So when FIA has to put a steward inside a team what you get from that is, "hey that steward did found nothing so the team is perfect"ClarkBT11 wrote:Alonso stated" my team boss stated in China, saying that they weren’t racing against Raikkonen but against me, was a declaration of intent."
The FIA bowed to Alonso’s demands and appointed a steward at Interlagos to keep an eye on the McLaren pit during qualifying. He found nothing
Alonso needed an excuse why a rookie could beat the two time world champion on what grounds do you define huge team support. Alonso's....
So you did bet and earn some money? If it was that obvious I guess you took advantage of that obvious prediction, didn´t you?Jolle wrote:Everybody with a bit of sense knew RedBull was going to be a big contender for the prizes in 08/09, they had the most successful ingredient of F1. Adrian Newey.
Could it be possible that Alonso's feeling of entitlement and his personality were the basis of this problem?Andres125sx wrote:So when FIA has to put a steward inside a team what you get from that is, "hey that steward did found nothing so the team is perfect"ClarkBT11 wrote:Alonso stated" my team boss stated in China, saying that they weren’t racing against Raikkonen but against me, was a declaration of intent."
The FIA bowed to Alonso’s demands and appointed a steward at Interlagos to keep an eye on the McLaren pit during qualifying. He found nothing
Alonso needed an excuse why a rookie could beat the two time world champion on what grounds do you define huge team support. Alonso's....
You´d need to be a really stupid human to make something illegal in front of a steward. If Alonso asked for a steward it was not to try that steward proving McLaren favouritism, but to stop McLaren favouritism. It is obvious for any half-wise person McLaren would do nothing with a steward inside their box, and that was exactly Alonso´s intention
What most people got from that is far from your conclusion, what most people got is "hey what´s happening inside McLaren to force FIA to put a steward inside a team to ensure there´s no favouritism" If it would have been a bold an absurd demand from Alonso, FIA would have ignore him. But it was too obvious for anyone without a McLaren/Lewis bias
Please do not ignore facts, Alonso had a contract with McLaren for 2008 season. Fact. If he drove for Renault is was only because he wanted to. Nothing did cost him his place in McLaren, with a contract you can stay there even if the team do not want you there.Jolle wrote: Looks like when it's not going his way, he gets openly critical about the team and plays the blame game. This costed his place with McLaren and had to drive a Renault for two years again
Yes, and also Pluto and Mars alignment, but there´s no evidence pointing in that directionJolle wrote:Could it be possible that Alonso's feeling of entitlement and his personality were the basis of this problem?Andres125sx wrote:So when FIA has to put a steward inside a team what you get from that is, "hey that steward did found nothing so the team is perfect"ClarkBT11 wrote:Alonso stated" my team boss stated in China, saying that they weren’t racing against Raikkonen but against me, was a declaration of intent."
The FIA bowed to Alonso’s demands and appointed a steward at Interlagos to keep an eye on the McLaren pit during qualifying. He found nothing
Alonso needed an excuse why a rookie could beat the two time world champion on what grounds do you define huge team support. Alonso's....
You´d need to be a really stupid human to make something illegal in front of a steward. If Alonso asked for a steward it was not to try that steward proving McLaren favouritism, but to stop McLaren favouritism. It is obvious for any half-wise person McLaren would do nothing with a steward inside their box, and that was exactly Alonso´s intention
What most people got from that is far from your conclusion, what most people got is "hey what´s happening inside McLaren to force FIA to put a steward inside a team to ensure there´s no favouritism" If it would have been a bold an absurd demand from Alonso, FIA would have ignore him. But it was too obvious for anyone without a McLaren/Lewis bias
I agree, the radio ban is stupid, like team orders ban.henry wrote:I agree it is acceptable.zac510 wrote:I think that is perfectly acceptable. Programming better logic and automation into the system is the same as building a better engine or suspension part and if one team can do that better than the other, more podiums to them.henry wrote:"The driver must drive the car unaided"
So after this race a Mercedes engineer, not the driver, analyses what happened with car 6's gearbox. He realises that there are some tell tale symptoms that can identify the problem. A software engineer, not the driver, writes some code to detect the situation and put a message on the steering wheel display about the need to do a chassis reset. Better still the code tells the driver a reset is coming, does it and reprograms the shift sequence to 6-8 8-6.
Is the driver unaided?
