Fernando Alonso - Just how good is he...

[andartop]

Numbers alone do not tell the whole story, but over a season they do give us some hard evidence to go by in reviewing individual drivers' performances taking into account their cars' potential. And seeing as other factors cannot be easily quantified, at the end of a season I always like to compare drivers and constructors' standings.

So if we look at the order in the constructors championship so far, we could reasonably expect the two Red Bull drivers to be first, followed by the two Ferrari drivers, then McLaren, Lotus etc.

By this logic, Vettel is right where he should reasonably expected to be, Alonso a bit higher up the order, Kimi much higher up the order and the Macca boys right where they should be. Rosberg has also done a good job while Webber and Massa have been less than impressive (to be polite).

Now before everyone starts shouting about reliability issues, crashes and pit crew errors, I think it's safe to conclude that most will agree that Red Bull has been indeed the best car overall, followed by Ferrari and McLaren etc, so this doesn't seem too far off the truth.

Based on this simplified analysis I would conclude that:
1. Alonso has indeed performed a bit better than expected, and most significantly is the only one "of the rest" who managed to keep himself in the title's battle.
2. Vettel and the McLaren drivers have put on some strong performances and managed to collect pretty much as many points as anyone would reasonably expect them to, which is not always an easy thing to do (just look at Webber and Massa).
3. The one who really has managed to "push the car higher up than it should be" is Kimi!

[Vanja #66]

Just think of things this way: if Alonso wasn't taken out in Spa and Suzuka, he would have probably finished 2nd in both those races. Therefore, Vettel would have finished 3rd in Spa, which is to say that Alonso would have 36 more points, and Vettel 3 less. In spite of Vettels 4 consecutive wins, he would have a deficit in WDC of 26 points. Take into account that F2012 was midfield car in 3/4 first races (Malaysia not included due to track conditions which obviously felt good for F2012) and that's how good Alonso is.

[Vettel's 2 DNFs are his own fault. He needlessly pushed RB8 to the limits in Valencia (advantage he had before SC was over the limits of reality) and Monza (he was fighting with Alonso pushing the car to the limits and pushing Alonso over the limit). Webber didn't have any of this trouble in those 2 races, and yet when he WAS pushed (by Alonso) in India, he pushed the car and the car had a failure, not nearly as catastrophic as Vettel's though (due to 2011 spec alternator)... He could have won Valencia with 5s advantage, and could have settled for 5th/6th in Monza, which would have been great for him, concerning that RB8 in Monza was 5th quickest car, maybe even 6th. That way he would now lead with 46 points and WDC would have been solved.

I'm stating this because there is no need for counterargument of Alonso's 2 DNFs by mentioning Vettel's. Those 4 have nothing in common.]

[mbvinnie]

Just think of things this way: if Alonso wasn't taken out in Spa and Suzuka, he would have probably finished 2nd in both those races. Therefore, Vettel would have finished 3rd in Spa, which is to say that Alonso would have 36 more points, and Vettel 3 less. In spite of Vettels 4 consecutive wins, he would have a deficit in WDC of 26 points. Take into account that F2012 was midfield car in 3/4 first races (Malaysia not included due to track conditions which obviously felt good for F2012) and that's how good Alonso is.

[Vettel's 2 DNFs are his own fault. He needlessly pushed RB8 to the limits in Valencia (advantage he had before SC was over the limits of reality) and Monza (he was fighting with Alonso pushing the car to the limits and pushing Alonso over the limit). Webber didn't have any of this trouble in those 2 races, and yet when he WAS pushed (by Alonso) in India, he pushed the car and the car had a failure, not nearly as catastrophic as Vettel's though (due to 2011 spec alternator)... He could have won Valencia with 5s advantage, and could have settled for 5th/6th in Monza, which would have been great for him, concerning that RB8 in Monza was 5th quickest car, maybe even 6th. That way he would now lead with 46 points and WDC would have been solved.

I'm stating this because there is no need for counterargument of Alonso's 2 DNFs by mentioning Vettel's. Those 4 have nothing in common.]

