blaming his team and his teammate who was driving entire races for his benefit? He's human, more than most.

Ask Michael how this tactic works, I'm sure he'll tell you quite a bit

Michael's approach is very very different from Alonso's. Far too many people are drawing superficial parellals between them right now. To put it briefly, Michael's approach is to have the right people in the right place. And once those people are there, all he needs to do is to fulfill his own roles as a driver to the fullest, which he did. That combination of people was painstakingly built up over many years with trial and error and great effortds to secure the right people. Jean Todt has of course an equal or greater role to play in the whole resurrection. The motivational part comes automatically, nothing motivates you more in teamwork than knowing that everyone else is doing their utmost and nothing is more demotivating than knowing that someone isn't doing their job, or worse not trying hard enough. And that brings a camaraderie, as well as a symbiosis. Which is why the blame game was rarely played at Ferrari. Rubens didn't fit in because he was the one person whose personal aims were in direct conflict with Michael's. You don't land up in a team and bring it from nowhere to the top in a few months.

Subjective drivel? When did you wake up and smell the roses? All of this is subjective drivel, including the not-so-thought-out words you are typing!! Chill out!! I happen to like my particular drivel (and your's on occasion).

Ok, wrong words but the point still stands. Saying that Alonso motivated the team into gaining a second is completely unprovable and unjustifiable as a hypothesis. You can hold on to it if you want, I don't know how you will convince everyone else though.

[Shane2 0]

But smoothness is normally attributed with drivers who prefer neutral balance, like Jenson. Lewis seems to be the one to me who throws his car into a corner, gets the nose into the apex and doesn't worry about upsetting the rear but collecting it on the exit.

I suppose it just looks smoother than Alonso's style. I don't disagree with you at all, it just seems to look smooth. Maybe it is helped by a good car balance, its hard to say.

[Player(1) 0]

Well they were far off the pace of the top two, let us leave it at that. And no wins.

Faster or on pace with Renault more then you seemed to remember.

[cavallino 2]

When were they consistnetly on the pace with Renault?

PS: Aren't you going to put me on ignore as some sort of solidarity, will make my job easier.

[Player(1) 0]

When were they consistnetly on the pace with Renault?

PS: Aren't you going to put me on ignore as some sort of solidarity, will make my job easier.

When the conditions suited them they showed they had race winning pace.

I'll admit it now that i'm relieved they went out in the USGP or they would have been ahead of atleast 1 Renault and made things alot worse for them.

Better form then BMW are at now.

[Jem of the Shire 0]

Perhaps we should consider that Kimi often made the 2006 mclaren look like a potential winner when nearly any other driver wouldnt have managed the same. Look where Pedro was (usually) compared to Kimi in races, Pedro would be scrapping for 6th whilst Kimi would be challenging the leaders.

And by the way how on earth would any of us know who was better as McLaren test driver between Pedro & Wurz???

[Shane2 0]

Perhaps we should consider that Kimi often made the 2006 mclaren look like a potential winner when nearly any other driver wouldnt have managed the same. Look where Pedro was (usually) compared to Kimi in races, Pedro would be scrapping for 6th whilst Kimi would be challenging the leaders.

And by the way how on earth would any of us know who was better as McLaren test driver between Pedro & Wurz???

That was the first time Pedro had stepped into a race seat since bahrain 2005

[martin-1 0]

Some very odd views on Fernando here.

Let's not forget, he's a two times World Champion. I don't care which way you look at it, that is not something that can be easily contended, especially not with some of the drivel I've seen in here. Once, sure, maybe a fluke (Rosberg in 82 maybe...) but to win the WDC twice, once against not only Schumacher himself, but the authorities to a degree also, surely puts Fernando amongst the elite, not only of today, but of all time.

He's better than two titles as well, he has a lot more in him.

As for his impact on McLaren, well I think it's noticable. It's not the defining factor though. Paddy Lowe, Mike Coughlan and Neil Oatley are technical guys with supreme reputation (Oatley's 1988 McLaren, is, quite simply the best F1 car of all time) - Ron Dennis, as we know is a great leader. I feel that the motivational force of having not only Alonso, but also Hamilton; i.e. 'thier guy' on board, gives added incentive.

Kimi Raikkonen, I believe was a liability to McLaren in 2006, as was the clown they called Montoya. I believe Raikkonen to be in the top two drivers on the grid, behind Alonso, but his attitude very often stinks.

Alonso knows how to get the job done, and Rome wasn't built in a day (ask Michael Schumacher, took him four years to turn Ferrari into a dominating team).

[dribbler 6]

Some very odd views on Fernando here.

Let's not forget, he's a two times World Champion. I don't care which way you look at it, that is not something that can be easily contended, especially not with some of the drivel I've seen in here. Once, sure, maybe a fluke (Rosberg in 82 maybe...) but to win the WDC twice, once against not only Schumacher himself, but the authorities to a degree also, surely puts Fernando amongst the elite, not only of today, but of all time.

He's better than two titles as well, he has a lot more in him.