Since the restriction of radio messages I have noticed an increase of complexity steering wheel displays as the teams get the car to give the driver information he previously got from his race engineer. So we get a small arms race. My on-car data processing engineer is better than yours. Ah but my UI designer is streets ahead. Meanwhile the driver takes the plaudits.
It's a team sport. Increasingly so. If the FIA don't want that then we need to go back to a period when engineering wasn't important. Horses and chariots anyone?
I guess the teams themselves are massively scared about the impact of a false negative signal causing the car to stop or slow signficantly, so are preferring to keep the driver/engineer in the loop instead of going to full automation.
We'd be better taking this discussion back to: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... =1&t=24212
My point is that the driver is assisted whether it is automation or a conversation with his race engineer.
The teams have now established the cost of keeping the driver/race engineer in the loop. It's 10 seconds. They can factor this into their evaluations of whether best to automate or take a penalty in order to get the car to the finish.
Either way this incident shows clearly that the radio silence rules exist purely to introduce chance and controversy into the races. The pretext that they respond to a fans' desire for no coaching from race engineers is just that. An excuse to spice up the show and keep social media buzzing.
I raised this same issue in the thread you point to. No one wanted to discuss it there, so I raised it here where it seemed appropriate.
Your Alonso-fan-bias is showing.Andres125sx wrote:Yes, and also Pluto and Mars alignment, but there´s no evidence pointing in that directionJolle wrote:Could it be possible that Alonso's feeling of entitlement and his personality were the basis of this problem?Andres125sx wrote: So when FIA has to put a steward inside a team what you get from that is, "hey that steward did found nothing so the team is perfect"
You´d need to be a really stupid human to make something illegal in front of a steward. If Alonso asked for a steward it was not to try that steward proving McLaren favouritism, but to stop McLaren favouritism. It is obvious for any half-wise person McLaren would do nothing with a steward inside their box, and that was exactly Alonso´s intention
What most people got from that is far from your conclusion, what most people got is "hey what´s happening inside McLaren to force FIA to put a steward inside a team to ensure there´s no favouritism" If it would have been a bold an absurd demand from Alonso, FIA would have ignore him. But it was too obvious for anyone without a McLaren/Lewis bias
Specially when you see they never give him any priority and there was no problem (Alonso accepted equal treatment) until Lewis tried to be considered #1 in Hungary trying to stop first for a second time in a row, instead of the alternating order they all agreed at the beginning of the season.
Basically Mclaren atmosphere was tense (as any team with both drivers fighting for the title) but good until Lewis tried to be #1. But people say it was Alonso demands to be #1 what caused the problems..... based on what? Facts prove the contrary
MS wasn't lucky in predicting future? He clearly knew what he was undertaking and was clear that it was a long term project. He said the same about Mercedes in 2010 and he wasn't wrong either. I n1996, he announced that his target is to win 3 races and he did. He fought for championship in 1997 (won 5 races) and 1998 (won 6 races), though the cars weren't the fastest. He did fought. By 1996, he had Brawn and Rory on boarded from Benetton and the journey started. He probably would have won in 1999, if not for his accident.sosic2121 wrote:Andres, even when you're bashing my favourite team, I have choice but to agree with you 100%.
IMO, only driver that hasn't been lucky with predicting future was Schumacher. In 96 Ferrari was disaster. Only during 1999 Ferrari came close to Mclaren.
I believe lack of testing killed Ferrari.
what's this about the FIA putting a steward into McLaren to ensure there was no favouritism ? the team can give favouritism to whichever driver they want , nothing in the rules that says they cannot !!! the truth is that McLaren agreed to ask for a steward [ spanish at that ] in an attempt to overcome alonso's paranoia about not being number 1Andres125sx wrote:Yes, and also Pluto and Mars alignment, but there´s no evidence pointing in that directionJolle wrote:Could it be possible that Alonso's feeling of entitlement and his personality were the basis of this problem?Andres125sx wrote: So when FIA has to put a steward inside a team what you get from that is, "hey that steward did found nothing so the team is perfect"
You´d need to be a really stupid human to make something illegal in front of a steward. If Alonso asked for a steward it was not to try that steward proving McLaren favouritism, but to stop McLaren favouritism. It is obvious for any half-wise person McLaren would do nothing with a steward inside their box, and that was exactly Alonso´s intention
What most people got from that is far from your conclusion, what most people got is "hey what´s happening inside McLaren to force FIA to put a steward inside a team to ensure there´s no favouritism" If it would have been a bold an absurd demand from Alonso, FIA would have ignore him. But it was too obvious for anyone without a McLaren/Lewis bias
Specially when you see they never give him any priority and there was no problem (Alonso accepted equal treatment) until Lewis tried to be considered #1 in Hungary trying to stop first for a second time in a row, instead of the alternating order they all agreed at the beginning of the season.