Absolute Nonsense.
Alonso was at least partly to blame for his incident in Suzuka. He was only 'taken out' in Spa.
Vettel can NOT be blamed for those car failures.
And stewards view is that Karthikeyan was to blame for collision with Vettel.

[Stradivarius]

I would like to point out that there is a difference between having the fastest car and having the best car. In 2005 McLaren clearly had the fastest car and they won 10 out of 19 races. But Renault had the best car, as McLaren suffered engine failures through the whole season, which resulted in DNFs and several races where they were moved 10 places back on the grid after qualifying, due to engine changes.

If I am correct, Vettel has lost 52 points to Alonso due to equipment failure: In Malaysia he had a puncture that cost him 12 points. In Valencia he lost 25 points, while Alonso gained 7 points. At Monza Vettel lost 8 points when his car let him down.

During qualifying at Monza, Alonso had a technical problem that meant he had to start 10th. He finished that race on 3rd, so if he could have beaten Hamilton, he lost 10 points from equipment failure at Monza. So the difference is 42 points.

This means that if Red Bull's extra speed compared to Ferrari isn't worth at least 42 points up until now, Alonso has had a better car than Vettel so far this year, even if Red Bull might have had som extra speed.

Vettel currently leads the championship with 13 points. If we add this to the 42 points Alonso has gained through better reliability, we get 55 points. This is what Vettels extra speed would be worth if reliability wasn't affecting the results of either of them. I would agree that Red Bull seem faster than Ferrari over the whole season so far this year. But is their speed worth more than 55 points for one driver? To me that is far from obvious.

[FoxHound]

Stradivarius,

You are looking at it through such a tight confine, that it is inevitable it would suit the outcome you want.
How can Alonso's gained points be counted against him when Vettel has a failure? This isn't a swing vote.

You also didn't mention in your comparison that Vettel's "failure" in Malaysia was down to an incident with Karthikeyan.
If this is qualified, why was Alonso's failure in Spa not? He qualified 6th, Vettel 11th, and Vettel finished 2nd! Somebody flew into him if you recall....
So by your method, Alonso could have been looking at a podium, 15 points say, and Vettel probably less than what he achieved.
So shall I use the dubious method of subtracting/adding points for outcomes that happened?

Then in Japan, Raikkonen clipped Alonso's rear tyre(how is this Alonso's "fault"), he lost at least a podium(Massa achieved 2nd), so there is a further 18 points.

And yet there is an even greater flaw.
The fastest car generally wins, we all agree. What is the percentage difference in points from winning, to coming second or third?
25 points for a win, 18 points for 2nd and 15 for 3rd.

Winners are favoured by the points system. So the more you win, the bigger the overall percentage difference to people who are more consistent. The difference is 28% from first to second. Vettel has 5 wins, to Alonso's 2.
It's not as big as before(old points system), but if you consider that points pay out to 40% more of the grid, the 40% difference between the old system, and the 28% of the new system for 2nd place, shows that the winning difference is still there.
So having a fast car in 5 races, that will win you on average (7pointsx5) 35 points to someone who consistently finished second to you, would be negated by the niggles that Vettel experienced.
Yet second place would not have the luxury of the fastest car, would have to make sure he is 2nd AND pray that he has no failures just to be in contention.

[raymondu999]

He needlessly pushed RB8 to the limits in Valencia

I disagree with this. His second stint he was cruising - just maintaining his 20s advantage.

[Vanja #66]

He needlessly pushed RB8 to the limits in Valencia

I disagree with this. His second stint he was cruising - just maintaining his 20s advantage.

So... he pushed even harder in first - shorter - stint?

[JimClarkFan]

This means that if Red Bull's extra speed compared to Ferrari isn't worth at least 42 points up until now, Alonso has had a better car than Vettel so far this year, even if Red Bull might have had som extra speed.

You can't judge it like this, Alonso was taken out in one race, arguably two which you have not factored in. That already seriously messes up your calculations.