As for his impact on McLaren, well I think it's noticable. It's not the defining factor though. Paddy Lowe, Mike Coughlan and Neil Oatley are technical guys with supreme reputation (Oatley's 1988 McLaren, is, quite simply the best F1 car of all time) - Ron Dennis, as we know is a great leader. I feel that the motivational force of having not only Alonso, but also Hamilton; i.e. 'thier guy' on board, gives added incentive.

Kimi Raikkonen, I believe was a liability to McLaren in 2006, as was the clown they called Montoya. I believe Raikkonen to be in the top two drivers on the grid, behind Alonso, but his attitude very often stinks.

Alonso knows how to get the job done, and Rome wasn't built in a day (ask Michael Schumacher, took him four years to turn Ferrari into a dominating team).

Fernando is top draw, no doubt in my mind. On your point about Michael, you are right that it took four years for him to become successful but that was more about Todt putting the winning ingredients into place than anything else.

[martin-1 0]

Well Ferrari were in complete disarray when Michael joined. Todt was still feeling his way into the job at that time IMO, and of course, they didn't have Byrne and Brawn until Michael popped up either. You can draw similarities, in that McLaren haven't won a Championship since 1999 (nearly ten years), they've been critically flawed in some area ever since 2001 and they haven't yet seemed like solving the problem.

It is not possible to deny the change in that for this season, they seem a different team entirely. Most probably, because they are!

[Player(1) 0]

Some very odd views on Fernando here.

Let's not forget, he's a two times World Champion. I don't care which way you look at it, that is not something that can be easily contended, especially not with some of the drivel I've seen in here. Once, sure, maybe a fluke (Rosberg in 82 maybe...) but to win the WDC twice, once against not only Schumacher himself, but the authorities to a degree also, surely puts Fernando amongst the elite, not only of today, but of all time.

He's better than two titles as well, he has a lot more in him.

As for his impact on McLaren, well I think it's noticable. It's not the defining factor though. Paddy Lowe, Mike Coughlan and Neil Oatley are technical guys with supreme reputation (Oatley's 1988 McLaren, is, quite simply the best F1 car of all time) - Ron Dennis, as we know is a great leader. I feel that the motivational force of having not only Alonso, but also Hamilton; i.e. 'thier guy' on board, gives added incentive.

Kimi Raikkonen, I believe was a liability to McLaren in 2006, as was the clown they called Montoya. I believe Raikkonen to be in the top two drivers on the grid, behind Alonso, but his attitude very often stinks.

Alonso knows how to get the job done, and Rome wasn't built in a day (ask Michael Schumacher, took him four years to turn Ferrari into a dominating team).

Refreshing

[cavallino 2]

Well we can credit him with Lewis' upturn in form I guess. Seems like he is more of a motivator than aa driver. That, or the car is bloody good...

Perhaps we should consider that Kimi often made the 2006 mclaren look like a potential winner when nearly any other driver wouldnt have managed the same.

Kimi's 2006 season was pretty poor actually, he seemed to settle for 3rd place most of the time. The team had decided to concentrate on development for next year and everyone knew he was leaving.

Look where Pedro was (usually) compared to Kimi in races, Pedro would be scrapping for 6th whilst Kimi would be challenging the leaders.

Remember the real driving test, at Hungary. Pedro was faster, and Kmi made a rookie error.

And by the way how on earth would any of us know who was better as McLaren test driver between Pedro & Wurz???

Apparntly the test drivers are worth more than the rest of the development team, they can single handedly make good cars into championship challenging ones...

but the authorities to a degree also

Bollocks. If they didn't want him to win he wouldbn't have won. You are no better than the Kimi brigade if you give that as a reason for Alonso being good. And quite frankly, he is good, you don't need to give such lame reasons for it.

, surely puts Fernando amongst the elite, not only of today, but of all time.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves...

Kimi Raikkonen, I believe was a liability to McLaren in 2006, as was the clown they called Montoya. I believe Raikkonen to be in the top two drivers on the grid, behind Alonso, but his attitude very often stinks.

Actually, Kimi's only attitude is the lack of one. It is Alonso's attitude that often stinks, Kimi is just bland.

Alonso knows how to get the job done, and Rome wasn't built in a day (ask Michael Schumacher, took him four years to turn Ferrari into a dominating team).

Yep. Alonso just moved into Rome.

Fernando is top draw, no doubt in my mind. On your point about Michael, you are right that it took four years for him to become successful but that was more about Todt putting the winning ingredients into place than anything else.

Rory and Brawn in particular didn't jump ship because of their love for Todt.

Well Ferrari were in complete disarray when Michael joined. Todt was still feeling his way into the job at that time IMO, and of course, they didn't have Byrne and Brawn until Michael popped up either. You can draw similarities, in that McLaren haven't won a Championship since 1999 (nearly ten years), they've been critically flawed in some area ever since 2001 and they haven't yet seemed like solving the problem.

Mclaren had the fastest car on the grid a mere two years ago. Ferrari hadn't had one for ages, the closest they had come was with Prost in '90, but they hadn't reckoned with the maniac who had the FIA in his pocket, and the cuteness that made the world forget everything he did. That is what we call battling the authorities.