Basically Mclaren atmosphere was tense (as any team with both drivers fighting for the title) but good until Lewis tried to be #1. But people say it was Alonso demands to be #1 what caused the problems..... based on what? Facts prove the contrary
I don't call that luck. I credit most of those results to MS.GPR-A wrote:MS wasn't lucky in predicting future? He clearly knew what he was undertaking and was clear that it was a long term project. He said the same about Mercedes in 2010 and he wasn't wrong either. I n1996, he announced that his target is to win 3 races and he did. He fought for championship in 1997 (won 5 races) and 1998 (won 6 races), though the cars weren't the fastest. He did fought. By 1996, he had Brawn and Rory on boarded from Benetton and the journey started. He probably would have won in 1999, if not for his accident.sosic2121 wrote:Andres, even when you're bashing my favourite team, I have choice but to agree with you 100%.
IMO, only driver that hasn't been lucky with predicting future was Schumacher. In 96 Ferrari was disaster. Only during 1999 Ferrari came close to Mclaren.
I believe lack of testing killed Ferrari.
Not so luck but more a dedication of Ferrari and the right team (Brawn, Byrne, Todt and Schumacher) and a good cash flow to stop at nothing to become WC. the same kind of determination Mercedes saw with the rules of 2014. Chances like this don't come round every day, or even every few years. It was far from a leap into the unknown.GPR-A wrote:MS wasn't lucky in predicting future? He clearly knew what he was undertaking and was clear that it was a long term project. He said the same about Mercedes in 2010 and he wasn't wrong either. I n1996, he announced that his target is to win 3 races and he did. He fought for championship in 1997 (won 5 races) and 1998 (won 6 races), though the cars weren't the fastest. He did fought. By 1996, he had Brawn and Rory on boarded from Benetton and the journey started. He probably would have won in 1999, if not for his accident.sosic2121 wrote:Andres, even when you're bashing my favourite team, I have choice but to agree with you 100%.
IMO, only driver that hasn't been lucky with predicting future was Schumacher. In 96 Ferrari was disaster. Only during 1999 Ferrari came close to Mclaren.
I believe lack of testing killed Ferrari.
The last time Ferrari made a title winning car without the input of Michael Schumacher was 1979. So going to Ferrari is not a got idea. IMO. Vettel went there as he wanted away from Ricciardo and Fernando went there as it was a step up from Renault. All my opinion, cant see it any other way.Andres125sx wrote:I´ve never considered predicting future as an important point for a race driver, but hey, you´re right, in F1 it proved to be very importantNathanOlder wrote:And people going on about being in the best car,
Its down to the driver to place himself in the best car available.
If Lewis has always had a good car as you guys say, then you are just paying him a massive compliment!
Did you think in 2008-09 RBR would dominate F1? An almost new team with no F1 experience? No
Did you think in 2012-13 Mercedes would dominate F1? No
Do you think Honda will dominate in 2017-18? No
F1 is too complicated to play sheer, some drivers are lucky with their decisions, some aren´t. But that´s irrelevant when talking about drivers talent.
Is Vettel a genius because he was in RBR when their dominance period started? Obviously no, he´s not, he was just lucky to be in the right place at the right moment. Same for Lewis with Mercedes, same for Button with Brawn...
An idiot who already have so much victories he´s not interested in race victories anymore because he´s only interested on title crownsNathanOlder wrote:I mean what IDIOT would leave a team that would win 3 races the following year, to go to a team that just about score 3 points!
BTW, time is proving that idiot was right, Ferrari is unable to fight for titles to the point Vettel is already considering moving out of the red team. Is Vettel another idiot or simply Ferrari is a disaster?
Ferrari is still recolecting the fruits of past glories. Without those no top driver would want to drive for them. But that cannot last forever, I wonder what driver will they sign in next seasons, because I can´t see any Lewis, Alonso or Vettel signing for them again, they´ll be forced to sign some young driver like Sainz or similar