You are also assuming that both drivers have equal skill, the whole point of this thread is that they don't. It would be good if we had some kind of consensus on the respective positions of the speed of each car over the weekends this year and average that.

Don't know how anybody would seriously consider that the Ferrari is a better car than Red Bull, or indeed anywhere close. Ask any driver on the grid which car would they like to be racing based on performance and I'd put a large some of money that most would be saying Red Bull - that's called voting with your feet.

Stradivarius,

You are looking at it through such a tight confine, that it is inevitable it would suit the outcome you want.
How can Alonso's gained points be counted against him when Vettel has a failure? This isn't a swing vote.

You also didn't mention in your comparison that Vettel's "failure" in Malaysia was down to an incident with Karthikeyan.
If this is qualified, why was Alonso's failure in Spa not? He qualified 6th, Vettel 11th, and Vettel finished 2nd! Somebody flew into him if you recall....
So by your method, Alonso could have been looking at a podium, 15 points say, and Vettel probably less than what he achieved.
So shall I use the dubious method of subtracting/adding points for outcomes that happened?

Then in Japan, Raikkonen clipped Alonso's rear tyre(how is this Alonso's "fault"), he lost at least a podium(Massa achieved 2nd), so there is a further 18 points.

And yet there is an even greater flaw.
The fastest car generally wins, we all agree. What is the percentage difference in points from winning, to coming second or third?
25 points for a win, 18 points for 2nd and 15 for 3rd.

Winners are favoured by the points system. So the more you win, the bigger the overall percentage difference to people who are more consistent. The difference is 28% from first to second. Vettel has 5 wins, to Alonso's 2.
It's not as big as before(old points system), but if you consider that points pay out to 40% more of the grid, the 40% difference between the old system, and the 28% of the new system for 2nd place, shows that the winning difference is still there.
So having a fast car in 5 races, that will win you on average (7pointsx5) 35 points to someone who consistently finished second to you, would be negated by the niggles that Vettel experienced.
Yet second place would not have the luxury of the fastest car, would have to make sure he is 2nd AND pray that he has no failures just to be in contention.

+1

[siskue2005]

He needlessly pushed RB8 to the limits in Valencia

I disagree with this. His second stint he was cruising - just maintaining his 20s advantage.

So... he pushed even harder in first - shorter - stint?

no we had Lewis blocking the entire field behind him, which gave Vettel atlest 14 sec of lead

[Stradivarius]

Stradivarius,

You are looking at it through such a tight confine, that it is inevitable it would suit the outcome you want.
How can Alonso's gained points be counted against him when Vettel has a failure? This isn't a swing vote.

Simply because that is what happened. Alonso gained 32 points towards Vettel because of Vettels equipment failure in Valencia. When considering the value of a reliable car and compare it to an unreliable car, you have to look at all the consequences of a reliability issue. If Vettel's car hadn't failed in Valencia, his margin to Alonso would have been 32 points larger now.

You also didn't mention in your comparison that Vettel's "failure" in Malaysia was down to an incident with Karthikeyan.
If this is qualified, why was Alonso's failure in Spa not? He qualified 6th, Vettel 11th, and Vettel finished 2nd! Somebody flew into him if you recall....
So by your method, Alonso could have been looking at a podium, 15 points say, and Vettel probably less than what he achieved.
So shall I use the dubious method of subtracting/adding points for outcomes that happened?

You are right, the puncture shouldn't count, if it was a result of contact with Karthikeyan. Since everyone is now using the same tyres, we can assume that everyone have equally reliable tyres on average anyway. I was forgetting myself, after relating this to a what happened in the end of 2006, when poor reliability cost Schumacher his 8th title. Back then, the Bridgestone tyres had several failures towards the end of the season. But this year it doesn't make sense to consider tyre problems, so when I think about it, I agree with you here.

Then in Japan, Raikkonen clipped Alonso's rear tyre(how is this Alonso's "fault"), he lost at least a podium(Massa achieved 2nd), so there is a further 18 points.

That is incorrect. Raikkonen was on the outside, at the edge of the track. Alonso can blame himself for that incident, as he didn't leave Raikkonen enough room.