[martin-1 0]

Bollocks. If they didn't want him to win he wouldbn't have won. You are no better than the Kimi brigade if you give that as a reason for Alonso being good. And quite frankly, he is good, you don't need to give such lame reasons for it.

It's not a question of trying to make him look good. I know he doesn't need it. I the whole Monza, Massa block debacle and the mass dampers incident clinically prove there was something going on there.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves...

Why not, how many drivers have won back to back titles?

Off the top of my head I can think of Senna, Prost, Hakkinen and Schumacher. That's a select group!

Actually, Kimi's only attitude is the lack of one. It is Alonso's attitude that often stinks, Kimi is just bland.

I'm a passionate man cavallino. Kimi's blandness, is an attitude in it's own right. It'd dismissive, and it's degenerate to F1. I dont' see your point about Fernando, but I assume you are one of those people who label him arrogant.

Have you ever met him?

Yep. Alonso just moved into Rome.

Hardly.

Rory and Brawn in particular didn't jump ship because of their love for Todt.

Yes but Todt hired them. MSC put it out there, Todt did the hiring.

Mclaren had the fastest car on the grid a mere two years ago. Ferrari hadn't had one for ages, the closest they had come was with Prost in '90, but they hadn't reckoned with the maniac who had the FIA in his pocket, and the cuteness that made the world forget everything he did. That is what we call battling the authorities.

Your clearly a fool.

The McLaren car of 2005 was the fastest machine. But tell me, do you believe that the fastest car, automatically becomes the best car? No, that's a heap of sh*t and you know it. You need to combine speed with reliability.

And besides! I'm not saying you can draw direct similairities, your purposely reading my post in the way you'd like to, for your own argumentative ends.

I'm saying you can draw some similarities, because they are there.

[Shane2 0]

Right on. There is nothing wrong with Alonso's attitude, but the ignorant Ferrari sheep just choose to listen to the annual bull$hit that the press spew out. Everyone knows it is rubbish, but the ferrari sheep choose to believe it, because it gives them a reason to validate their hatred, while the real crux of the matter is they just cannot hack that he took the title out of Ferrari's hands. Oh and I would imagine Fangio also won back to back WDC's.

Oh and don't pay attention to Cavallino, causing arguments is about his only skill. Most of the members accept the fact that he is an ignoramus.

[Wez 0]

It's not a question of trying to make him look good. I know he doesn't need it. I the whole Monza, Massa block debacle and the mass dampers incident clinically prove there was something going on there.

Why not, how many drivers have won back to back titles?

Off the top of my head I can think of Senna, Prost, Hakkinen and Schumacher. That's a select group!

I'm a passionate man cavallino. Kimi's blandness, is an attitude in it's own right. It'd dismissive, and it's degenerate to F1. I dont' see your point about Fernando, but I assume you are one of those people who label him arrogant.

Have you ever met him?

Hardly.

Yes but Todt hired them. MSC put it out there, Todt did the hiring.

Your clearly a fool.

The McLaren car of 2005 was the fastest machine. But tell me, do you believe that the fastest car, automatically becomes the best car? No, that's a heap of sh*t and you know it. You need to combine speed with reliability.

And besides! I'm not saying you can draw direct similairities, your purposely reading my post in the way you'd like to, for your own argumentative ends.

I'm saying you can draw some similarities, because they are there.

I can see im going to get on very well with you martin, Welcome to the forum!!!

[martin-1 0]

Thanks Wez, good to be here!

[cavallino 2]

It's not a question of trying to make him look good. I know he doesn't need it. I the whole Monza, Massa block debacle and the mass dampers incident clinically prove there was something going on there.

And what does Hungary, Monaco and flexible wings prove then?

Why not, how many drivers have won back to back titles?

Ascari, Fangio, Brabham, Prost, Senna, Schumacher, Senna off the top of my head, there might be one or two others. I ocnsider 3 titles a far greater achievement though.

I'm a passionate man cavallino. Kimi's blandness, is an attitude in it's own right. It'd dismissive, and it's degenerate to F1. I dont' see your point about Fernando, but I assume you are one of those people who label him arrogant.

I'll give you the point about Kimi, I edspise his 'don't give a damn' attitude too. And I think it is directly related to his limitations as a driver. However I don't have any more regard for Alonso's behaviour towards his team and teammate as we saw last year.

Have you ever met him?

You say that after you pass judgement on Kimi? I have heard, read and seen enough.

Yes but Todt hired them. MSC put it out there, Todt did the hiring.

True enough.

Your clearly a fool.

Are you going to be like the other Alonso fans here, or can we keep this civilized? Entirely upto you.

The McLaren car of 2005 was the fastest machine. But tell me, do you believe that the fastest car, automatically becomes the best car? No, that's a heap of sh*t and you know it. You need to combine speed with reliability.

Irrelevant. Mclaren had a car capable of challenging for the championship two years ago, arguably, was it not for Kimi's and Montoya's mistakes they would have won. That is enough to negate your assertion that they came out of nowhere this year and that the situation was in any way comparable to Ferrari's situation in 1996.

I'm saying you can draw some similarities, because they are there.

Superficial incidental ones.