And yet there is an even greater flaw.
The fastest car generally wins, we all agree. What is the percentage difference in points from winning, to coming second or third?
25 points for a win, 18 points for 2nd and 15 for 3rd.

Winners are favoured by the points system. So the more you win, the bigger the overall percentage difference to people who are more consistent. The difference is 28% from first to second. Vettel has 5 wins, to Alonso's 2.
It's not as big as before(old points system), but if you consider that points pay out to 40% more of the grid, the 40% difference between the old system, and the 28% of the new system for 2nd place, shows that the winning difference is still there.
So having a fast car in 5 races, that will win you on average (7pointsx5) 35 points to someone who consistently finished second to you, would be negated by the niggles that Vettel experienced.
Yet second place would not have the luxury of the fastest car, would have to make sure he is 2nd AND pray that he has no failures just to be in contention.

It is correct that winners are favoured by the points system, which shouldn't be a shock to anyone. But that doesn't mean there is any flaw. This is all accounted for when evaluating how many points Red Bull's extra speed is worth. My claim is that it is not obvious that Red Bull's extra speed is worth more than Ferrari's extra reliability. Of course, the value of reliability is quite easy to measure in points, as we usually have a good idea of how many points a driver looses when his car breaks down. The value of speed is much harder to determine, as we can never know for sure whether the speed difference is due to the car or due to the driver.

So when subtracting the 12 points from Malaysia that shouldn't have been evaluated, the difference becomes 43 points. But I didn't really intend to present accurate numbers on how big the difference. I just wanted to present some numbers to show that reliability is a big part of the picture. If you go into detail in each race I am sure you can establish some more accurate figures. For example, Webber's KERS issue in India didn't only affect Webber. Vettel lost 3 points towards Alonso because Webber was unable to stay in front of Alonso. So that is 3 points which were not accounted for. I haven't considered every race in detail, I have just looked at some incidents that demonstrates the importance of reliability.

[Stradivarius]

This means that if Red Bull's extra speed compared to Ferrari isn't worth at least 42 points up until now, Alonso has had a better car than Vettel so far this year, even if Red Bull might have had som extra speed.

You can't judge it like this, Alonso was taken out in one race, arguably two which you have not factored in. That already seriously messes up your calculations.

Not at all! It seems you didn't understand what I was trying to say. I was talking about the cars, and how the car's speed and reliability affects the results. Race incidents are generally related to the drivers, not to the cars.

You are also assuming that both drivers have equal skill, the whole point of this thread is that they don't. It would be good if we had some kind of consensus on the respective positions of the speed of each car over the weekends this year and average that.

Again, I am afraid you haven't understood the point. I am not assuming anything regarding the drivers. Whether Alonso is a better than Vettel or vice-versa is completely irrelevant when evaluating the influence of reliability issues. For example, when Vettel failed to finish in Valencia, he lost 25 points, while Alonso gained 7 points. Whether Vettel was ahead because his car was faster, or because he just drives better than Alonso, doesn't change anything.

You can say that the speed we see for each driver is a result of two parameters: Car speed and driver speed. Car speed is the car's speed potential, while driver speed is the driver's ability to utilize the car speed. So consider this when I talk about car speed.

My conclusion in the end was that if you add the points Alonso has earned through better reliability to the 13 points he is behind Vettel in the championship, you will get a difference of 43 points (after considering FoxHound's comment). This number includes all sorts of race incidents and other things that affects the result, as it is based on the actual results. This difference (which might not be exactly 43 points if you study all races to investigate what Ferrari's and Red Bull's reliability issues have cost them) is what you have to compare to when considering how much the extra car speed is worth. If the Vettel and Alonso are equally good, then the difference in car speed is worth 43 points. If Alonso is a better driver, then the difference in car speed has been worth more than 43 points. If Vettel is a better driver, the difference in car speed has been worth less than 43 points.

[FoxHound]

Simply because that is what happened. Alonso gained 32 points towards Vettel because of Vettels equipment failure in Valencia. When considering the value of a reliable car and compare it to an unreliable car, you have to look at all the consequences of a reliability issue. If Vettel's car hadn't failed in Valencia, his margin to Alonso would have been 32 points larger now.

You are loading the dice in your favour. You cannot give and take where you see fit for Vettel, but not for Alonso.
Vettel Has also gained points due to Alonso's misfortune, you scarcely make mention of it in your analysis.
You mention reliability. But where do you mention anything about the cars superior speed to the Ferrari? You are assuming that both cars are exactly equal, and further extending the assumption that it is only due to Vettel's misfortune that Alonso is still in the hunt.
This is a contorted verdict, simply because the initial parameters you meted out where unfit.
Where the Red Bull and Ferrari equal, I would agree to an extent, but they aren't equal.

As for the Alonso incident, I don't want to apportion blame to any driver. The stewards report classified it a "racing incident", it's what happens sometimes with 5 cars abreast going into the first corner of a GP.
You may differ, and run your calculations accordingly, but the official line holds more water for me.

My claim is that it is not obvious that Red Bull's extra speed is worth more than Ferrari's extra reliability. Of course, the value of reliability is quite easy to measure in points, as we usually have a good idea of how many points a driver looses when his car breaks down. The value of speed is much harder to determine, as we can never know for sure whether the speed difference is due to the car or due to the driver..

It may not be obvious to you, but the statistics do not lie. Over the course of the season thus far, Vettel has an average grid slot of 4.24, Alonso 6, Webber 6.4 and Massa 10.1.
As for pole positions, the statistics again give you some valuable information.
5 poles for Vettel.
2 poles for Webber.
2 poles for Alonso.
0 for Massa.

Then we move onto fastest laps in race .
4 for Vettel.
1 for Webber.
0 for Alonso.
0 for Massa.

We then move onto victories.
5 for Vettel.
2 for Webber.
3 for Alonso.
0 for Massa.

We can even look into this more thoroughly now, with laps made in specific positions during a race. The more laps you are doing at the head of the field, indicates very clearly, that you have the fastest car. And this is over the course of the current season.
Laps led thus far:
Vettel: 327
Webber:66
Alonso:216
Massa:1

Laps in 2nd position:
Vettel: 116
Webber:149
Alonso: 100
Massa: 74

Laps in 3rd position:
Vettel:133
Webber:37
Alonso:205
Massa:16

Laps in 4th:
Vettel:162
Webber:128
Alonso:90
Massa:104

Laps in 5th:
Vettel:67
Webber:51
Alonso:120
Massa:77


Vettel 805 laps in the top 5
Webber 431 laps in the top 5
Alonso 731 laps in the top 5
Massa 272 laps in the top 5

Ferrari have been consistent, and clearly, Red Bull have been consistently fast in relation to Ferrari.


Classifications?
Sebastian Vettel Started 17 Finished 15
Webber Identical
Alonso Identical
Massa Finished 14

The 33 points Vettel lost has been more than made up by the fact Alonso has suffered 2 dnf's due to collision(race incident in 1 and a race ban for grosjean the other) AND the fact that Vettel was unlucky to be riding in a Newey designed car that pushed one component too far in 2 races.
I'm sorry, but this is clear as day for me.

[FW17]

Would Fernando Alonso won his 6th Championship this year had he joined Redbull in 2008 (an option which he could have taken while waiting for Ferrari)? Yes

[FoxHound]

Would Fernando Alonso won his 6th Championship this year had he joined Redbull in 2008 (an option which he could have taken while waiting for Ferrari)? Yes

Agreed 100%. And I know that you meant this not as a slight on Vettel, but a compliment to Red Bull.

[FW17]

Would Fernando Alonso won his 6th Championship this year had he joined Redbull in 2008 (an option which he could have taken while waiting for Ferrari)? Yes

Agreed 100%. And I know that you meant this not as a slight on Vettel, but a compliment to Red Bull.

Also wanted to point out that Alonso and Vettel (since 2011) has what it takes to dominate and control the championship.